I'm Grandfathered in, for now.

[[email protected]]

That's not the way it's going to work because the government specifies, and always has specified through NIH, treatment guidelines. Deviation from NIH treatment guidelines= malpractice liability, it has been this way for decades now, it's nothing new.

Right, the government's gonna make it better. Barack
"You Can Keep You Plan" Obama said so.

Calling HHS to get your forms approved will make it all faster,
easier, and cheaper.

Of course, that's the way it has to be, government control is synonymous with uniformity. This may come as a shock to you, but the insurance industry has wanted this for several decades now, they just couldn't justify it totheir stockholders. But it does explain how the law was written so fast byinsurance industry executive level insiders, they KNEW what had to be done, the government could NEVER have produced this legislation if they had a million years.

I was responding to your earlier statement that Obamacare's whole
purpose was to get government out of the insurance business. I
was demonstrating that it doesn't get them out, it puts them
squarely in charge, and micromanaging it.

For example, (reading from 1311(c)(1)) the Secretary (of HHS)
has to approve your marketing, rates plans, approves selection
of providers, rate increases, sets enrollments periods,
determines what plans may be sold, oversees and sets requirements
for your (required) website, limits the hospitals that providers
may use, sets executive compensations, requires "culturally
appropriate" communications...

The feds are now the IT dept., and, since they're so good at that,
they're also going all-in into the medical / hospital / doctor
business.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[[email protected]]

Right. The relevant thing for comparing to the price of a website
would be "How much did United spend on their website?"

It's irrelevant because United's money and mine are two *completely*
different things. I really don't care what they do with their
profits...

A 2nd (mostly irrelevant) follow-up question would be "And did it work?"

If united wants to piss their profits away on a nonfunctional web
site, I really don't care. I don't care if it was a year's profits
they pissed away. Pissing away $635M of the taxpayer's money, I care
about.

 

[[email protected]]

J > Those who do buy an Obamacare plan and
J > are above the thresholds will soon
J > discover that it's really only
J > catastrophic coverage and that they must
J > pay the first few thousand Dollars out
J > of pocket. Dollars they ain't got.
J >
J > Imagine a guy picking up his son from
J > the hospital after he turfed it badly
J > on his skateboard. He was dumped out of
J > his previous family plan despite Obama
J > having promised they could keep it, so
J > now he has an Obamacare bronze plan.
J > "Sir, that'll be $786.43 please"
J > ... "WHAT?!".
J > This will happen before the next
J > election and registered Democrats are
J > not exempt from it.



Obamacare seems to be riddled with various
likely failure modes but so far it seems
to me that the strongest contender is
sticker shock for liberals themselves.

I have serious doubts that this fiasco
will cause liberals to embrace a single
payer system or outright socialist medicine.

Single-payer is outright socialist medicine.

How could the failure of this steaming pile
make anybody want an even larger pile of the same?
How could the broken promises make
people want more broken promises?

Easy, they'll blame the insurance companies, they'll
blame doctors, or Republicans, or George Bush.

It's not unlike how they told you you could keep your
plan, at the same time they were meticulously ensuring
that you could not. They needed to tell you that, or the
plan would not have passed, and Barack would not have
been elected.

The politicians behind this are serious anarchists, radical
retreads with no concern for people or the truth.

James Arthur

 

[[email protected]]

Why do you ignore by obfuscation my basic point?

I thought it easier to skip a step and simply directly point
out Obama's biggest mistake.

That seemed easier than explaining that "Obamacare is
Romneycare" is an absurd lie someone spun of whole cloth,
tossed about by gulls who've no concept of either plan.

Romneycare was 70 pages. Obamacare is over 2,700, plus
20k pages of regulations so far. Romneycare was for one
state, it's only been operating for a few years, and it's
breaking their financial back.

The two aren't even close. It would take 2,630 pages to
explain it all, so it seemed simpler to skip that.

Also, I would've opposed national Romneycare as well.

Obama thought that
adopting the Republican plan

It's not a Republican plan - that's propaganda. And if it were
true, I'm not allowed to oppose Republicans?

would give it a better chance of being
passed. Maybe in his naivety he even thought the Republicans would
support it. As we know, they changed course 180 degrees and fought it
tooth and nail. Why? Simply because Obama proposed it.

But all those premises are inventions; imaginary. And false.
You're imagining instead of relying on information, and making up
things that never happened.

I opposed Obamacare. It wasn't because Obama offered it--he
had almost nothing to do with it other than taking credit
once it passed. I opposed it because I don't believe the
government taking over this task can do a better job, or should
have this power over people's finances, bodies, or privacy.

It has nothing to do with Romney, Republicans, or who proposed it,
so you can go right ahead and peel off that tinfoil hat and stop
imagining new conspiracies.

It also happens to be an extraordinarily stupid architecture,
which doesn't help.

It is the most
industry-friendly plan possible, an indication of the lobbying power of
the insurance companies.

My estimation is that it destroys private insurers, who made a
Faustian bargain they will dearly regret.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[[email protected]]

It's irrelevant because United's money and mine are two *completely*
different things. I really don't care what they do with their
profits...

He was comparing Obamacare's website expense to United Health's
profits, as a way of "proving" HHS didn't overspend on their
fiasco.

I simply pointed out that the cost of a website is a better
comparison than the percentage of some third entity's profits.

If united wants to piss their profits away on a nonfunctional web
site, I really don't care. I don't care if it was a year's profits
they pissed away. Pissing away $635M of the taxpayer's money, I care
about.

It has nothing to do with United or their profits. I was backing
up your point that HHS wasted an obscene amount of our money on
this non-functional turkey.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[amdx]

Run across this;

"Senate Democrats voted unanimously three years ago to support the Obamacare rule that is largely responsible for some of the health insurance cancellation letters that are going out.

In September 2010, Senate Republicans brought a resolution to the floor to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would result in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it.

“The administration's own regulations prove this is not the case. Under the grandfathering regulation, according to the White House's own economic impact analysis, as many as 69 percent of businesses will lose their grandfathered status by 2013 and be forced to buy government-approved plans,” the Iowa Republican said.

On a party line vote, Democrats killed the resolution, which could come back to haunt vulnerable Democrats up for re-election this year."

From : http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ed-rule-that-lead-to-insurance-cancellations/


From;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...e-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

"If you read the Affordable Care Act when it was passed, you knew that
it was dishonest for President Obama to claim that “if you like your
plan, you can keep your plan,” as he did—and continues to do—on
countless occasions. And we now know that the administration knew this
all along. It turns out that in an obscure report buried in a June 2010
edition of the Federal Register, administration officials predicted
massive disruption of the private insurance market."

https://www.google.com/search?q=Oba...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Lots of hit regarding impeaching Obama, if they can prove he knew
million would not be able to keep their insurance.
Should be an interesting three years.
Probably very lame duck.
Mike

 

[amdx]

Easy, they'll blame the insurance companies, they'll
blame doctors, or Republicans, or George Bush.

Watch to the very end.

Mikek

 

[[email protected]]

Run across this;

"Senate Democrats voted unanimously three years ago to support the Obamacare rule that is largely responsible for some of the health insurance cancellation letters that are going out.

In September 2010, Senate Republicans brought a resolution to the floor to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would result in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it.

“The administration's own regulations prove this is not the case. Underthe grandfathering regulation, according to the White House's own economicimpact analysis, as many as 69 percent of businesses will lose their grandfathered status by 2013 and be forced to buy government-approved plans,” the Iowa Republican said.

On a party line vote, Democrats killed the resolution, which could come back to haunt vulnerable Democrats up for re-election this year."

From : http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ed-rule-that-lead-to-insurance-cancellations/

It's actually worse than what's being reported. Almost no one
can keep their plan over time. Individuals lose first, then
small employer plans, then large, over about five years
starting in 2010.

Obama delayed some of the biggest chunks of plan cancellations
until after the 2014 elections with his illegal large
employer mandate waivers.

Obama also illegally relaxed some of the more expensive mandatory
new insurance guarantees, illegally, to artificially reduce rate
shock this first year. It's a temporary waiver, so you'll see
more hikes next year.

Obama will blame insurers (again) and point to this as proof of
the need for his plan, again. Rinse and repeat.

Unions have their own, easier grandfathering rules, but
even they are likely victims of the 40% tax on cadillac
plans. They're not pleased.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[[email protected]]

"If you read the Affordable Care Act when it was passed, you knew that
it was dishonest for President Obama to claim that “if you like your
plan, you can keep your plan,” as he did—and continues to do—on
countless occasions. And we now know that the administration knew this
all along. It turns out that in an obscure report buried in a June 2010
edition of the Federal Register, administration officials predicted
massive disruption of the private insurance market."


https://www.google.com/search?q=Oba...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Lots of hit regarding impeaching Obama, if they can prove he knew
million would not be able to keep their insurance.
Should be an interesting three years.

Probably very lame duck.

He knew. The Wall Street Journal has an article about his
staffers openly discussing the promise while he was making it.

But, I've had, known about, and read the document everyone's
excited about. I found it on my own months ago. It plainly
lays out the problem Obamacare faces if people keep their
plans, and how the regulations they're proposing (it's a proposed
rule-making from 2010) will ensure that doesn't happen.

And then, later, they made the rule final, adopting it. They knew.

And Obama continued to lie. It was one of the biggest, most
devastating lies ever told by an American president. The
consequences are horrific.

Obamacare never would have passed if he told the truth, and
Obama never would have been re-elected. His presidency is
based on a fraud.

Yes, of course it's impeachable. If the system were working
he would be, easily. But they won't.

James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

<sigh>

We went through this at least once before. Ok then, here is an example:

http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/icsn/colorectal/mortality.html

Canada and the UK do not look that good at all compared to the US, do
they? Neither does Germany. To me it is very clear why.

It's clear to you because you know what you want to see.

One interesting aspect of the data is that the colon cancer rates in Canada, and Germany are substantially higher than they are in the US and the UK. This does suggest that we are looking at different populations.

One obvious point is that life expectancy is higher in Canada (at 82) and Germany (at 81) than it is the the US (at 79).

Cancer rates go up rapidly with age, so it's reasonable to suppose that theUS cancer victims are younger (and consequently healthier, with a longer expectation of life) than their Canadian and German counterparts, so the comparison is of apples and pears.

You may recall the fuss about the poorer survival rate of UK diabetes sufferers, which turned out to reflect the fact that the UK has less fat people and less type 2 diabetes (which is less lethal and easier to treat). The anti-Obamacare statistics managed to bury that significant difference too.

It is. Always was. Unfortunately some of the statistics from clinical

studies are paid access only. In the area of cardiology I sometimes have such access.

And you need to have a sharper eye for confounds than you have demonstratedso far.

[...]
People care about that, or will.

If they get lied to often and loudly enough.

They just were, by the president saying that they keep their current health plan if they want to. I sure hope people remember that this time when the elections come around. Most likely they'll be fuming anyhow because of the huge deductible they weren't explicitly told about. Most did not have that much deductible in the old plans they were just kicked out of.

That isn't the lie you started off talking about.

I haven't talked about lies in this thread. But this ain't the only one.

... One of the side effects of Obamacare was to ban a bunch of dishonest and inadequate health insurance schemes - some apparently used to dump patients if they got sick, which did allow them to offer low rates to the healthy.

Nonsense. Ask people Charlie Edmonson about it. He just lost his health plan.

Pre-Obama we had free will when it came to health care. People were free to select plans they saw fit. Now they are no longer free to do that. It's that simple.

And we had lots of stories about insurers refusing to okay treatments untilafter the patients were too sick to survive them.

I prefer to make those decisions myself and not have some bureaucrat do that for me. And now some bureaucrats do exactly that. It's wrong.

If desperate relatives want to spend their own money on over-priced treatments that have little change of success, that's fine.

Health care schemes only have a finite amount of money and they are obligedto spend it cost-effectively. Quality-adjusted years of life saved providea mechanism for comparing different treatments for different diseases.

That's what bureaucrats are for.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 2, 2013 3:45:42 AM UTC-4, Greegor wrote:


Single-payer is outright socialist medicine.

Which happens to deliver better over-all health outcomes than the US systemat about two-thirds of the price per head - less if you want to go Spartanwith the UK National Health.

"Socialism" may be a dirty word in the US, but it isn't communism (and never was, any more than Germany's National Socialism was socialist) and it does work.

Probably because the "broken promises" are only broken when looked at through James Arthur's special set of distorting glasses.

Easy, they'll blame the insurance companies, they'll blame doctors, or Republicans, or George Bush.

Sounds reasonable.

It's not unlike how they told you you could keep yourplan, at the same time they were meticulously ensuring that you could not. They needed to tellyou that, or the plan would not have passed, and Barack would not have been elected.

Someone seems to have forgotten how dazzlingly impressive McCain and Palin were. The gambler and the cretin.

The politicians behind this are serious anarchists, radical retreads withno concern for people or the truth.

The US political caste is unimpressive, devoted to driving the US Gini index ever higher. The 1% continues to do well, and the 99% are ever more enthusiastically reminded that it's going to take radical constitutional reform or a revolution to stop the greedy 1% from hogging all the goodies.

James Arthur deludes himself that he's one of the 1%.

 

[Bill Bowden]

I checked on healthcare insurance near equivalent to what I have now.

Family of four, no poor health conditions.



(Bronze Plan)

A BlueOption Essential HSA 1419

$6250 Deductible Individual/$12,500 Family

Annual Maximum Out-of Pocket $12,500

Price $1358 per month

Gov subsidy $47

My Cost $1,311



(Silver Plan)

Plan # 1409P

$3,600 Deductible Individual/$7,200 Family

Annual Maximum Out-of Pocket $7,200



Price $1617 per month

Gov subsidy $47

My Cost $1,570



My Grandfathered Plan

$10,000 Deductible Individual/$10,000 Family

Annual Out-of-Pocket $10,000

Price $633

Gov Subsidy $000

My Cost $633



With all these plans once you hit your deductible

all costs are paid by the insurance company.



A year ago May 2012 I was paying $438, been complaining

loudly since it increased to $633. Obama has made me feel

good about what I pay, compared to all the others having

to buy Obamacare.



Ya, I don't have any pregnancy benefits, but at 54, I don't expect

my wife to have anymore kids. Especially with me, snip/snip.

I also have a $5,000,000 lifetime cap, not an unlimited burden on society.



Mikek

It's amazing the new law requires so many undesired benefits. Women for example get mandated benefits for all kinds of sexual problems. Somebody has to pay for all that stuff. No wonder rates go up.

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-are-my-preventive-care-benefits/#part=2

Preventive health services for women

Most health plans must cover additional preventive health services for women, ensuring a comprehensive set of preventive services like breast cancer screenings to meet women’s unique health care needs.
Comprehensive coverage for women’s preventive care

All Marketplace health plans and many other plans must cover the following list of preventive services for women without charging you a copayment or coinsurance. This is true even if you haven’t met your yearly deductible.

This applies only when these services are delivered by an in-network provider.

Anemia screening on a routine basis for pregnant women
Breast Cancer Genetic Test Counseling (BRCA) for women at higher risk for breast cancer
Breast Cancer Mammography screenings every 1 to 2 years for women over 40
Breast Cancer Chemoprevention counseling for women at higher risk
Breastfeeding comprehensive support and counseling from trained providers, and access to breastfeeding supplies, for pregnant and nursing women
Cervical Cancer screening for sexually active women
Chlamydia Infection screening for younger women and other women at higher risk
Contraception: Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, as prescribed by a health care provider for women with reproductive capacity (notincluding abortifacient drugs). This does not apply to health plans sponsored by certain exempt “religious employers.”
Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling for all women
Folic Acid supplements for women who may become pregnant
Gestational diabetes screening for women 24 to 28 weeks pregnant and those at high risk of developing gestational diabetes
Gonorrhea screening for all women at higher risk
Hepatitis B screening for pregnant women at their first prenatal visit
HIV screening and counseling for sexually active women
Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Test every 3 years for women with normalcytology results who are 30 or older
Osteoporosis screening for women over age 60 depending on risk factors
Rh Incompatibility screening for all pregnant women and follow-up testing for women at higher risk
Sexually Transmitted Infections counseling for sexually active women
Syphilis screening for all pregnant women or other women at increased risk
Tobacco Use screening and interventions for all women, and expanded counseling for pregnant tobacco users
Urinary tract or other infection screening for pregnant women
Well-woman visits to get recommended services for women under 65

 

[[email protected]]

He was comparing Obamacare's website expense to United Health's
profits, as a way of "proving" HHS didn't overspend on their
fiasco.

Sorta. He was making a point about how small change it was. After
all it was *only* six weeks of United's profits. Also claiming that
somehow United didn't deserve such huge profits. Lefties always want
it both ways.

I simply pointed out that the cost of a website is a better
comparison than the percentage of some third entity's profits.

The larger point is that it's no one's business *how* big a private
individual's "profits" are (for a company, it matters to its owners,
of course). It *is* our business how much money the government pisses
away.

It has nothing to do with United or their profits. I was backing
up your point that HHS wasted an obscene amount of our money on
this non-functional turkey.

Understood. I was going for a different, larger, point.

 

[Joerg]

It's clear to you because you know what you want to see.

No, because the numbers say so. They are what they are, and they are not
disputed in the medical field. It is quite similar in other areas, this
type of cancer is only one example.

One interesting aspect of the data is that the colon cancer rates in
Canada, and Germany are substantially higher than they are in the US
and the UK. This does suggest that we are looking at different
populations.

Not a surprise at all. When they do a colonoscopy on people and see
polyps these will, if the patient agrees, be snipped out right then and
there. It's discomforting but it is known that this will greatly reduce
your chance of developing colon cancer later. In countries without such
vigorous screening such polyps are not detected. Until it is too late.

Polyps are not considered cancer stage so that won't show up in the numbers.

http://coloncancer.about.com/od/screening/a/Polyps.htm

One obvious point is that life expectancy is higher in Canada (at 82)
and Germany (at 81) than it is the the US (at 79).

That has to do with healthier lifestyle. Americans have an unfortunate
trend to ruin their bodies via fast food, obesity and too little
exercise. They smoke less on average but that doesn't make up fior it
and the medical worls is quite powerless against those "diseases".

Heck, I can't even get to some popular places here on my bicycle without
resorting to the mountain bike and plowing some rough turf. So the
infrastructure is partly to blame.

Cancer rates go up rapidly with age, so it's reasonable to suppose
that the US cancer victims are younger (and consequently healthier,
with a longer expectation of life) than their Canadian and German
counterparts, so the comparison is of apples and pears.

Colon cancer is something people get at younger ages, which is why I
picked that as an example. Same for breast cancer, where the US is (or
soon was?) vastly leading. I only know one woman who got that past age
70, all others (a lot of women) were 30-50.

You may recall the fuss about the poorer survival rate of UK diabetes
sufferers, which turned out to reflect the fact that the UK has less
fat people and less type 2 diabetes (which is less lethal and easier
to treat). The anti-Obamacare statistics managed to bury that
significant difference too.

One has to be honest about the numbers. But most of them are simply
better in the US. Soon, they may not be anymore.

studies are paid access only. In the area of cardiology I sometimes
have such access.

And you need to have a sharper eye for confounds than you have
demonstrated so far.

I know how to read numbers and they speak clearly. Interestingly, they
are disputed in the medical world and if they were wrong that is the
very first thing that would happen. Med professional do not mince words
at conferences, BT.

[...]
People care about that, or will.
If they get lied to often and loudly enough.

They just were, by the president saying that they keep their
current health plan if they want to. I sure hope people remember
that this time when the elections come around. Most likely
they'll be fuming anyhow because of the huge deductible they
weren't explicitly told about. Most did not have that much
deductible in the old plans they were just kicked out of.

That isn't the lie you started off talking about.

I haven't talked about lies in this thread. But this ain't the only
one.

... One of the side effects of Obamacare was to ban a bunch of
dishonest and inadequate health insurance schemes - some
apparently used to dump patients if they got sick, which did
allow them to offer low rates to the healthy.

Nonsense. Ask people Charlie Edmonson about it. He just lost his
health plan.

Pre-Obama we had free will when it came to health care. People were
free to select plans they saw fit. Now they are no longer free to
do that. It's that simple.

And we had lots of stories about insurers refusing to okay treatments
until after the patients were too sick to survive them.

Mostly urban legend. I have not witnessed one case. They can't do that,
fear of a lawsuit is one reason why.

If desperate relatives want to spend their own money on over-priced
treatments that have little change of success, that's fine.

Health care schemes only have a finite amount of money and they are
obliged to spend it cost-effectively. Quality-adjusted years of life
saved provide a mechanism for comparing different treatments for
different diseases.

Doctors can decide that, bureaucrats can't.

That's what bureaucrats are for.

Like politicans, they are typically not competent to do that. Else they
would not have given things like sex change surgery preference.

 

[Bill Sloman]

No, because the numbers say so.

The numbers don't "say" anything. They have to be understood, and you want to understand as saying that US medicine is perceptibly better than Canandian or German. Once you've seen that, your brain stops processing.

They are what they are, and they are not disputed in the medical field. It is quite similar in other areas, this type of cancer is only one example.

Not a surprise at all. When they do a colonoscopy on people and see
polyps these will, if the patient agrees, be snipped out right then and
there. It's discomforting but it is known that this will greatly reduce
your chance of developing colon cancer later. In countries without such
vigorous screening such polyps are not detected. Until it is too late.

That's one explanation, which is an unsubstantiated hypothesis until it is back up by an account of the number of polyps snipped, and the subsequent histories of peole who have had their polyps snipped.

Polyps are not considered cancer stage so that won't show up in the numbers.

How convenient.

http://coloncancer.about.com/od/screening/a/Polyps.htm

That has to do with healthier lifestyle.

<snip>

Probably not. Colon cancer rates do vary specifically with diet - red meat is bad and lots of fibre, which moves the proto-carcinogens through the colon fast enough that they don't turn into real carcinogens, does help.

In as far as you are comparing different populations with different sorts of colon cancer, this just means that the statistics that you are quoting are comparing apples and pears, rather than the effectiveness of the health service.

Colon cancer is something people get at younger ages, which is why I
picked that as an example.

All cancers show up more frequently in older patients. The picture can be complicated by age limits on screening and the like, but in both your example
cancers, the a older people get the cancer more often.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/bowel/incidence/#By2

Same for breast cancer, where the US is (or soon was?) vastly leading. I only know one woman who got that past age 70, all others (a lot of women) were 30-50.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/breast/incidence/#age

One has to be honest about the numbers. But most of them are simply better in the US. Soon, they may not be anymore.

Some of them look better in the US. Quite a few look appreciably worse.
The medical technology is exactly the same, but the patients are different.

I know how to read numbers and they speak clearly.

You may be able to read numbers, but you are depressingly weak on the medical reality they represent.

Interestingly, they are disputed in the medical world and if they were wrong that is the very first thing that would happen. Med professional do notmince words at conferences, BT.

But they are truly horrible at understanding what statistics actually mean and teasing out the differences that reflect differences in treatment from the differences in the underlying disease being treated.

The problem created by lumping type 1 and type 2 diabetes is crude enough that even a medical doctor with no statistical training could be expected tosee it. More subtle confounds are less obvious.

Doctors can decide that, bureaucrats can't.

Doctors can decide whether a particular treatment can work. They are perfectly useless at working out which treatment is too expensive to be cost-effective, because they all have their private hobby horses, and their emotional involvement with previous patients.

Like politicians, they are typically not competent to do that. Else they would not have given things like sex change surgery preference.

Why not? People who believe that they have been born into a body of the wrong sex do get miserable about it, and it is a fixable problem.

The bureaucrats wouldn't be supporting this approach if there weren't an active group of doctors who endorsed it.

Sorting out the belief rather than the body would be more elegant, but the former approach doesn't work and the latter does, even if it does disturb the god-botherers.

 

[Joerg]

The numbers don't "say" anything.

"Head in the sand" isn't making them go away.

... They have to be understood, and you
want to understand as saying that US medicine is perceptibly better
than Canandian or German. Once you've seen that, your brain stops
processing.

I have explained to you why the numbers in the US are better and why
this can only work through early screening (and polyp removal. You don't
believe me and call it "unsubstantiated". Which is flat wrong. You tend
to make up this stuff, stuff that clearly contradicts clinical evidence.

That's one explanation, which is an unsubstantiated hypothesis ...

No, it is not.

... until
it is back up by an account of the number of polyps snipped, and the
subsequent histories of peole who have had their polyps snipped.

http://www.webmd.com/colorectal-cancer/guide/colorectal-polyps-cancer
http://consumer.healthday.com/cance...ies-could-raise-colon-cancer-risk-667863.html
http://www.webmd.com/colorectal-cancer/news/20071015/removing-colon-polyps-cuts-death-risk

Quote "In a 20-year study of more than 2,500 people, the risk of dying
from colon cancer was about 90% lower if people underwent both the
initial and follow-up procedures than if they underwent neither".

There are many more studies and they corroborate this. You can go into
denial about it but that won't changes these medical facts.

[...]

 

[Joerg]

Bill Bowden wrote:

[...]

It's amazing the new law requires so many undesired benefits. Women
for example get mandated benefits for all kinds of sexual problems.
Somebody has to pay for all that stuff. No wonder rates go up.

Even sex change operations are mandatory coverage now under this
Obamacare. No kidding.

 

[Bill Sloman]

"Head in the sand" isn't making them go away.

Obviously not, but they don't unambiguously support the conclusion you wantthem to support. There are other ways of looking at them.

I have explained to you why the numbers in the US are better and why thiscan only work through early screening (and polyp removal.

No. Early screening and polyp removal are an explanation of the difference.Without numbers for incidence of polyp removal it's just an explanation, not the only possible explanation - there are others, and differences in diet and age are equally plausible.

I don't disbelieve you either, but there are other explanations. You certainly haven't substantiated your polyp-snipping explanation - which would require evidence that enough polyps had been removed to explain the difference, and even that wouldn't demonstrate that there were other factors in play.

Which is flat wrong. You tend to make up this stuff, stuff that clearly contradicts clinical evidence.

Nothing I've said contradicts clinical evidence. It does question your explanation of the clinical evidence, which does leap on an obvious explanationand ignores all the alternative explanations with all the confidence of the converted. Try to think like a scientist for a bit, and see if you can find - and perhaps test - a few alternative hypotheses.

Quote "In a 20-year study of more than 2,500 people, the risk of dying

from colon cancer was about 90% lower if people underwent both the
initial and follow-up procedures than if they underwent neither".

There are many more studies and they corroborate this. You can go into

denial about it but that won't changes these medical facts.

All these medical facts demonstrate that polyp-snipping works, which I'm happy to accept.

They don't demonstrate that polyp-snipping is carried out on a large enoughscale to explain why US colon cancer rates are around 34.1/25.0 per 100,000 for males and females while the Canadian rates are 45.4 and 31.8.

If polyp-snipping was as good and as wide-spread as you seem to be claiming, you'd expect a substantially larger difference.

 

[Bill Bowden]

Bill Bowden wrote:



[...]

It's amazing the new law requires so many undesired benefits. Women

for example get mandated benefits for all kinds of sexual problems.

Somebody has to pay for all that stuff. No wonder rates go up.

Even sex change operations are mandatory coverage now under this

Obamacare. No kidding.

Regards, Joerg

Yes, that's enlightning, but sex change operations seem to be only covered in life and death situations where the patient might die if he/she doesn't get the procedure. It probably excludes elderly people past 60 years of agewho don't care about sex. But they still pay the medical bills and the doctors and hospitals make money.

-Bill

 

[Charlie E.]

On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:16:05 -0700 (PDT),

It most certainly does, they are allowed no more than 15% for costs other than actual health care, and if they exceed that percentage they will owe their clients a rebate. That is the new law.


That's exactly the point of the PPACA, they ARE getting government out of the health insurance business. If you pay attention, you will see that all the PPACA is doing is regulating the industry, the private insurance companies will be doing all the actual administration work. Representatives of the insurance industry who know the business inside out wrote the law!

Fred,
That '15%' limit has been around for a while. It is a cost plus
limit, so it doesn't reduce costs, it just makes sure that your
'overhead' costs have to be more carefully covered in your accounting
practices to make sure that they show up as costs, and not overhead!

And, no, you are wrong. The government is getting more and more in
the health insurance business. By providing those 'subsidies' to the
insurance customers, they control more and more what can, and can't,
be offered.