The health care bills

floridafun wrote:i think we should use the one thats 99% ACCURATE instead of the one thats much less reliable accuracy. the accurate one being much cheaper to use is just a bonus..would think our supposed money-manager-wiz would appreciate the lesser cost just happens to be part of the more accurate instrument. if this thought makes me a death panel in your little mind thats fine.

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:i think we should use the one thats 99% ACCURATE instead of the one thats much less reliable accuracy. the accurate one being much cheaper to use is just a bonus..would think our supposed money-manager-wiz would appreciate the lesser cost just happens to be part of the more accurate instrument. if this thought makes me a death panel in your little mind thats fine.

Yes, because doctors normally opt for the more inaccurate, more costly tests. Do you have any sources on this or are you just going off on an irrelevent rant?

Scooby01_98 wrote:

floridafun wrote:far as the mamograms thing..it really irks me the pushing of this outdated comparatively excessively costly and low percentage success rate of this procedure. there is a relatively new "wand" device, i know at least 1 hosp in ft wayne uses it because there was a jg article in last year or so about it (unfortunately, only to verify after a positive is found on mamogram)..about the size of a puter mouse, they just run it across the entire breast surface and it shows red hot-spots where there are cancer cell clusters. 99% effective. cost of use estimated at 15.00.

and unless there is a family history of breast cancer it is stupid to do frequent mamograms or even annual physician feel-for-lumps exams primarily to be able to bill for it and to pay for their equipment even tho it has poor reliability ratings..yes there will be the occasional case where it was caught early thankfully with these exams. great for them, so keep doing those self exams if want to. i think of it like...we dont have brain scans periodically just to see if there is some tumor started there. we dont test bone marrow annually just to see if there are cancer cells there.

But wait a minute the whole reason for this (per the dems) was for preventive health care to save money from the expensive procedures from letting things wait by not visiting the doctor. This wasn't the only thing the panel came out with for cutting back and I can't think of it now. Wonder what else they will cut back to save money....hmmm; we don't have cavities every visit I guess we don't need to visit the dentist twice a year maybe every 3rd year. Polio, mumps, chicken pox those are rare (less than 9%) guess we can stop vaccinating the kiddies. That will save a few more bucks.

Of course I bet those 9% that found out they had breast cancer were happy they had those mammograms, but hey it's only 9% no big deal. So might as well not have this health care bill since those people without health ins don't need those tests anyway. They would have just mooching off the system with unnecessary tests.

floridafun wrote:

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:thats the kind of logic i expect from you..i want only the most effective treatment/testing to be used, and the bonus of much lower cost is kinda nice too..so you equate that to a death panel.

because you dont have a bone marrow test, an eeg, an ekg, a cat scan, annually...UNLESS there are some kind of symptoms or history pointing at further exploration or monitoring, i am the death panel person because i am not out there insisting it is every americans right to have every known test run on every human annually in our great nation.

palin/kromie 2012!

So you want to intervene between a doctor and a patient and dictate what procedures should be used and should not be used in order to be more cost efficient. You sound like an insurance company too. Death "panal" and insurance companies. I never thought you would take their sides.

i think we should use the one thats 99% ACCURATE instead of the one thats much less reliable accuracy. the accurate one being much cheaper to use is just a bonus..would think our supposed money-manager-wiz would appreciate the lesser cost just happens to be part of the more accurate instrument. if this thought makes me a death panel in your little mind thats fine.

meta4 wrote:This thread reads with a meter strikingly similar to many interviews I've heard with Glenn Beck.

Kroman wrote:

meta4 wrote:This thread reads with a meter strikingly similar to many interviews I've heard with Glenn Beck.

Really? Does he use the word "Dickhead"? Maybe you should stop listening to his show and contribute something worthwhile to this thread.

meta4 wrote:

Kroman wrote:

meta4 wrote:This thread reads with a meter strikingly similar to many interviews I've heard with Glenn Beck.

Really? Does he use the word "Dickhead"? Maybe you should stop listening to his show and contribute something worthwhile to this thread.

Now that would be a noble action indeed! Thanks for the awesome suggestion!

Markwes wrote:I see Glenn Beck is the scapegoat du jour. Rush Limbaugh must be old news.

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:i think we should use the one thats 99% ACCURATE instead of the one thats much less reliable accuracy. the accurate one being much cheaper to use is just a bonus..would think our supposed money-manager-wiz would appreciate the lesser cost just happens to be part of the more accurate instrument. if this thought makes me a death panel in your little mind thats fine.

Yes, because doctors normally opt for the more inaccurate, more costly tests. Do you have any sources on this or are you just going off on an irrelevent rant?

floridafun wrote:

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:i think we should use the one thats 99% ACCURATE instead of the one thats much less reliable accuracy. the accurate one being much cheaper to use is just a bonus..would think our supposed money-manager-wiz would appreciate the lesser cost just happens to be part of the more accurate instrument. if this thought makes me a death panel in your little mind thats fine.

Yes, because doctors normally opt for the more inaccurate, more costly tests. Do you have any sources on this or are you just going off on an irrelevent rant?

as i said previously there was an article in jg in last year or so.. with a local hospital explaining the technology of the newly acquired wand, the accuracy rate in comparison to the mamogram, and cost comparison. yes i googled it and mined for imho reliable info from places like mayo, didnt bother looking at opinion sites. do you know of any woman who has been offered the wand testing instead of the mamogram? i have discussed it with quite a few and havent found one yet. how the fuck is discussing this issue an irrelevent rant in your mind?? ...oh because its ME.

Scooby01_98 wrote:

floridafun wrote:far as the mamograms thing..it really irks me the pushing of this outdated comparatively excessively costly and low percentage success rate of this procedure. there is a relatively new "wand" device, i know at least 1 hosp in ft wayne uses it because there was a jg article in last year or so about it (unfortunately, only to verify after a positive is found on mamogram)..about the size of a puter mouse, they just run it across the entire breast surface and it shows red hot-spots where there are cancer cell clusters. 99% effective. cost of use estimated at 15.00.

and unless there is a family history of breast cancer it is stupid to do frequent mamograms or even annual physician feel-for-lumps exams primarily to be able to bill for it and to pay for their equipment even tho it has poor reliability ratings..yes there will be the occasional case where it was caught early thankfully with these exams. great for them, so keep doing those self exams if want to. i think of it like...we dont have brain scans periodically just to see if there is some tumor started there. we dont test bone marrow annually just to see if there are cancer cells there.

But wait a minute the whole reason for this (per the dems) was for preventive health care to save money from the expensive procedures from letting things wait by not visiting the doctor. This wasn't the only thing the panel came out with for cutting back and I can't think of it now. Wonder what else they will cut back to save money....hmmm; we don't have cavities every visit I guess we don't need to visit the dentist twice a year maybe every 3rd year. Polio, mumps, chicken pox those are rare (less than 9%) guess we can stop vaccinating the kiddies. That will save a few more bucks.

Of course I bet those 9% that found out they had breast cancer were happy they had those mammograms, but hey it's only 9% no big deal. So might as well not have this health care bill since those people without health ins don't need those tests anyway. They would have just mooching off the system with unnecessary tests.

floridafun wrote:kromie you are so doe-nutty its sad.

floridafun wrote:

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:i think we should use the one thats 99% ACCURATE instead of the one thats much less reliable accuracy. the accurate one being much cheaper to use is just a bonus..would think our supposed money-manager-wiz would appreciate the lesser cost just happens to be part of the more accurate instrument. if this thought makes me a death panel in your little mind thats fine.

Yes, because doctors normally opt for the more inaccurate, more costly tests. Do you have any sources on this or are you just going off on an irrelevent rant?

as i said previously there was an article in jg in last year or so.. with a local hospital explaining the technology of the newly acquired wand, the accuracy rate in comparison to the mamogram, and cost comparison. yes i googled it and mined for imho reliable info from places like mayo, didnt bother looking at opinion sites. do you know of any woman who has been offered the wand testing instead of the mamogram? i have discussed it with quite a few and havent found one yet. how the fuck is discussing this issue an irrelevent rant in your mind?? ...oh because its ME.

floridafun wrote:kromie you are so doe-nutty its sad.

meta4 wrote:One would think, if they didn't want to insert any of their own discussion material, they'd leave this thread the fuck alone...

Anyone notice? Every comment in this thread by Markwes and Kroman (unless you count contextual for sarcastic value only) are irrelevant to the discussing this topic. Oh Wait, that's not entirely fair, Markwes is just "looking for information", albeit from the posts of irrelevance and mere ranting... his own words.

meta4 wrote:

floridafun wrote:kromie you are so doe-nutty its sad.

One would think, if they didn't want to insert any of their own discussion material, they'd leave this thread the fuck alone...

Anyone notice? Every comment in this thread by Markwes and Kroman (unless you count contextual for sarcastic value only) are irrelevant to the discussing this topic. Oh Wait, that's not entirely fair, Markwes is just "looking for information", albeit from the posts of irrelevance and mere ranting... his own words.

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:

floridafun wrote:kromie you are so doe-nutty its sad.

One would think, if they didn't want to insert any of their own discussion material, they'd leave this thread the fuck alone...

Anyone notice? Every comment in this thread by Markwes and Kroman (unless you count contextual for sarcastic value only) are irrelevant to the discussing this topic. Oh Wait, that's not entirely fair, Markwes is just "looking for information", albeit from the posts of irrelevance and mere ranting... his own words.

There's that pot and kettle again. I'm pretty sure I given my opinion in at least one of the other fifteen threads about healthcare.

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:

floridafun wrote:kromie you are so doe-nutty its sad.

One would think, if they didn't want to insert any of their own discussion material, they'd leave this thread the fuck alone...

Anyone notice? Every comment in this thread by Markwes and Kroman (unless you count contextual for sarcastic value only) are irrelevant to the discussing this topic. Oh Wait, that's not entirely fair, Markwes is just "looking for information", albeit from the posts of irrelevance and mere ranting... his own words.

There's that pot and kettle again. I'm pretty sure I given my opinion in at least one of the other fifteen threads about healthcare.

meta4 wrote:

floridafun wrote:kromie you are so doe-nutty its sad.

One would think, if they didn't want to insert any of their own discussion material, they'd leave this thread the fuck alone...

Anyone notice? Every comment in this thread by Markwes and Kroman (unless you count contextual for sarcastic value only) are irrelevant to the discussing this topic. Oh Wait, that's not entirely fair, Markwes is just "looking for information", albeit from the posts of irrelevance and mere ranting... his own words.

LTRT wrote:I'm going to venture a guess that everyone else is excluded except for you and Kroman.

meta4 wrote:

LTRT wrote:I'm going to venture a guess that everyone else is excluded except for you and Kroman.

My bad, didn't know you wanted to be included. Do you?