ObamaCare Tax Increases Are Double Original Estimate
invite response
2013 Mar 13, 12:31am 27,202 views 140 comments
« First « Previous Comments 83 - 122 of 140 Next » Last » Search these comments
one other thing... you know I am a physician. Just so I know what your background is and where you get your info from, what do you do and where?
What do you specialize in (or GP)? Just curious (not related to this discussion).
curious2
2013 Mar 16, 7:08am
I made one or two sarcastic responses to you since you always claim physicians make too much money... care to link my "endless" boasts?
Perhaps you were being sarcastic in one or two of your responses, but there's little point digging up a lot of links for you because you don't read them anyway. I suggest instead you should re-read your comments and mine in a different thread that was actually about whether doctors are overpaid, you seem to confuse me with someone else. If you read my comments, you will see that I do not "always claim physicians make too much money." To the contrary, in my opinion doctors are mispaid, i.e. payment does not correlate with value, and I have even said that some (e.g. GPs) can be underpaid, while others (e.g. Homefool's pushers and you) are overpaid for conferring little or no value. Other people have said doctors are overpaid, I have hewed to a more nuanced opinion of the subject, and if you re-read it paying attention to who said what I think you'll see the difference. As you read the thread I linked to, you might find the link I posted where GPs are suing the AMA over misallocation of Medicare funds; obviously I do not use "AMA" and "doctors" interchangeably, as I have often said the AMA represents less than 20% of doctors. You accuse me of "hating" doctors, but not everyone who disagrees with you hates you, let alone doctors in general.
There is a more basic issue with your comments though. This is a thread about the costs of Obamacare, which are becoming increasingly apparent as the time horizon approaches. It isn't about you personally, except the federally mandatory prepayment for your services whether wanted or not. As another comment put it, welfare for doctors, though I would call it mandatory redistribution primarily to PhRMA, AHA, AMA, and AHIP. If in a free market with open pricing and honest work, you made more or less than you do, I would have no comment about whether the number is too high or low or what you choose to say about it. The problem is the mandatory Obamacare, which makes everything cost more and requires everyone to submit to the whole takeover whether they want it or not, including Homefool's disproved pills etc.
Perhaps you were being sarcastic in one or two of your responses, but there's little point digging up a lot of links for you because you don't read them anyway.
You know very well I was being sarcastic... And of course you will say there is no point in digging them up because you cant and will not find any other examples. If you can find my "endless boasts" please post them to prove me wrong.
If you read my comments, you will see that I do not "always claim physicians make too much money."
perhaps not always, but you regularly do make this suggestion in several others posts.
This is a thread about the costs of Obamacare, which are becoming increasingly apparent as the time horizon approaches.
You are right, this WAS about costs of Obamacare, in which ironically we seemed to in agreement about. However along the way you hijacked this thread and began to refute that the costs of malpractice also contribute to the overall costs of healthcare. Even when faced with evidence that physicians practice defensive medicine (although even a little common sense will tell you it occurs) will obviously increase costs to health care spending, you are in denial.
one other thing... you know I am a physician
So I am guessing that you like Obamacare since it's essentially more welfare for doctors?
Zzyzzx... you would think so based on what curious2 says. HOwever I challenge you to go to physicians and see what they say about Obamacare. I will guarantee you that the overwhelming # of physicians are against Obamacare.
Curious.
Let me ask you something serious. Why are you so resistant in believing that defensive medicine exists and it adds to the cost of health care???
Especially when someone like myself and hundreds of others in the industry admit that we have experienced this.
So you are agreeing that the lawsuit reform can save way more than the 2.4% number cited above?
I dont know how much it would save, but it will likely save some money.
Because the claim has been investigated and refuted.
by who? you cant give me anecdotal evidence... well not even evidence, but opinions from a few physicians quoted in some news paper article.
To the contrary, it increases costs.
really? evidence?
More unnecessary and injurious procedures (e.g. useless back surgery that carries a risk of paralysis), more prescriptions, more more more, because the fee-for-service model creates myriad opportunities for revenue and kickbacks without accountability as reported from Texas and elsewhere.
CUrious2. Again the problem you have is that you confuse defensive medicine with plain fraud. LIke I said in previous posts, you will always have fraud...regardless of tort reform or not. However my point has always been this. Defensive medicine exists and it DOES carry a cost to health care. The physicians who perform unnecessary procedures are not the ones doing it because of defensive medicine... they are doing it to make money. However there are thousands of physicians who may order a test or a procedure JUST in case to protect their butts when in reality the symptoms and presentations of a patients do not warrant a test or a procedure. In most these cases, there is no financial gain or ordering these test, rather is a prevention of financial loss due to lawsuits....hence defensive medicine.
curious2
2013 Mar 16, 7:44am
You are right, this WAS about costs of Obamacare, in which ironically we seemed to in agreement about. However along the way you hijacked this thread and began to refute that the costs of malpractice also contribute to the overall costs of healthcare.
If you read this thread, you will see that the subject was changed from Obamacare to malpractice by someone else, just yesterday in fact, and his numbers were off by a factor of four. I corrected that, and you got defensive as usual. What I find curious is, when other people say something you dislike, you attribute their comments to me, as if I occupy somehow a disproportionately large and nebulous place in your head. You seem to need to get the last word, which is ok if you will please say something that is demonstrably correct and hopefully relevant, e.g. we both agree that Obamacare will cost a lot of money.
But radiologists sure do. It seems like they make the money they make not as a value-add, but just to help doctors practice CYA medicine. One estimate (can't remember where) was that it was about 4.4 billion dollars a year.
yet the physicians do not benefit financially in these cases. This is an unnecessary added costs clear and simple.
Radiologist dont order the studies. My quote was taken out of context. My point was that the physicians ordering these tests do not benefit financially. If a blood test was ordered, the lab and the lab technicians make money correct? Well if an x-ray was ordered, the radiologist would make money also.
If you are going so far as to claim that a radiologist have no added value, then you should really back up with evidence or your reasoning. Keep in mind radiologist function mainly with diagnosis. If you feel that making a diagnosis adds no value, then I could see your argument. However, most if not all, patients and clinicians would argue that diagnosis is the first step in any treatment.
Certainly provides a lot of leeway for abuse in the system. Also, it seems like obamacare did not effectively address this systemic issue.
Unfortunately there will always be physicians who are unethical. However, make no mistake, the threat of malpractice DOES change practices of HONEST physicians and WILL increase costs.
There is always and likely will always be abuse in the system... no one has refuted or denied this. We can make similar arguments in many other fields.. financial system, government bureaucracies, even the local mechanics can abuse your lack of automobile mechanics.
one other thing... you know I am a physician. Just so I know what your background is and where you get your info from, what do you do and where?
What do you specialize in (or GP)? Just curious (not related to this discussion).
Spine specialists, which is why curious felt he needed to spend the time to link those articles...purely to try to bring me down. unfortunately he thought I was a surgeon and thus linked articles on spine surgeries... im not a spine surgeon however.
If you read this thread, you will see that the subject was changed from Obamacare to malpractice by someone else, just yesterday in fact, and his numbers were off by a factor of four. I corrected that, and you got defensive as usual.
Well if anyone got defensive I would say it was you. The only point I have been trying to make for the past day was that physicians practice defensive medicine and that is an added cost to health care. You do not want to believe this and will go to extremes to refute this fact, although most would agree that even just a little bit of common sense would lead you to this fact.
I have 30 uncles, first cousins and second cousins in medicine and I'm gunning for 2015 residency. So what is your point?
Just so I know what your background is and where you get your info from, what do you do and where?
I dont get it... what is your point? So you have relatives in medicine and you are going into medicine. ok... so?? instead of saying you are gunning for residency in 2015, why dont you just talk like a normal person and say you are a med student?
Is MMR = Curious? otherwise why is MMR answering for curious..
Hahahahh pointless for me to keep going. Even if i give you evidence you wont accept it.
Just like you.
stop liking my post then...
Because the claim has been investigated and refuted.
by who? you cant give me anecdotal evidence... well not even evidence, but opinions from a few physicians quoted in some news paper article.
Curious always does this. He's a true example of the internet generation. He really believes that if he googles enough people who's opinions are the same as his then the point is proven. I really don't believe he has a clue the difference between opinion and analysis. Gathering data, developing methodology, doing an analysis then presenting it all so people know how you derived your numbers is so old school. Who bothers with that stuff any more? You can just interview a few people instead.
Homeboy
2013 Mar 16, 3:36pm
I really don't believe he has a clue the difference between opinion and analysis.
I don't think he has a clue, period.
Tenpoundbass
2013 Mar 17, 1:09am
I really should visit your universe sometime. It seems very interesting. In fact, I am pretty much the ONLY one on this forum who has any fucking clue what's in the law. The rest of you are just ranting about nothing. The level of ignorance is astounding.
So basically you're saying, you're fine with the destruction of what is left of the middle class and no hope of America ever returning to a high standard of living. You've basically given up on America and have resigned to sit it out and wait for the day, that the youth get old enough to realize just how fucked they really are.
Do you have your outfit picked out for bloody Sunday yet?
Tenpoundbass
2013 Mar 17, 1:19am
Really? Because they're actually the ones being taxed. The healthcare industry and rich people are the only ones being taxed for this. And that suits me just fine. Taxes on the wealthy have gotten lower and lower for the past 100 years. What's wrong with them finally paying their fair share for a change?
You'll still be saying then when a loaf of bread is $10 and a gallon of gas, will be one of those situations, where "If you have to ask, then you probably can't afford it."
But the only problem for you will be, there still wont be no fucking high speed bullet train. And if there was, do you really think anyone will be able to afford a fucking ticket?
Why don't you Liberals just strong arm rob every rich republican in this country, then give all of their money to the IRS.
Can you explain, how that will benefit people that are actually trying to earn a living? That would be "Oh happy days!" for the welfare class, but the rest of us, will be shit canned from our jobs because it is the RICH in this country that hires people.
Man when I first came to this board, I had no fucking idea just how demented Liberals really are. I thought every republican that called Liberals "Libtards" and said Liberalism is a mental disease was just being mean spirited. I don't know if you extremist weirdos gravitate to Patnet or the new Liberals and Democrats really are a bunch of pinko fascist.The only thing the Liberals have going for them, is the constant, that "Young and Dumb" are synonymous. As the liberals keep finding new youngins to lie their fucking ass off to, so they can get these Monsters elected.
Homeboy
2013 Mar 17, 4:50am
it is the RICH in this country that hires people.
God, how many times do we have to test that theory before you right wing nuts let go of that one? Bush already TRIED giving everything away to the rich. What was the result? The complete collapse of the banking system, millions of people losing their homes, 4 years of depression, and the largest disparity of wealth in this country's history. Between Bush and Obama, literally trillions of dollars were given away to the rich. How are those unemployment numbers as a result? When are you dim right wingers going to get that when you give money to a rich person, he KEEPS it. Trickle down economics should have died in the 1980s, but you dumb asses keep trying to resurrect it.
Homeboy
2013 Mar 17, 4:58am
So basically you're saying, you're fine with the destruction of what is left of the middle class and no hope of America ever returning to a high standard of living. You've basically given up on America and have resigned to sit it out and wait for the day, that the youth get old enough to realize just how fucked they really are.
Do you have your outfit picked out for bloody Sunday yet?
Nice strawman. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
The middle class was destroyed by the policies that YOU advocate. When you let the top 1% control a third of the wealth, that doesn't leave much to have a middle class.
Tenpoundbass
2013 Mar 17, 8:56am
Fuck... Who says I advocate some fantasy made up entity that no one has managed to put a face to, but several have gone on record, to say..."Gosh I'm not one of them, and why I wish they would tax me more..."
But nobody has explained how that top 1% managed to get everyone's money, but there's not one company that has been tied to this fictitious 1% entity pile of Bullshit. How in the fuck are the 1% getting so much goddamn money, if they aren't anyone that you can point at. How are they employing everyone, if there is one to point a finger at. How are they getting customers, to go to their businesses, to spend money, so they can pay their employees nothing, while they make piles of money and give everyone else the shaft.
How is all of this even happening?
All of the "1%" fear mongering, and not one Liberal will provide one fucking name of a company associated with this fictitious lot. So everyone can boycott them and drive them out of business if they are so bad.
It's manufacturing decent to push the socialist agenda pure and simple. Every commie dictator started out by bashing the rich and business people. This book never ends well.
America would have never survived a century, had the coming to the new world had been about escaping the 1% oppression instead of monarchy.
It comes back to what I said about intellectually dishonest debate tactics; you're in violation of the 'my resume is bigger than yours tactic.' Thanks for taking things out of context to the point that it misrepresents my original position. ; Also, feel free to ask patrick if curious and I have the same IP address. Curious provides links unlike you, usually high quality.
I noticed that you make assertions without providing research, but use anecdotes to explain you position, but when others provide links, you just say they are wrong without providing alternate links. Seems rather intellectually dishonest. When you and anyone else who wants to refute can provide different links then it would be interesting to read.
Other than JAMA, Annals of Int Med, and Archives of Int Med and NEJM, what else do you read to stay up-to-date?
By the way, on an unrelated topic, why do you whine about people deleting your links? Since you're a physician who uses this site often, why are you too cheap to donate 5 bucks for a premium account to Patrick, who is running this site at a loss?
I have 30 uncles, first cousins and second cousins in medicine and I'm gunning for 2015 residency. So what is your point?
Just so I know what your background is and where you get your info from, what do you do and where?
I dont get it... what is your point? So you have relatives in medicine and you are going into medicine. ok... so?? instead of saying you are gunning for residency in 2015, why dont you just talk like a normal person and say you are a med student?
Is MMR = Curious? otherwise why is MMR answering for curious..
It comes back to what I said about intellectually dishonest debate tactics; you're in violation of the 'my resume is bigger than yours tactic.' Thanks for taking things out of context to the point that it misrepresents my original position.
MMR the biggest problem to your argument is that I never tried to trump anyone's argument based on my resume. I never used the prestige of my schooling/education, job, etc as the basis for my arguments as you suggest.
Rather it is you who boasts about your relatives in medicine, as if that has anything to do with you. You think having relatives in medicine gives you any credibility? Furthermore you try to overstate your position by saying "you are gunning for residency in 2015" rather than saying you are a second or third year medical student". Keep in mind, that I never stated what I did or what my background was, until curious asked me. So how could I possibly do what you accuse me of doing?
BTW, you'll learn about projection soon enough (yes now I am talking down on you).
Curious provides links unlike you, usually high quality.
If you think links to local newspapers with anecdotal evidence are high quality links , then you are a fool...
What does one need to diagnose for obesity at the primary care level? It makes up for 40% of patient load in most offices. What kind of treatments would you recommend for these people. What is the 'standard of care' for pre-diabetes, diabetes and CVD? Drug therapy? How brilliant! Not telling patients the truth about their situations makes for repeat customers and future referrals to others in your referral network. Yeah, yeah, diet and exercise. How do patients do that? Telling patients that is next to worthless but most doctors stop there, knowing damn well it doesnt make a difference. Since you like anecdotes, because you are 'too good' to provide evidence/links, failure to adequately address obesity increases referrals to cardiologists and oncologists and probably psychiatrists as well. What benefit is there for cardiologists and oncologists who make money to provide advice on diet and exercise when most live off of medicare? Generally speaking, most doctors I know (over 100) only have other doctors in their referral network. Since you are a doctor who has familiarity with the billing codes, maybe you can enlighten us all about the benefit financially for cardiologists to provide detailed diet and exercise advice. Oh, that's right, most cardiologists don't do that because that doesn't put more money in their pockets than doing procedures; When the arteries become blocked due to incompetence/failure to tell patients unvarnished truth at the primary care level, the cardiologist intervenes with a balloon angioplasty; prior to that, the radiologist might determine the level of blockage. So yeah, since nothing was done for the obese person at the primary care level, the radiologist got make a diagnosis which then leads to treatment.
Not sure what kind of doctor you are, but based on your speaking style, your patients are most likely, unmitigated idiots if they put their trust in you.
Again not saying that radiology doesn't add value, but it is often questionable. Certainly not 4.4 billion dollars. Certainly helps you to cover your ass, though it might not put money in your pocket.
f you feel that making a diagnosis adds no value, then I could see your argument. However, most if not all, patients and clinicians would argue that diagnosis is the first step in any treatment.
I noticed that you make assertions without providing research, but use anecdotes to explain you position, but when others provide links, you just say they are wrong without providing alternate links.
Perhaps you should review the links I made... Ill give you an example of my links versus curious' links.
Mine:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=416067
Curious:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/06/atul-gawande-the-cost-conundrum-redux.html
Yes, this survey of hundreds of physician is anecdotal... yet the new yorker article surveying a couple physicians is not anecdotal.
Other than JAMA, Annals of Int Med, and Archives of Int Med and NEJM, what else do you read to stay up-to-date?
What is the purpose of this question? MMR says
By the way, on an unrelated topic, why do you whine about people deleting your links? Since you're a physician who uses this site often, why are you too cheap to donate 5 bucks for a premium account to Patrick, who is running this site at a loss?
Again what is the purpose of this question? Whether I pay for a forum service or not, what is it to you? Perhaps I am cheap. so what? Regardless of whether I pay, do you think it is proper for any comment to be deleted?
Referencing the original quote, that's pretty much what you did. I've heard that a million times before so its possible that you weren't doing that, but based on experience, I'd say not likely
MMR the biggest problem to your argument is that I never tried to trump anyone's argument based on my resume. I never used the prestige of my schooling/education, job, etc as the basis for my arguments as you suggest.
Meccos says
Just so I know what your background is and where you get your info from, what do you do and where?
There is a lot more to read that what makes it into political circle jerk that medicine has become. Pretty sure you're not much of a reader of current research unless it makes it into the only books you trust
Other than JAMA, Annals of Int Med, and Archives of Int Med and NEJM, what else do you read to stay up-to-date?
What is the purpose of this question?
That's not up to curious standards. He's done better in the past. I do agree that defensive medicine is real; it may well be that the fear of getting sued is greater than the actual reality and that some people use the confusion to game the system. On an anecdotal level, my cousin, a retired pediatrician, bills aggressively and 'sees what sticks'. He was never sued in his career of over 22 years.
Perhaps you should review the links I made... Ill give you an example of my links versus curious' links.
Mine:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=416067Curious:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/06/atul-gawande-the-cost-conundrum-redux.htmlYes, this survey of hundreds of physician is anecdotal... yet the new yorker article surveying a couple physicians is not anecdotal.
What does one need to diagnose for obesity at the primary care level? It makes up for 40% of patient load in most offices. What kind of treatments would you recommend for these people. What is the 'standard of care' for pre-diabetes, diabetes and CVD? Drug therapy? How brilliant! Not telling patients the truth about their situations makes for repeat customers and future referrals to others in your referral network. Yeah, yeah, diet and exercise. How do patients do that? Telling patients that is next to worthless but most doctors stop there, knowing damn well it doesnt make a difference.
You have no idea what I do, yet you continue in this moronic fashion and accuse me of things to which you have no idea...
Not sure what kind of doctor you are, but based on your speaking style, your patients are most likely, unmitigated idiots if they put their trust in you.
Exactly you have no idea what I do.
Again not saying that radiology doesn't add value
No this is exactly what you said...
But radiologists sure do. It seems like they make the money they make not as a value-add, but just to help doctors practice CYA medicine. One estimate (can't remember where) was that it was about 4.4 billion dollars a year.
BTW, I like how you deleted the part where you said that these tests are done to "cover" our butts. THis is exactly what I have been saying. Why did you delete that post??? haha
Referencing the original quote, that's pretty much what you did. I've heard that a million times before so its possible that you weren't doing that, but based on experience, I'd say not likely
So cant prove I did that, but yeah I possibly did it? hahaah funny.
There is a lot more to read that what makes it into political circle jerk that medicine has become. Pretty sure you're not much of a reader of current research unless it makes it into the only books you trust
Again, you have no idea but make assumptions... You will go far my boy.
That's not up to curious standards. He's done better in the past
Perhaps he has done better in the past, but we arent talking about the past are we?
I said it's overvalued. Not that it adds NO value. By the way
But radiologists sure do. It seems like they make the money they make not as a value-add, but just to help doctors practice CYA medicine. One estimate (can't remember where) was that it was about 4.4 billion dollars a year.
BTW, I like how you deleted the part where you said that these tests are done to "cover" our butts. THis is exactly what I have been saying. Why did you delete that post??? haha
Again not saying that radiology doesn't add value
No this is exactly what you said...
When did I delete it. Pretty sure its still up there. I guess you're projecting again.
MMR says
But radiologists sure do. It seems like they make the money they make not as a value-add, but just to help doctors practice CYA medicine. One estimate (can't remember where) was that it was about 4.4 billion dollars a year.
BTW, I like how you deleted the part where you said that these tests are done to "cover" our butts. THis is exactly what I have been saying. Why did you delete that post??? haha
I said it's overvalued. Not that it adds NO value.
um.. no. you didnt say over valued.
But radiologists sure do. It seems like they make the money they make not as a value-add, but just to help doctors practice CYA medicine. One estimate (can't remember where) was that it was about 4.4 billion dollars a year.
BTW, you claimed that you didnt delete a comment after you posted it, but we both know its false. In fact, there is a comment that I quoted you on in the post just prior to this one that has been deleted as well.
Whatever you say dean ornish. I think you are using a dean ornish argument strategy. 'We both' don't "know" anything. Anyway, gotta go to bed so I can study. toodles. In closing I don't need your lousy 'advice' on how to 'make it far' in medicine. Lots of sucking up (strategically) and telling people what they want to hear until I have the freedom to practice what I see fit. Being good looking/fit helps as well, since most people(attendings,interns) in the wards judge people so superficially.
In closing, you're patients are probably universally idiots if they think you could give them good advice on diet and lifestyle. I am not interested in YOUR focus, rather I'm giving you a perfect example of why Radiology is often of questionable value. At the same time, I'm telling you what I'm already good at. This is what most people really need help on since doing so would decrease incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Nope, I'm not going to be an insurance taking hack like you, even if it means I make 25K in my first year. I'm fortunate not to have loans. Truth be told, I'm not florence nightingale, I like to help but I'm no saint; money matters and if I had to take loans to do it, I wouldn't. Meccos says
BTW, you claimed that you didnt delete a comment after you posted it, but we both know its false. In fact, if you look on the previous posts, I cant even find the post I quoted you there
Whatever you say dean ornish. I think you are using a dean ornish argument strategy. We both don't know shit. Anyway, gotta go to bed so I can study. toodles.
I may not know a lot of shit, but you clearly do not know any shit. Good luck in medical school, I hope you do not turn out to be this guy:
Telling patients that is next to worthless but most doctors stop there, knowing damn well it doesnt make a difference.
Clearly......as clear as a bowl of shit.Meccos says
Whatever you say dean ornish. I think you are using a dean ornish argument strategy. We both don't know shit. Anyway, gotta go to bed so I can study. toodles.
I may not know a lot of shit, but you clearly do not know any shit. Good luck in medical school, I hope you do not turn out to be this guy:
Telling patients that is next to worthless but most doctors stop there, knowing damn well it doesnt make a difference.
Rin
2013 Mar 17, 1:57pm
BTW, to those reading this thread... Homeboy has accused me and MMR of being the same person in an earlier thread regarding doctor's salaries.
Homeboy
2013 Mar 17, 4:31pm
Fuck... Who says I advocate some fantasy made up entity that no one has managed to put a face to, but several have gone on record, to say..."Gosh I'm not one of them, and why I wish they would tax me more..."
YOU did, fucktard, to wit:
"Why don't you Liberals just strong arm rob every rich republican in this country, then give all of their money to the IRS.
Can you explain, how that will benefit people that are actually trying to earn a living? That would be "Oh happy days!" for the welfare class, but the rest of us, will be shit canned from our jobs because it is the RICH in this country that hires people. "
You are saying you don't want the rich to pay more taxes, because they are the ones that "hire people". Look, dude - you fucking wrote it. It's right there. Don't try to slink away from it now like a pussy.
But nobody has explained how that top 1% managed to get everyone's money, but there's not one company that has been tied to this fictitious 1% entity pile of Bullshit. How in the fuck are the 1% getting so much goddamn money, if they aren't anyone that you can point at. How are they employing everyone, if there is one to point a finger at. How are they getting customers, to go to their businesses, to spend money, so they can pay their employees nothing, while they make piles of money and give everyone else the shaft.
How is all of this even happening?
All of the "1%" fear mongering, and not one Liberal will provide one fucking name of a company associated with this fictitious lot. So everyone can boycott them and drive them out of business if they are so bad.
Are you kidding? You are so far in denial it's not even funny. Oh, I don't know, just for example... GOLDMAN FUCKING SACHS. Duh. Not one Liberal will provide the name of a company? That's ALL liberals ever do. Maybe you should turn off the Fox News for 5 minutes. What good would it do to boycott them? You are as naive as they come. They already would have gone out of business, but they were declared "too big to fail". Doesn't matter how bad their business model is, the government will keep handing over the middle class' wealth to them.
You don't believe the distribution of wealth is skewed in the U.S. Well you're not the only one. Watch this video, and see the difference between people's perception and reality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM
Then look at this chart, to see how the distribution of income has CHANGED over the last few decades:
Then awaken from your long slumber, my friend.
Well......one-third of cancers that were found via routine mammograms may not be life-threatening, raising once again the question about the value and benefits of traditional breast cancer screening. More than one million women could have been wrongly over-diagnosed with breast cancer, thereby exposing them needlessly to the angst that comes with the diagnosis, as well as the traditional healthcare treatments for the disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12903848
Again not saying that radiology doesn't add value
No this is exactly what you said...
We found that the introduction of screening has been associated with about 1.5 million additional women receiving a diagnosis of early stage breast cancer," writes study co-author Dr. Gilbert Welch.
Now, at first, you might think that's a good thing. You might think, "Well, early detection saves lives, just like we've been told by Komen and the cancer non-profits."
But you'd be wrong. As Dr. Welch's team discovered, there was virtually no reduction in late-stage breast cancer from all this "early" diagnosis, meaning that most women who were told they had breast cancer after a mammogram were being lied to.
As he explains:
We found that there were only around 0.1 million fewer women with a diagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. This discrepancy means there was a lot of overdiagnosis: more than a million women who were told they had early stage cancer -- most of whom underwent surgery, chemotherapy or radiation -- for a "cancer" that was never going to make them sick. Although it's impossible to know which women these are, that's some pretty serious harm.
Yep, it is. In fact, if you do the math and calculate 0.1 million fewer women with advanced-stage cancer out of 1.5 million who were diagnosed, 93% of the "early detection" cancer cases studied were false positives, meaning that they would never have gone on to cause advanced-stage cancer anyway.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1206809?query=featured_home&
Dr. Welch, author of study in New York Times
Six years ago, a long-term follow-up of a randomized trial showed that about one-quarter of cancers detected by screening were overdiagnosed. And this study reflected mammograms as used in the 1980s. Newer digital mammograms detect a lot more abnormalities, and the estimates of overdiagnosis have risen commensurately: now somewhere between a third and half of screen-detected cancers.
Got that? Many cancer diagnoses from mammography are utterly false. But they are a great scare tactic for recruiting women into what can only be called a "cult of cancer" in which they are manipulated into poisoning themselves with chemicals. They are later called "cancer survivors" if the poison doesn't manage to kill them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/opinion/cancer-survivor-or-victim-of-overdiagnosis.html?_r=1&
Again not saying that radiology doesn't add value
No this is exactly what you said...
Ultrasound better than mammography for detection of invasive breast cancer
An analysis conducted by the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA) reveals that, overall, ultrasounds have a 95.7 percent sensitivity rate in detecting malignant tumor cells while mammograms are only 60.9 percent sensitive, by comparison. Among 1,208 cases evaluated, ultrasounds also successfully detected about 57 percent more harmful breast cancers compared to mammograms.
Dr. Constance Lehman, M.D., Ph.D., Director of Radiology at SCCA and her colleagues observed that, particularly among women aged 30 to 39, ultrasounds are a safer and more effective alternative to mammograms as a breast cancer screening tool. Based on her and her team's findings, it now appears prudent to switch gears and perhaps ditch mammography altogether.
"In women under 40, ultrasound is better at evaluating breast lumps compared to mammography," said Lehman about the findings, which were published recently in the American Journal of Roentgenology. Though Lehman still recommends mammograms for women over age 40, her study's findings illustrate that they are an unnecessary risk.
http://www.seattlecca.org/press-release/ultrasound-is-better-detecting-cancer-in-women-under-40.cfm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15474430
Again not saying that radiology doesn't add value
No this is exactly what you said...
When you really take an honest look at the data, it is clear that mammography is negligibly effective at reducing deaths from breast cancer, at best. The general, 10-year risk of a woman dying from breast cancer is about 0.53 percent, while the risk for a woman who gets mammograms is 0.46 percent. Mammograms, in other words, reduce this already low risk by a mere 0.07 percent, which could represent nothing more than a statistical margin of error.
Put another way, 53 women out of 10,000 will die from breast cancer in the next 10 years, and mammograms may potentially lower this number to 46 women out of 10,000. But in the meantime, as many as 50 percent of all the women receiving mammograms to detect such cancers will have at least one false positive, which will in turn result in needless biopsies, surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy.
Any potential benefit in terms of death reduction from breast cancer is essentially offset by the fact that regular mammography screenings are also linked to actually causing breast cancer. A study presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) found that young, high-risk women who are screened using mammography are up to 250 percent more likely develop breast cancer as a result of the screening compared to those who are not screened.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/02/health/komen-mammograms/index.html
Again not saying that radiology doesn't add value
No this is exactly what you said...
« First « Previous Comments 83 - 122 of 140 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/tax-prof-obamacare-tax-increases-are.html
The Joint Committee on Taxation recently released a 96 page report on the tax provisions associated with Affordable Care Act. The report describes the 21 tax increases included in Obamacare, totaling $1.058 trillion – a steep increase from initial assessment, according to the Tax Prof Blog. The summer 2012 estimate is nearly twice the $569 billion estimate produced at the time of the passage of the law in March 2010.
Patrick's code won't let me paste in a table here.
#politics