Mammograms, politics and why I'll never support another war

[kiryan]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/02/s ... index.html

This is an opinion piece, but it pretty much sums up Americans. We have scientific analysis, but we use a bunch of opinion to decide policy. I don't really know whether the statistical work they did is perfect, its probably a little like climate models, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say its probably sound.

So instead of abiding by the science and statistics, lawmakers and special interests and breast cancer survivors line up by the hundreds to declare that its not right. The senate even introduced an amndment to healthcare reform to make sure that these cost saving methods are not employed. I haven't seen one critique of the methods they used, just a global proclamation that they are wrong because I know someone who found breast cancer between 40 and 50.

So do you really believe that healthcare reform is actually going to reduce costs? Here you have research telling us that we do millions of mammograms a year unnecesarily, but we're gonna pass laws to ensure women can aways get them (regardless of whether they are "necessary" or recommended). Its incredibly naieve to believe that our government can stand up and actually rein in costs.

So what does this have to do with war and why I'll never support another one (ok maybe not never)... we don't as a society have the will or backbone to actually finish what we start. It is just like healthcare, we want to save money until we find out where the cuts are coming and who will be paying for them. It would be irresponsible to support or advocate for future wars knowing that we have no honor and our politicans will just use it for a power play.

[Ambar]

We get it Mike .. you don't want women to get mammograms because you've been told by foxnews they are unnecessary .. we get it .. and we will still get mammograms and save lives.

We don't want war .. We will still get wars we don't want and watch people being killed by the slacking military.

We get that government regulation is bad unless it is good for Mike .. we get it ..

[kiryan]

Fox news is covering the outrage.
Republicans are citing this as government rationing.
I'm supporting the recommendations.

But obviously anything I say is recycled conservative crap from Fox news.

I get it Ambar, you disagree with me because its me.

Oh and btw, republicans support things because they believe in them. Case in point, welfare and poverty programs. Voters directly and indirectly through their representatives from poor Republican states regularly vote against programs that would benefit them. Now why on Earth would they do that? Because its not about what benefits us, its about what we believe in.

[Ambar]

Naw, really it isn't you .. I stated recently I am pressed to LIKE you, its just your opinions that are so skewed :)

[Sarvis]

I am pressed to LIKE you,

That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Todrael]

Luckily, the Senate has passed an amendment to offer free mammograms. Free means they'll cost less!

[kiryan]

I'm sure the senate made its decision based on facts and not based on what will get them more votes. I mean thats what we are asking in healthcare reform right? We're asking a bunch of pandering politicans to reduce waste. Greeeeeat.

[Sarvis]

not based on what will get them more votes.

Are you saying our government should be run by minority concensus? Rather than representing the public? You know what democracy means right? Frankly, if the politicians are doing something because they'll get more votes they are doing their job in representing their constituents. I worry far more when they are doing something for bribes... sorry, "campaign donations."

[kiryan]

What I'm saying is if they sell us healthcare reform on the principle that they are going to reduce waste, then you're a fool for believing them and they are liars (or incredibly naieve). The mammography study / recommendations would save a lot of "wasteful" spending. The very kind of wasteful spending Obama pledges to cut and the senate took a pass to pander to a key constituency.

The way you reduce costs in business is to control them, the way you control costs is to centralize them under someone who can say no. I firmly believe that this is not something the government is capable of doing. my favorite Civ 4 quote: The bureacracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureacracy.

[Sarvis]

What I'm saying is if they sell us healthcare reform on the principle that they are going to reduce waste, then you're a fool for believing them and they are liars (or incredibly naieve). The mammography study / recommendations would save a lot of "wasteful" spending. The very kind of wasteful spending Obama pledges to cut and the senate took a pass to pander to a key constituency.

The way you reduce costs in business is to control them, the way you control costs is to centralize them under someone who can say no. I firmly believe that this is not something the government is capable of doing. my favorite Civ 4 quote: The bureacracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureacracy.

If we could model society after a video game, I'd need one warrior to start with and I could conquer the world and lead it into a new age of space colonization.

Unfortunately this is reality, and despite your recent post about paying attention to statistics you are conveniently ignoring those that state every single socialized medicine system in the world provides better service than ours at a smaller cost.

[kiryan]

Really, because I've never seen "better" defined in statistics or applied so globally. Thats often the claim, that its better, but then you have anecdotal evidence that Canadians come to the US to get treatment that they waited for over 2 years in Canada and would've died from. Isn't that better if you don't want to die?

Come on mr thats a logical fallacy, thats a strawman argument. Every 2nd grader knows thats you can't compare apples and oranges.

[kiryan]

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Heal ... NF20091203

"The bills before Congress settle for timid pilot programs, rather than requiring major changes; creating incentives that apply only to Medicare, rather than across the board; and establishing a new oversight body, but severely limiting its scope of review," Ignagni, a top lobbyist for the health insurance industry, told the Detroit Economic Club.
(per a health insurer group)

Yea great reform, sure we're gonna save billions in "waste". Government task force just served up billions of dollars of waste in mammographies on a silver platter and our senators are filling up the trough instead.

[Sarvis]

Really, because I've never seen "better" defined in statistics or applied so globally. Thats often the claim, that its better, but then you have anecdotal evidence that Canadians come to the US to get treatment that they waited for over 2 years in Canada and would've died from. Isn't that better if you don't want to die?

Come on mr thats a logical fallacy, thats a strawman argument. Every 2nd grader knows thats you can't compare apples and oranges.

A long long time ago we went through a healthcare debate, and everyone listed tons of sources showing objectively in which areas each country's healthcare system dominated.

I remember Lathander (I think) pointing at the US dominance in morbidity as a good thing, because he didn't realize that was babies dying.

You pulled the wool over your own eyes then, and I'm too lazy to go back and dig up the info a second time these days.

[kiryan]

So as a potential compromise on the public health insurance option, they are talking about using the existing public healht insurance options (medicare) to cover more folks by reducing the age from 65 to 55. I thought it was priceless for this article to point out that the existing government health insurance program is "on an increasingly expensive financial track" (that they've known about for 20 years), and that our government is incapable of reining in the waste (due to the efforts of republicans and moderates).

What makes you think government can put together a better system with medicare and the native american care systems as an example of what they are capable of doing?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/0 ... 82728.html

Expanding Medicare would likely prove to be a tempting olive branch to progressives in the Senate. Former DNC Chairman Howard Dean, in addition to championing such a proposal during the 2004 presidential campaign, has long discussed framing the public plan as an extension of Medicare, one of the most popular government-run programs in the country.

But there are potential complications with the compromise proposal. Medicare already is on an increasingly expensive financial track, though efforts to cut some of the budgetary waste from the system have met with forceful pushback from moderates and Republicans in the Senate. In addition, the Senate weakened a proposed Medicare Commission, which would have been granted autonomy to suggest or pursue money-saving proposals.

[teflor the ranger]

and we will still get mammograms and save lives.

You know what else saves lives? Never crossing the street near buses and banning all pre-2000 Korean made cars. Heck, it'll save more lives and isn't anywhere near as environmentally damaging as mammograms. Heck, with fewer healthy and younger people getting mammograms, older women who are in greater need might actually be able to afford one.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Interesting article today in the New York Post.

[kiryan]

That sounds plausible.