Trust us...we know how to handle your health care

[Angry Irishman]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsi...buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

 

[Lithium381]

I appreciate your commentary

 

[fskimospy]

I have to say that when I read the article the recommendation seems perfectly reasonable and it was issued by a nonpolitical medical research group.

Is there something about this you find objectionable?

 

[Angry Irishman]

You know, I'm not even going to engage on this with you. No matter how you view the article it's a reduction in the quality of health care and a way to reduce treatments. The govt shouldn't be governing health care to begin with but that's another topic all together.

 

[silverpig]

I have to say that when I read the article the recommendation seems perfectly reasonable and it was issued by a nonpolitical medical research group.

Is there something about this you find objectionable?

I thought the same thing.

The research group found that people would go apeshit with chemo and radiation and operations for non-life-threatening, slowly growing cancers when it wasn't necessary.

Doctors would advise a certain course of action based on the best known medical knowledge, but because the word "cancer" was used, your average joe would override the doctor and go nuts with treatment.

The recommendation is to change the name of the non-life-threatening cancers so they don't scare people into overriding their doctor and going nuts with the wrong treatment.

It's just a way to get people to listen to their doctors.

 

[silverpig]

You know, I'm not even going to engage on this with you. No matter how you view the article it's a reduction in the quality of health care and a way to reduce treatments. The govt shouldn't be governing health care to begin with but that's another topic all together.

You posted the article with no commentary (against forum rules), and when someone asks a reasonable question based on a reasonable position derived from fact, you take your ball and go home?

 

[Angry Irishman]

OK fair enough....I would think the subject line would define my opinion.

 

[Mxylplyx]

OK fair enough....I would think the subject line would define my opinion.

So your position is based on a simplistic notion that more treatment is better than less treatment, even if more treatment actually harms the patient?

 

[fskimospy]

You know, I'm not even going to engage on this with you. No matter how you view the article it's a reduction in the quality of health care and a way to reduce treatments. The govt shouldn't be governing health care to begin with but that's another topic all together.

Actually it is not necessarily a reduction in the quality of health care at all. Treatment, in particular cancer treatment, not only has monetary costs but is frequently quite traumatic for the patient. Not treating things that don't need to be treated would INCREASE quality, not decrease it.

Also, reducing treatments that are not needed is precisely what we should be doing.

I don't know nearly enough about the types of cancer that they are attempting to reclassify to know if they are making a good call here, but the basic principle of differentiating between lesions that are likely to kill you and lesions that are not seems like a pretty good idea.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You know, I'm not even going to engage on this with you. No matter how you view the article it's a reduction in the quality of health care and a way to reduce treatments. The govt shouldn't be governing health care to begin with but that's another topic all together.

False equivalency.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Dum-dum conservative spams the forum with an article he doesn't understand in a knee-jerk reaction based on his preconceived ideas about a distantly tangential political circumstance.

Just another day on ATPN.

 

[Doppel]

I thought the same thing.

The research group found that people would go apeshit with chemo and radiation and operations for non-life-threatening, slowly growing cancers when it wasn't necessary.

Doctors would advise a certain course of action based on the best known medical knowledge, but because the word "cancer" was used, your average joe would override the doctor and go nuts with treatment.

The recommendation is to change the name of the non-life-threatening cancers so they don't scare people into overriding their doctor and going nuts with the wrong treatment.

It's just a way to get people to listen to their doctors.

i don't think changing the term to cater to stupid people is a good idea, especially since they can google what they have and find out that everybody else calls it cancer.

Most people know that some cancers are a death sentence and some little more than an annoyance (with recent medicine). Eventually what is now a death sentence won't be, will we then redefine that as non cancer?

There are plenty of illnesses that were never renamed when they went from severe to benign.

 

[fskimospy]

i don't think changing the term to cater to stupid people is a good idea, especially since they can google what they have and find out that everybody else calls it cancer.

Most people know that some cancers are a death sentence and some little more than an annoyance (with recent medicine). Eventually what is now a death sentence won't be, will we then redefine that as non cancer?

There are plenty of illnesses that were never renamed when they went from severe to benign.

They aren't talking about re naming cancer based on the efficacy of treatment, they are saying that certain lesions or tumors are categorically different in that they don't present a threat regardless of treatment. That seems like an important distinction to me.

 

[shira]

You know, I'm not even going to engage on this with you. No matter how you view the article it's a reduction in the quality of health care and a way to reduce treatments. The govt shouldn't be governing health care to begin with but that's another topic all together.

You're just revealing your own ignorance.

Let me cite another example of a condition that might in appropriate cases (many, many cases) be re-defined to be "Indolent lesions:" prostate cancer.

17 months ago, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded that routine prostate cancer screening using the PSA test actually resulted in far more harm than good. Because (1) the treatment for prostate cancer frequently causes serious harm, and (2) there's very little evidence that treatment of asymptomatic prostate cancers detected with PSA screening actually saves lives to any appreciable degree.

http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/prostatecancerscreening/prostatefinalrs.htm

In fact, getting routine PSA screen on average will lead to a 40-fold-greater likelihood that you'll be significantly harmed than that you'll be helped. And now other medical organizations are jumping on the same bandwagon:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/d...recommendations-for-prostate-cancer-screening

Under the new recommendations, PSA testing is no longer a "routine" procedure, and the risks versus benefits of PSA screening are to be discussed with each patient.

You, apparently, believe that more testing and more treatment is "better" medicine. But the fact is that if more testing and more treatment lead to more harm than good, then it's clear that LESS testing and LESS treatment is in these cases much BETTER medicine.

So, rather than simply label as a "reduction in the quality of health care" appropriate cases where "less" is actually more, maybe you should get a little better informed on this complex issue.

 

[techs]

The biggest thing to come to light so far with Obamacare is the Republicans constantly talk about how individuals are the best option to decide how to do things the government does.

Meanwhile despite a year to prepare, despite millions spent on educating people about Obamacare, most individuals know nothing about how it works and are making incredibly stupid decisions. There are huge numbers of people on Medicare trying to sign up for Obamacare when Medicare is not affected and does not apply to people on Medicare.
Yes, millions of Americans are deciding the best thing they can do is sign up for something they can't sign up for.

The whole "personal responsibility" thing is a ploy to make Americans deal with corporations who have shitloads of lawyers and tons of money to advertise become victims of marketing. Freedom to be ripped off, that's the Republicans mantra.

 

[Exterous]

They aren't talking about re naming cancer based on the efficacy of treatment, they are saying that certain lesions or tumors are categorically different in that they don't present a threat regardless of treatment.

Uh - no. Not even close to true:

However, a certain percentage of DCIS lesions can and will progress to clear-cut cancers.

Some cases will never advance while others become life-threatening. The problem, however, is not in the name; it is in the fact that it is not possible to know which cases will progress and which will not

i don't think changing the term to cater to stupid people is a good idea, especially since they can google what they have and find out that everybody else calls it cancer.

Well the article did show that people do base some of their decisions on the name used. The biggest concern is that people will over or under react to the news. Calling it cancer likely results in an over reaction in some cases. I would be willing to suspect that not calling it cancer would fail to motivate some people to do all they need to do to prevent the situation from getting worse.

From a purely semantics standpoint I think 'precancerous' is better than IDLE. It conveys the very real threat of possible future cancer diagnosis without illiciting quite the same level of fear as 'cancer' would by itself

 

[monovillage]

I'm sure they'll do just as good a job on our health care as they did on the Obamacare exchange roll out. I'm happy to trust them with the lives of every Democrat and liberal in this country along with their families.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I'm sure they'll do just as good a job on our health care as they did on the Obamacare exchange roll out. I'm happy to trust them with the lives of every Democrat and liberal in this country along with their families.

Straw Man.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm sure they'll do just as good a job on our health care as they did on the Obamacare exchange roll out. I'm happy to trust them with the lives of every Democrat and liberal in this country along with their families.

What the fuck are you talking about? Doing you even know what the ACA is and what it does?

 

[monovillage]

Straw Man.

You're an asshole.

 

[monovillage]

What the fuck are you talking about? Doing you even know what the ACA is and what it does?

You mean Obamacare?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You're an asshole.

And you're wrong.

 

[Binarycow]

As someone who is a registered independent I can honestly vouch for the notion that right-wing extremists are stupid and ignorant. They are too stupid to acquire and comprehend information that would correct their ignorance. It' nothing new.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Every post on here is like a predetermined social experiment. Responses are so typical as is the righty/lefty agenda behind everything. It's really no better than the way Congress operates.

I suppose my ultimate concern is I don't want government governing what doctors should be doing....not the federal government.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Dum-dum conservative spams the forum with an article he doesn't understand in a knee-jerk reaction based on his preconceived ideas about a distantly tangential political circumstance.

Just another day on ATPN.

Dum-dum liberal who has limitless faith in his government governing anything effectively.