• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Juddog said:
We all know the reason - it's because Obama helped create it. If Romney had won the election and had passed literally the exact same law you'd see a bunch of threads from him talking about how great it was.
Click to expand...

And you'd be wrong....I've already stated my reasons. It's not the job of the federal government. Simple enough for you? This is my opinion regardless of the person in office. Here you are implying how great it is with Obama. If it were Romney you would say the opposite. The political zealots on here are amazing as is the hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
ivwshane said:
Another straw man? Color me surprised! I never said any of that nor did I imply it. I simply pointed out that your biggest concern about healthcare was addressed by the ACA and then I asked what was your next excuse for not liking it. Naturally you didn't answer the questuon.

You are certainly welcome to your own opinion just not your own facts. If you dislike obamacare but have no valid reasons just say so.
Click to expand...

Strawman my ass. Again, you interpret what you wish. I don't care what you pointed out as I don't believe it....understand. Your facts from the ACA handbook are propaganda as far as I'm concerned. Wait just a few years to see how your provided "facts" transform into reality. See how cost effective this legislation is later. The federal government isn't really known for efficiency or cost effectiveness.
 
Last edited:
Angry Irishman said:
Strawman my ass. Again, you interpret what you wish. I don't care what you pointed out as I don't believe it....understand. Your facts from the ACA handbook are propaganda as far as I'm concerned. Wait just a few years to see how your provided "facts" transform into reality. See how cost effective this legislation is later. The federal government isn't really known for efficiency or cost effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Another "I wear my ignorance on my sleeve and I'm proud of it" idiot.

We get it, you don't believe facts. We get it, you don't know what the ACA is.
We get it, you hate the government except when it's contributing to your pay check.
 
ivwshane said:
Another "I wear my ignorance on my sleeve and I'm proud of it" idiot.

We get it, you don't believe facts. We get it, you don't know what the ACA is.
We get it, you hate the government except when it's contributing to your pay check.
Click to expand...

No I believe in facts.....as proven over many years with other programs run by the feds. The ACA will be no different, in fact, over the course of time will be much worse unless something magical happens. It's already slated to cost more than it was initially pitched as....that's just the beginning.

You believe in everything the media or a government reports or pamphlet has to say....as long as its from the left. Then you declare it fact. Naive and somewhat idiotic.

Big difference. The government is paying me for something I earned while contributing to this country in ways I'm sure you'll never accept or understand (and not much in comparison to what is paid to them in taxes); Again, big difference.

I don't hate the government but it sure isn't doing a very effective job now is it? It's really OK to be critical of your elected officials especially when the country is in debt over it's head, spying on it's citizens along with a myriad of other short comings. I do love my country and not just a political party. As long as folks such as yourself continue to staunchly choose solely left or right over common sense nothing will change.

You just have insults and negativity of anyone who doesn't accept your "facts" which again reflects your real character....that's typically what you wear on your sleeve.
 
Last edited:
Angry Irishman said:
And you'd be wrong....I've already stated my reasons. It's not the job of the federal government. Simple enough for you? This is my opinion regardless of the person in office. Here you are implying how great it is with Obama. If it were Romney you would say the opposite. The political zealots on here are amazing as is the hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Please tell me then - how many provisions of the ACA have you actually read through?
 
Angry Irishman said:
No I believe in facts.....as proven over many years with other programs run by the feds. The ACA will be no different, in fact, over the course of time will be much worse unless something magical happens. It's already slated to cost more than it was initially pitched as....that's just the beginning.

You believe in everything the media or a government reports or pamphlet has to say....as long as its from the left. Then you declare it fact. Naive and somewhat idiotic.

Big difference. The government is paying me for something I earned while contributing to this country in ways I'm sure you'll never accept or understand (and not much in comparison to what is paid to them in taxes); Again, big difference.

You just have insults which again reflects your real character.
Click to expand...

Well when you go out and spout of nonsense that isn't in the actual bill, what do you expect people to say?
 
Just as the shutdown was resolved so shall Obamacare be resolved. It is destined to fall flat on its face. The first payments from enrollee's which will cover healthcare starting January 1st are due mid-December. The web interface is not going to be ready and will not be able to handle the amount of traffic needed for it to survive. Insurance companies are reporting that the data they are receiving is unusable. It's a clusterfuck unlike any we've seen in our lifetime. Some people know this and some people are in denial.

The government created this leviathan and it has .gov fingerprints all over it. It will not and cannot function as it was conceived and implemented.

So, what is in our future? After we know for certain that it has failed, which will be after a ton of spin from the government, several things will occur. Foremost, blame will have to be assessed. It will of course be the fault of Republicans, the TEA Party and probably Bush will be thrown in for good measure. Then, somebody with some influence is going to realize that we have wasted more than a Trillion (2 Trillion, more?) on it and will become vocal about that. Blame will have to assessed. Once again, it will of course be the fault of Republicans, the TEA Party and probably Bush will be thrown in for good measure. The usual suspects.

The left will be outraged (mistakenly, of course) that the right snatched from their jaws the golden goose. But there will be this huge bigger problem that the left will not face because it is not in their nature to do so. We will have fallen so much deeper down the financial rabbit hole that daylight will not be visible.

As the future unfolds before us, smart people are thinking of life after the failure of Obamacare. Not so smart people still think it's going to happen.
 
Last edited:
boomerang said:
Just as the shutdown was resolved so shall Obamacare be resolved. It is destined to fall flat on its face. The first payments from enrollee's which will cover healthcare starting January 1st are due mid-December. The web interface is not going to be ready and will not be able to handle the amount of traffic needed for it to survive. Insurance companies are reporting that the data they are receiving is unusable. It's a clusterfuck unlike any we've seen in our lifetime. Some people know this and some people are in denial.

The government created this leviathan and it has .gov fingerprints all over it. It will not and cannot function as it was conceived and implemented.

So, what is in our future? After we know for certain that it has failed, which will be after a ton of spin from the government, several things will occur. Foremost, blame will have to be assessed. It will of course be the fault of Republicans, the TEA Party and probably Bush will be thrown in for good measure. Then, somebody with some influence is going to realize that we have wasted more than a Trillion (2 Trillion, more?) on it and will become vocal about that. Blame will have to assessed. Once again, it will of course be the fault of Republicans, the TEA Party and probably Bush will be thrown in for good measure. The usual suspects.

The left will be outraged (mistakenly, of course) that the right snatched from their jaws the golden goose. But there will be this huge bigger problem that the left will not face because it is not in their nature to do so. We will have fallen so much deeper down the financial rabbit hole that daylight will not be visible.

As the future unfolds before us, smart people are thinking of life after the failure of Obamacare. Not so smart people still think it's going to happen.
Click to expand...


Don't you think Obamacare is "Too big to fail?" I mean, insurance coverages for 2014 have already been decided with Obamacare in mind. The policies have already made their way into insurance companies' plans and how they do things. Isn't it a bit late?

If it does fail, then will we go back to the old system or will a new one take its place? Will the new one be even more gigantic and burdensome?

By the way, I wonder how many people have successfully signed up on the Healthcare.gov website. I haven't tried it yet. Don't know what I'm waiting for 😀
 
Last edited:
Exterous said:
Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken but...you aren't serious are you?



http://globocan.iarc.fr/factsheets/cancers/prostate.asp
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/detailedguide/prostate-cancer-key-statistics
Click to expand...
False - indolent lesions of epithelial origin are the second leading cause of cancer death in American men. You may think these are the same, but since screening and treatment for indolent lesions of epithelial origin can be sacrificed to provide health care for someone else you'd obviously be wrong.

True, some percentage of men with indolent lesions of epithelial origin will die from them, but they can take comfort knowing that other men who will not die from indolent lesions of epithelial origin were not frightened. Think of the greater good, man! Think of the children!

/sarcasm
 
raildogg said:
Don't you think Obamacare is "Too big to fail?" I mean, insurance coverages for 2014 have already been decided with Obamacare in mind. The policies have already made their way into insurance companies' plans and how they do things. Isn't it a bit late?

If it does fail, then will we go back to the old system or will a new one take its place? Will the new one be even more gigantic and burdensome?

By the way, I wonder how many people have successfully signed up on the Healthcare.gov website. I haven't tried it yet. Don't know what I'm waiting for 😀
Click to expand...
There is no way the bureaucracy is giving up health care and losing thousands of good government jobs; the media would literally be saying that is the end of life as we know it. In general, federal government programs do not die, they simply morph and grow, because every program has a constituency. Shut down the program and you piss off that constituency, and pissed off people won't vote for you. Whatever Obamacare morphs into, it will be bigger than the ACA at present.

As far as the financial rabbit hole, given that we have one party who feels we need to be digging much more quickly and one party who feels the big problem is that they aren't in charge of the digging, I tend to agree with Boomerang that we're screwed. The good news is that life in a post-crash America is still likely to be pretty darned good. Often we forget that.
 
Angry Irishman said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in the article that says that is happening.

Its all speculation on the part of the author, and you.
 
Angry Irishman said:
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.
Click to expand...

It has long been shown that increased treatment does not make for better healthcare. In fact, the opposite is absolutely true.

You know what else? more treatments = more expensive. Oh my...could this be one of the ways that healthcare costs are going to start falling?


And even though the government is not going to be involved in your healthcare like you fear they will, let's play your game: Why do you prefer the insurance company meddling in your healthcare needs over the government? Why is option A better than option B?
 
monovillage said:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prostate-cancer-metastasis/AN02203/rss=2


http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/metastatic
http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/metastatic-prostate-cancer
Click to expand...

No one disputes that prostate cancer kills about 30,000 American men each year. But the most recent studies have found that routine PSA screening and the medical interventions it leads to cause far more harm then good.

People don't understand this because they think that "early detection" is some sort of magic bullet. But the problem is threefold:

  • High PSA readings inevitably lead to needle biopsies, and these biopsies are not without risk (they can even kill you!):

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/805575

a very provocative paper was presented by Boniol and associates.[1] They analyzed the 120-day mortality rates in men who participated in the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian) screening trial, and the results were somewhat disturbing. They observed that at 120 days, the death rate was 1.3 per 1000 biopsies done in men without cancer, and was higher -- 3.5 per 1000 men -- in those who had a positive biopsy for cancer.

This is somewhat consistent with a previous analysis of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. That study resulted in a net conclusion that the harms outweighed the benefits. It's important to understand how this occurs. If someone dies prematurely from a biopsy at an average age of 62, he may have lost about 13 years from his life expectancy. On the other hand, for those men who are avoiding a cancer death as a result of screening, which we know is about 1 per 1000 men screened in 12 years, they may gain only a few years of added life expectancy from the time they would have died of something else.
Click to expand...
  • If a cancer is found, it's treated in most cases, since the state of the art of prostate-cancer evaluation is that there's no accurate way to predict which prostate cancers will be dangerous and which won't be. Yet these treatments are associated with several serious and common side effects.
  • As indicated in (1), the estimated odds of avoiding prosate cancer death as a result of screening are VERY small, yet the side effects are serious and common. So it's not at all surprising that when you add up the negatives (times their incidence) and add up the positives (times their incidence) the scale tips far to the side of "don't get tested unless you already know you're at high risk for invasive prostate cancer."

Again, "more medicine" doesn't equate to "better medicine" in all cases. There are often VERY good reasons for NOT being tested or NOT being treated.
 
shira said:
No one disputes that prostate cancer kills about 30,000 American men each year. But the most recent studies have found that routine PSA screening and the medical interventions it leads to cause far more harm then good.

People don't understand this because they think that "early detection" is some sort of magic bullet. But the problem is threefold:

  • High PSA readings inevitably lead to needle biopsies, and these biopsies are not without risk (they can even kill you!):

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/805575


  • If a cancer is found, it's treated in most cases, since the state of the art of prostate-cancer evaluation is that there's no accurate way to predict which prostate cancers will be dangerous and which won't be. Yet these treatments are associated with several serious and common side effects.
  • As indicated in (1), the estimated odds of avoiding prosate cancer death as a result of screening are VERY small, yet the side effects are serious and common. So it's not at all surprising that when you add up the negatives (times their incidence) and add up the positives (times their incidence) the scale tips far to the side of "don't get tested unless you already know you're at high risk for invasive prostate cancer."

Again, "more medicine" doesn't equate to "better medicine" in all cases. There are often VERY good reasons for NOT being tested or NOT being treated.
Click to expand...
I'd like to go on record as not believing that anywhere near 3.5/1000 OR 1.3/1000 men die from a freakin' prostate biopsy. (And yes, I've had one.) This falls under lies, damn lies, and statistics.
 
werepossum said:
I'd like to go on record as not believing that anywhere near 3.5/1000 OR 1.3/1000 men die from a freakin' prostate biopsy. (And yes, I've had one.) This falls under lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Click to expand...

3.5/1000 is tiny. The biopsy can cause UTI or (more rarely) sepsis, and in people with haematological disorders it can cause clots or uncontrolled bleeding. In addition, you have risks from the anaesthetic, including malignant hyperthermia, anaphylaxis, seizures, arrhythmias, and cardiac arrest (especially if it's accidentally injected into a blood vessel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top