Obama Did Lie!

[xotoxi]

...
Think of it this way. Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care.
...

The above example would not be considered an effective screening tool...the cost per saved life is too high.

However, screening tests like mammograms (which costs about $100) will avert breast cancer treatment which can cost $50,000-100,000 per patient.

No one would suggest that people should have annual full body CT scans to screen for pancreatic cancer.

 

[xotoxi]

...
How can that be? If you prevent somebody from getting a heart attack, aren't you necessarily saving money? The fallacy here is confusing the individual with society. For the individual, catching something early generally reduces later spending for that condition. But, explains Elmendorf, we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case, "it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway." And this costs society money that would not have been spent otherwise.
...

With preventive services, we are screening younger people...20s, 30s, 40s, 50s...to find preventable diseases that will affect them when they are in their 60s, 70s, 80s.

The lack of preventive medicine at a young age does cost society money, because those patients with out-of-control, expensive chronic diseases, are on Medicare.

 

[Annie]

...
How can that be? If you prevent somebody from getting a heart attack, aren't you necessarily saving money? The fallacy here is confusing the individual with society. For the individual, catching something early generally reduces later spending for that condition. But, explains Elmendorf, we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case, "it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway." And this costs society money that would not have been spent otherwise.
...

With preventive services, we are screening younger people...20s, 30s, 40s, 50s...to find preventable diseases that will affect them when they are in their 60s, 70s, 80s.

The lack of preventive medicine at a young age does cost society money, because those patients with out-of-control, expensive chronic diseases, are on Medicare.

and if we have 300 millions getting these tests, when only a small percentage in a given year or years time frame will be affected, we are spending many $$ for no reason.

What is the 'necessary testing' disease of the day?

 

[xotoxi]

With preventive services, we are screening younger people...20s, 30s, 40s, 50s...to find preventable diseases that will affect them when they are in their 60s, 70s, 80s.

The lack of preventive medicine at a young age does cost society money, because those patients with out-of-control, expensive chronic diseases, are on Medicare.

and if we have 300 millions getting these tests, when only a small percentage in a given year or years time frame will be affected, we are spending many $$ for no reason.

What is the 'necessary testing' disease of the day?

Preventive services are performed in a cost effective and evidence based way.

For example, mammograms are not performed until age 40 because the likelihood of finding a cancer in someone younger than that is very low.

Colonoscopies are started at age 50, or 10 years prior to the diagnosis of colon cancer in a first degree relative. If normal, they are performed every 10 years, as it has been found that colon cancers are unlikely to develop and grow that quickly and that more frequent screening is not cost effective (not to mention invasive and potentially harmful).

Screening for high cholesterol is started early...in some high risk teens, such as obese or with known familial hyperlipidemias, or at least in the 20s. If the screening cholesterol is normal, I would not repeat this for 3-5 years unless there is some reason to.

The whole point of all of these tests is to find cost effective ways to try to prevent people from having a massive heart attack the day after they go onto Medicare, getting hospitalized, having open heart surgery to repair the blown valves and perform a coronary bypass, followed by months of cardiac rehab, convalescent center, thousands of dollars of meds, home nursing services, repeat hospitalizations for bouts of congestive heart failure, subsequent arrhythmias with pacemaker placement, then cardiac arrest, revival and determination that the heart needs to be transplanted, further months of rehab and nursing home care, tens of thousands of dollars of immunosuppresive medications, full term home care, more hospitalizations due to infections, etc...

You don't think that would cost a lot to the taxpayers?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

This is a really retarded argument.
Is the upfront cost higher? Yes. Does preventive care reduce long-run cost? Yes.

But.... That's not what Obama said.

Move the goalposts much?

if it reduces long-term cost why would he have to specify? personally, i would think that's common sense anyway...larger initial investment with a pay-off later on.

IF being the operative word there.

When has that promise of "reduced long-term cost" ever worked?

Answer: Never.

Instead of being dishonest, he could have been clear, like he always says he wants to be:

http://eipnetworks.com/clear.mp3

 

[AllieBaba]

but about 'preventative care.' I found this at politifact, thanks, Jillian:

hey, kath...where are all your threads calling the freaks talking about 2 million people at the 9.12 event liars?

thanks for proving that you've turned into a blowhard.

cheers!

as for politifact, if you can get your head out of your rear long enough to actually get your brain oxygenated again, you'd know I'm all for them calling everyone on their inaccuracies.

you?

only if it suits your political agenda.

now...if you didn't feel like doing the personal thing, kathianne, this might have made for an interesting discussion.

once again...seriously, go destress til you can act like a person again.

Did we ever get a count on that rally?

How odd.

 

[oreo]

Obama has said alot that is not quite true. Like illegals "not" being covered under his health are bill. After Joe Wilson's outburst--stating "you lie"--it turns out that Obama has again mislead the American public. Under sec. 1702 of HR3200--it discloses that illegals will not be asked what their immigration status is--so they can get extended medicade benefits in HR3200.

While I agree that preventatiive cancer screenings should be done by the individual--in order to save their own lives. It will add costs to HR3200 in order to do so.

 

[Pagan]

Of course he lied, he's a Politician

 

[DiveCon]

Of course he lied, he's a Politician

dont they all?