ABC Warns Republicans Against Challenging ObamaCare

Ronbo wrote: I never said the test should not be done. Archer asked "Where is the cost effectiveness so I told her. People who state that preventive care is always cheeper than treating something in later stages tend to ignore the total cost of performing those test on the entire population and only compare how much it cost for one person to get the test compared to the cost of treating that one person.

Of course, the original assumption that "If that $3,000 test is found to be positive in only 1 out of 100 people,..." was your own pull-it-out-of-thin-air assumption. What if it's 2 people out of 100?...3? ... 4? Unless you have a source to back it up, it's nothing more than a hypothetical.

[sarcasm]In the meantime, I'm SURE that if it turned out that YOU were one of the ones who didn't get tested and then found out later that you already had late-stage cancer, you would certainly feel the same way...[/sarcasm]

OK, here ar the actual statistics as reported by the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/state.htm

The highest rate they found in the US was 56.9 per 100,000. So using Archers figures of a $3,000 test versus the a cost of $100,000 to treat it, the difference would be $300,000,000 to test 100,000 people versus only $5,690,000 to treat the 56.9 people who actually developed colon cancer.

Ronbo wrote: I never said the test should not be done. Archer asked "Where is the cost effectiveness so I told her. People who state that preventive care is always cheeper than treating something in later stages tend to ignore the total cost of performing those test on the entire population and only compare how much it cost for one person to get the test compared to the cost of treating that one person.

What price do you put on saving even one person's life out of a hundred? Would you feel the same if it is your loved one's life who is saved?

I just can't get my mind around those who think healthcare is a dollars and cents issue......good basic healthcare and preventive medicine should be available to each and every citizen of this nation, whether they can afford to pay for it or not. The US is the only industrialized nation that does not think this way......why do we value our citizens less than other nations?

Ronbo wrote: OK, here ar the actual statistics as reported by the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/state.htm

The highest rate they found in the US was 56.9 per 100,000. So using Archers figures of a $3,000 test versus the a cost of $100,000 to treat it, the difference would be $300,000,000 to test 100,000 people versus only $5,690,000 to treat the 56.9 people who actually developed colon cancer.

So, you're okay if one of the untested persons who dies a slow and painful death (that could have been prevented) is your wife? child? grandmother? uncle? cousin? Mom? Dad? I just want to get a handle on who you think is "expendable" and "not worth it"... I mean, after illegal aliens and blacks and gays, who is expendable to you?

Ok, You and Archer have convinced me. We should pay for colonoscopies for every single person in the United States, regardess of age, every year from birth. By doing this we may be able to prevent someone from having to go through the procuedures to treat colon cancer in its later stages. :faint:

The truth is that health care is a dollars and cents issue and it must be based on actually percentages. Archer said that her insurance would not pay for the test until last year. I don't know if that was because she was too young or if they just did not cover it for anyone. But all insurance (even if the government should offer a single payer option) has to base their coverage on actually percentages and cannot offer every test for every illness to everybody.

Ronbo wrote: Ok, You and Archer have convinced me. We should pay for colonoscopies for every single person in the United States, regardess of age, every year from birth. By doing this we may be able to prevent someone from having to go through the procuedures to treat colon cancer in its later stages. :faint:

The truth is that health care is a dollars and cents issue and it must be based on actually percentages. Archer said that her insurance would not pay for the test until last year. I don't know if that was because she was too young or if they just did not cover it for anyone. But all insurance (even if the government should offer a single payer option) has to base their coverage on actually percentages and cannot offer every test for every illness to everybody.

the falacy in your argument is that not everyone will get the tests.......for whatever reason. But.....if a person truly wants to stay healthy those tests should be available, and covered by insurance. For me, my insurance company did not cover the test for anyone......they just started including it in their preventive coverage. Interesting thing.....for me to have gotten the test on my own (and yes, I was well past the age where is is highly recommended) the colonoscopy would have cost me about the $3000......but having it after my insurance covered it the cost they had negotiated was $980.......what's fair about that? My cancer treatments cost the ins company a little over $100,000, but the cost to me, if I had no insurance, would have been more than double. For those who cannot afford health insurance, what makes us think they can afford the treatments for serious diseases? So you and I and everyone else ends up paying for them anyway......or they die, pick one.

Whether you are willing to admit it or not Dog, if you have an insurance policy that has the insurance company paying first dollar benefits, the cost of that policy for which you pay monthly premiums includes the cost of the benefits the insurance company expects to pay on every policy issued. If the history of that group shows that covering the Jefferson County School employees results in an average of 3.4 primary care physician visits per subscriber each year at an average cost of $150 per visit, the premium they charge for covering someone on that policy will include an additional $42.50 each month to cover the expected outlay of benefits over and above what the rest of the policy, the insurance portion, would cost.

That additional $510 dollars is prepaid health care, not insurance. It is a bit different than the actuarial tables that show that an average prostrate cancer rate of 3.4 per thousand people at an average cost of $20K per person upon which the insurance premiums to cover everyone in the group are derived. And now, thanks to the 111th Cramdown Congress, the insurance companies get to raise that premium to cover the cost that used to come out of pocket in the form of a copay once a year times the number of people covered on the policy. For a family of 4 with a copay of $35 per visit, that's an additional $14.60 a month when you realize that the Congress mandated payouts equal 80% of premiums, which allows the insurance company to tack on an additional 25% and still stay within the congressional mandates. Doesn't that make you all warm and fuzzy inside when you realize Pelosi and Reid just gave the insurance companies a 25% profit on the out of pocket money you used to pay when you went to the doctor's office that you are still paying for on a monthly installment plan?

...if a person truly wants to stay healthy those tests should be available, and covered by insurance...

Archer, I think you are confusing covered and pre-paid. Why do people assume that "covered" means you aren't paying anything? You either pay up front (premiums) or at the time of your visit (cash).

I do agree that the prices are all over the place and that is BS. Why should Medicare pay $950 and a private person pay $3000? And an insurance co negotiate something in between.

archer wrote: What price do you put on saving even one person's life out of a hundred? Would you feel the same if it is your loved one's life who is saved?

I just can't get my mind around those who think healthcare is a dollars and cents issue......good basic healthcare and preventive medicine should be available to each and every citizen of this nation, whether they can afford to pay for it or not. The US is the only industrialized nation that does not think this way......why do we value our citizens less than other nations?

We don't value our citizens less, we value our individual liberty more. That is the short answer. It was never intended that this form of government be responsible for the individual welfare of the citizen. The general government was established to take care of external affairs and affairs between the states. The states were to be responsible for their own citizens. That's the disconnect between the republican principles upon which the nation was founded and the social democracy principles the progressives seek to have it operate upon in the here and now. In the Utopia you seek to create, no one would have to pay for anything at all. Doctors would treat people for free, farmers would feed doctors with the fruits of their labor, mechanics would fix the farmers tractor for free, the tractor manufacturer would provide the tractor to grow the food - all for the benefit of each other and society. We would have no need of money at all, we would also have no need of a government or for taxes. The government of this nation was not tasked with, and was never intended for, taking care of you from cradle to grave, though many here seem to aspire to allowing it to do so.

As for the rest of it, it is all a dollar and cents issue archer. Food is a dollar and cents issue, housing, clothing and yes, even health care. The general government of this nation was not founded with an intention of what it must do for you as an individual, it was founded upon the idea of what it must do to preserve your ability to be as close to the absolute of individual liberty and freedom as possible. That is why the general government was intended to be chained by the Constitution, not given total and absolute power over every thing and everyone by it. Your utopia is naught but slavery archer. I don't want to be the subject of my government, that is what the War for Independence was fought to undo.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Ronbo wrote: OK, here ar the actual statistics as reported by the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/state.htm

The highest rate they found in the US was 56.9 per 100,000. So using Archers figures of a $3,000 test versus the a cost of $100,000 to treat it, the difference would be $300,000,000 to test 100,000 people versus only $5,690,000 to treat the 56.9 people who actually developed colon cancer.

So, you're okay if one of the untested persons who dies a slow and painful death (that could have been prevented) is your wife? child? grandmother? uncle? cousin? Mom? Dad? I just want to get a handle on who you think is "expendable" and "not worth it"... I mean, after illegal aliens and blacks and gays, who is expendable to you?

So, you are OK with the idea that it is OK to spend $300,000,000 to test 100,000 people to find the 56.9, and anyone who does not think so is a racist? Why am I not surprised.