Friday, October 15, 2010
A liberal who likes Harry Reid and dislikes both Sharron Angle and Ronald Reagan, among others, explains why Reid beclowned himself in his debate against Angle. I liked this bit, but it's all pretty funny.
Reid had a remarkable chance to score points when Fox asked Angle if she favored requiring health insurance companies to cover certain procedures. “What we have is a choice between the free market and Americanism,” Angle said. “The free market will weed out those companies that don’t offer as many choices and don’t offer a cost-effective system.” In short, Angle was saying that insurance companies should be subject to almost zero regulation.
Offered such a clear expression of Angle’s zealotry, Reid almost refrained from blowing the opportunity. “Insurance companies don’t do things out of the goodness of their hearts,” Reid began. “They do it out of a profit motive, and they have almost destroyed our economy.”
But things quickly got a great deal less coherent:We need them to be forced to do mammograms. That’s why you see breast cancer awareness month. You see the baseball players wearing pink shoes, and you the football players having pink, uh, uh, helmets. It’s because people dread breast cancer, and you don’t get breast cancer, you can—correct breast cancer—you detect it if you do mammograms. Colonoscopies, if you do colonoscopies, colon cancer does not come because you snip off the—things they find when they go up and—no more, and we need to have insurance companies do this…
Forgive me if I choose to snip off Reid’s answer there.
I know, I know, my schadenfreude is showing.
Harry should have thought of another approach. Remember last year when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, suggested mammograms be reduced.
"The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, however, changed its screening recommendations in fall 2009 to say women ages 50 to 74 should be screened every two years, and average-risk women ages 40 to 49 should discuss screening with their doctor.
The change in guidelines was based on a report that analyzed several randomized clinical trials and models of mammography screening.
In recommending changes to mammography guidelines, the task force cited potential harms of screening mammograms, which include anxiety, discomfort, radiation risk, the need for women to return for additional imaging and the risk of a biopsy when no cancer is present.
But studies show that mammography callbacks resulting in unnecessary biopsies are uncommon, according to U of M experts."
"Harry should have thought of another approach"
I doubt that Reid has the processing power above the neck to publicly discuss this controversial subject.
Lots of "studies", coupled with a tidal wave of bad data collection, poor study design and, consequenty, inappropriate conclusions have made this subject dangerous ground for any politician.
Having siad that, the same is true for Global warming (or whatever the current term-of-the-week is) and that doesn't keep the politicians cautious.
I guess there's no money or political power to be gleaned from breast cancer.
Heh...remember when the Idiot-in-Chief was campaigning and said that surgeons get $50,000 for an amputation.
Since it was a given that all doctors are greedy bastards in the eyes of Democrats, I decided to do the math and see if it would work for me.
Since I treat about 6-8 people a week for vascular problems that require procedures, if I could talk only two of them into just saying "what the Hell" and having an amputation...well, that's a hundred grand a week in the Democrat fantasy world. On a yearly basis, that would pull in a cool 5.2 million bucks (assuming I didn't take any vacation)without doing ANY night or weekend call.
Hope and Change, baby!!!!!
Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that Obama is a poorly informed idiot and that most docs amputate as a last resort...and get about 600 bucks from Medicare.