After all, you've said a number fo times my view of the UK System is invalid, because it's only my own family experience, not a wider statistical analysis.
A such, does that not self-invalidate your one guy and his bones argument?
As a further question, why (what reason) would Sloan, Mayo and MD Anderson not perform the procedure? Did they not feel it was medically called for?
Would it be done in 2014, under the A.C.A. at those locations? If so, why? Or why not?
Last edited by Warfish; 07-12-2012 at 04:20 PM.
Fish, you always ask others to do your homework for you, so why dont you do some homework for once...tell me (and show me the evidence to support it), how many people from Europe come to the USA for treatments that are not available in their own country? How many Americans go to other countries for treatments not available to the USA? How many Americans go to other countries for treatments available in the USA but are cheaper elsewhere?
If you can not answer these questions with data to support it, I dont want to hear from you or anyone else the statement "how many people come to the USa for treatments..."
And to answer your question, Bone Marrow Transplants are still not standard therapy for Idiopathic Myelofibrosis though they are being done in the USA more now than then. It depends who you consult with
Non FDA approved treatments are done all the time in oncology.
I like your cute analogy. The cruise ship went down in Italy not Greece. But inbred, ignorant U'Muuurkinns like you wouldnt know the difference. Because we all know that every pilot born in the USA is a "Captain Sully" and no screw ups were ever committed by an American
Given what I know, I wouldn't trust any claim about these one way or the other, pro or con my own viewpoint. You may know medicine my good friend, but I'll go out on a limb and guess you don't know much about how Govt. and other statistical data is collected, compiled and the like, and how grossly inaccurate, partial and outright fraudulent so much of it is.Fish, you always ask others to do your homework for you, so why dont you do some homework for once...tell me (and show me the evidence to support it), how many people from Europe come to the USA for treatments that are not available in their own country? How many Americans go to other countries for treatments not available to the USA? How many Americans go to other countries for treatments available in the USA but are cheaper elsewhere?
Something as loose as "medical tourism", in the U.S.? I wouldn't trust as accurate any number listed tbqh, and trust even less such a stat provided by most other nations.
I doub;t you'll agree, because for now the posted numbers may back your point (I have no idea, freely admitted), but my doubts in Govt. supplied or poll supplied numbers, and why, is well founded, and stongly non-partisan.
I can't recall having ever made such a statement, and I have to point out that I'm as unpopular of opinion with the right here as I am the left. Just ask Flushing.If you can not answer these questions with data to support it, I dont want to hear from you or anyone else the statement "how many people come to the USa for treatments..."
So, to the point I was making, someone, somewhere, decided (as you've long argued) that that treatment is not medically called for for that condition, and hence not covered.And to answer your question, Bone Marrow Transplants are still not standard therapy for Idiopathic Myelofibrosis though they are being done in the USA more now than then. It depends who you consult with
Under a Govt. system, the decison maker may be a comittee of political apointees and doctors, instead of insurance co. stats men and doctors, but the end result, denial, is the same.
That was my larger point here. Denials will occur, and you supprt that strongly in your rhetoric....except if you think it's warranted, then you don't support it. For every you, strong in beleif treatment X is unwarranted, there is likely a you out there bemoaning why BMT isn't beng done to treat X, Y or Z.
The ony difference is who the gatekeeper is. In both cases, the individual citizen is powerless against both Insurance Co hack, and Government Drone.
As such, you'll never convince him of something Nationalistic. To him, all peopel are people, none better or worse (well, Americans may be the worst), and any such jigoistic nationalism is inherantly counter to one world socialism, and he will not agree or support such things.
Give him credit, at least he's honest about his loathing of U.S. Naionalism/Patriotism. I may disagree, but I do love his strait forward honesty.
I don't believe it is possible for the crash that happened on the Italian Cruise ship could have happened in the States. That captain had ignored protocols on multiple occasions in the past. Every company in America would have fired that guy long ago for fear of liability.
This topic however has become pointless. Obamacare is a screwjob on 300 million Americans that currently purchase insurance. We were promised lower premiums and instead they have been rising at the fastest pace in years. We were promised minimal deficits and the CBO numbers on the cost have already tripled. What was 900B over 10 is now 2.6T. I expect that number to continue to rise. Access to care will be reduced due to 20million new names on the medicaid rolls. All that alongside a slew of new taxes and IPAB reductions in compensation to physicians.
Just lowering the cost of insurance through Tort Reform, portability and competition across state lines would have cost nothing and likely increased the number of insured people by a similar amount. Here is a basic principal of economics for you. When it's cheaper more people will buy it.
Last edited by chiefst2000; 07-13-2012 at 11:45 AM.
Who cares how much it costs they will just raise taxes. Just imagine when most companies drop health insurance for their employees. What does Obama care he isn't footing the bill. Politicians just can't say NO!
Likewisecompetition across state lines will result in insurances with watered down regulations and of poor quality.
These are not solutions. They are tired old talking points from the right.
One kernel of truth in your post (and i had to look hard to find it) regards the "watered down insurance" concept. In order to open competetion across state lines a basic minimum standard would need to be established.
I would suggest the following standards, No lifetime maximum, Customers can not be dropped once they get sick. Finally I would implement the NYS rule that anyone that has been continuously covered is elligible for any plan and can not get dropped. Other then that for the most part let each company detail the services they provide and the customer can decide.
I already plan on moving to another country with a better healthcare system than the socialist crap America is getting. We had the best and most efficient healthcare system in the world and now the Kenyan has ruined it.
Last edited by detjetsfan; 07-15-2012 at 04:32 AM.
As a physician I can tell you that the reason that anyone who states that he will not promote tort reform would be booed at a Physicians conference is not because physicians feel tort reform will cut down on the nations health care costs. Its because most physicians are sick and tired of paying these ludicrous malpractice insurance fees. When I was in private practice these fees were incredibly burdensome. Now that I work for the VA its one less thing to worry about.
Tort reform will not cut down on health care spending. This has been shown in Texas where medical malpractice payouts have been capped and suing hospitals is more difficult than in any other state. After this proposition was passed in 2002, between 2002-2009, health care costs did not drop and the number of medical tests slightly increased. Additionally between 2003-2010 health insurance premiums went up 46% and the average cost of a family plan went up 52%.
What happened in Texas is not specific to just one state. Same thing was seen in Ohio after they passed tort reform.
I would strongly encourage anyone who has a sincere interest in this matter to read the study put out by Dartmouth (ill look for link). I know right wing guys like chiefst2000 hate academia and stupid things like research and studies but its an excellent study that shows why tort reform is not an answer to the healthcare crisis we face.
The biggest problem with people who keep shouting tort reform as a solution is that they assume that fear of lawsuits is the main reason why doctors order unnecessary tests. This is incredibly naive, simplistic and wrong. The factors as to why MDs order all these tests is far more complicated.