MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 This place has really gone to ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 This place has really gone to ****. When was that mythical age of PPP who's glory we fall so short of? PPP is what it has always been, a small sprinkle of lucid interesting posts on a giant Sunday of incoherent rants, psychological projection, and ad hominem attacks, truly a living monument to the Dunning–Kruger effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 When was that mythical age of PPP who's glory we fall so short of? PPP is what it has always been, a small sprinkle of lucid interesting posts on a giant Sunday of incoherent rants, psychological projection, and ad hominem attacks, truly a living monument to the Dunning–Kruger effect. Says the guy who's been here for 18 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Says the guy who's been here for 18 months. I've been on this board since Wade Philips, mostly posting TSW but occasionally scanning PPP- of course that was when I was working 64-72hrs a week so I was only an occasional poster - but why don't you pull up a thread or 10 where an issue was discussed rationally and without rancor and impress the hell out of me, otherwise it's all fishing stories and hazy remembrance of high school glory days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 http://www.huffingto...tle=505_million Well, a long-term chronic disease that is on the rise in the fastest growing segment of the US population, that is certainly good news. Healthcare is the single biggest threat to the US, and we are no where even close to dealing with the Monster, Trillion many times over issue.... B-Large, I suggest you reread your post and perhaps rephrase it. You said "Healthcare is the single biggest threat to the US". How does "Healthcare" threaten the US? Seriously. We've gone around and around on the issue of "Healthcare" and have never settled on what it means. Healthcare insurance is another matter entirely, and most posters here, and probably most Americans blur the distinction between the two. Perhaps you have here as well. When BO Care came on the scene, we never could - and still can't get a definitive statement about what it will cover - if the Supremes don't perform a partial-birth abortion on it later this month. Who and what gets covered? Podiatrist, Chiropractic and Homeopathic visits? Are HoverRounds still covered? Hearing aids and viagra? How about the medicinal nightly nip of bourbon - covered? The stress-releaving post coital cigarette - covered? Eyeglasses must be covered. What about OTC meds and appliances - covered? Vitamins and Dr. Scholl's inserts - covered? Batteries for TENS units, hearing aids and tension relaxing vibrator batteries - covered? I could go on and it would sound like BO's litany of " " his administration is counting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 B-Large, I suggest you reread your post and perhaps rephrase it. You said "Healthcare is the single biggest threat to the US". How does "Healthcare" threaten the US? Seriously. We've gone around and around on the issue of "Healthcare" and have never settled on what it means. Healthcare insurance is another matter entirely, and most posters here, and probably most Americans blur the distinction between the two. Perhaps you have here as well. When BO Care came on the scene, we never could - and still can't get a definitive statement about what it will cover - if the Supremes don't perform a partial-birth abortion on it later this month. Who and what gets covered? Podiatrist, Chiropractic and Homeopathic visits? Are HoverRounds still covered? Hearing aids and viagra? How about the medicinal nightly nip of bourbon - covered? The stress-releaving post coital cigarette - covered? Eyeglasses must be covered. What about OTC meds and appliances - covered? Vitamins and Dr. Scholl's inserts - covered? Batteries for TENS units, hearing aids and tension relaxing vibrator batteries - covered? I could go on and it would sound like BO's litany of " " his administration is counting. Have you considred the increases and future outlays for Heathcare in a country that will not let anyone die, and will spend vigoursly on people who probably should, and pay at least double of not more worse outcomes that comparative nations? Healthcare in the US dwarfs any Wars and associated costs HC dwarfs SS and any other public support HD will make military spending look miniscule Its the biggest single threat to the fiscal health of the US, and IMHO, not even close Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Have you considred the increases and future outlays for Heathcare in a country that will not let anyone die, and will spend vigoursly on people who probably should, and pay at least double of not more worse outcomes that comparative nations? Healthcare in the US dwarfs any Wars and associated costs HC dwarfs SS and any other public support HD will make military spending look miniscule Its the biggest single threat to the fiscal health of the US, and IMHO, not even close I dont doubt what you're saying, but read this anyway. Top doctor's chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year Professor says doctors use 'death pathway' to euthenasia of the elderly<LI style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Treatment on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours Around 29 per cent of patients that die in hospital are on controversial 'care pathway' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1yK7gbr7D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Have you considred the increases and future outlays for Heathcare in a country that will not let anyone die, and will spend vigoursly on people who probably should, and pay at least double of not more worse outcomes that comparative nations? Healthcare in the US dwarfs any Wars and associated costs HC dwarfs SS and any other public support HD will make military spending look miniscule Its the biggest single threat to the fiscal health of the US, and IMHO, not even close Yeah and that's if Obamacare isn't implemented. If it gets implemented, it's even worse than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 some insight on statins: the benefits far outweigh the risks. i was at a cardiology conference a few years back and the speaker asked the audience to show hands for all those on statins. at least 75% of the room lifted their hands. he then asked for those that didn't meet NCEP guidelines (the most authoritative guidelines in the US) for treatment and still took the drugs and 1/2 the room raised their hands. statins are your friends....better living through chemistry. it interests me that the rate of myalgia (muscle ache) complaints in the us on the drug are significantly higher than in europe as is the discontinuation rate. draw your own conclusions. every study that's looked at cholesterol numbers show lower is better. the best data now goes down to ldl=70 but many believe lower than that is better. yes, there are occasionally serious side effects and the older you are, the less potential benefits and the risks catch up. but on balance, an argument can be made to put them in the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 some insight on statins: the benefits far outweigh the risks. i was at a cardiology conference a few years back and the speaker asked the audience to show hands for all those on statins. at least 75% of the room lifted their hands. he then asked for those that didn't meet NCEP guidelines (the most authoritative guidelines in the US) for treatment and still took the drugs and 1/2 the room raised their hands. statins are your friends....better living through chemistry. it interests me that the rate of myalgia (muscle ache) complaints in the us on the drug are significantly higher than in europe as is the discontinuation rate. draw your own conclusions. every study that's looked at cholesterol numbers show lower is better. the best data now goes down to ldl=70 but many believe lower than that is better. yes, there are occasionally serious side effects and the older you are, the less potential benefits and the risks catch up. but on balance, an argument can be made to put them in the water. Oh good Lord I am glad you're not my doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) Oh good Lord I am glad you're not my doctor. care to expound? statins are one of the most studied class of drugs in history. the results are replicated and confirmed over and over. they save lives. studies on secondary prevention are unequivocal...only the most ardent nut job homeopath questions them. studies for primary prevention less so but still convincing enough to a huge room full of cardiologists that they're often willing to use them on themselves more liberally than they do on their patients. but why am i surprised? of course, you have some super secret, undeniable contradictory knowledge on the subject> Edited June 21, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 care to expound? statins are one of the most studied class of drugs in history. the results are replicated and confirmed over and over. they save lives. studies on secondary prevention are unequivocal...only the most ardent nut job homeopath questions them. studies for primary prevention less so but still convincing enough to a huge room full of cardiologists that they're often willing to use them on themselves more liberally than they do on their patients. but why am i surprised? of course, you have some super secret, undeniable contradictory knowledge on the subject> I'm pretty sure you're not going to understand. Simple: any 'doctor' who can make the generalized statement "the benefits outweigh the risks" is forgetting that not all patients are the same, and that there will be the odd one where the benefit does NOT outweigh the risk. I had a doctor that thought like you once. He almost killed me, because the "benefit outweighed the risk" of the drug he prescribed...except that the risk for me was death. There's a word for doctors like you and him. It's called "incompetent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 When was that mythical age of PPP who's glory we fall so short of? PPP is what it has always been, a small sprinkle of lucid interesting posts on a giant Sunday of incoherent rants, psychological projection, and ad hominem attacks, truly a living monument to the Dunning–Kruger effect. Sorry, I've been busy lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 Yeah and that's if Obamacare isn't implemented. If it gets implemented, it's even worse than that. I honestly don't think it makes a difference, implemented or not. The total spending will not change, it's who is paying and responsible will. If the legislation forces the free loaders to pay, again, all for it. Cost will go up indefinitely without price controls, making tough decision about extending lives, excluding people from access, or no innovation and research..... None of those items will get much support.... If people continue to live longer, we can treat more and keep people alive that perhaps we should not be, the cost will continue to grow no matter how much we think we can reduce them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 I'm pretty sure you're not going to understand. Simple: any 'doctor' who can make the generalized statement "the benefits outweigh the risks" is forgetting that not all patients are the same, and that there will be the odd one where the benefit does NOT outweigh the risk. I had a doctor that thought like you once. He almost killed me, because the "benefit outweighed the risk" of the drug he prescribed...except that the risk for me was death. There's a word for doctors like you and him. It's called "incompetent". Did the Doctor not make you aware of the side effects and risks? I mean Chomotherapy and Radiation to put Cancer in remission has issues with short and long-term risks to survivors health, but would do feel that benefit outweighs the risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Did the Doctor not make you aware of the side effects and risks? Actually, no he didn't. Just said "This is a pretty benign drug." Except that it wasn't in my case. Which is my point. Any doctor who blandly states "the benefits outweigh the risks" without considering patients individually is a complete incompetent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I honestly don't think it makes a difference, implemented or not. The total spending will not change, it's who is paying and responsible will. If the legislation forces the free loaders to pay, again, all for it. Cost will go up indefinitely without price controls, making tough decision about extending lives, excluding people from access, or no innovation and research..... None of those items will get much support.... If people continue to live longer, we can treat more and keep people alive that perhaps we should not be, the cost will continue to grow no matter how much we think we can reduce them.... Sure it would make a difference. The program currently is projected to cost about $2T. The true cost will probably be at least double that. That money has to come from somewhere. All the while people are still being forced to buy coverage that keeps increasing in cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts