GG Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 hey dipsh^&, any idea what the out of pocket cost for treating the benefactors pet illness, prostate ca, will be for the average pt at sloan kettering? and what about those on the exchanges or still without insurance? do their cancers deserve lesser care? are they not worthy of these great mens donations? the point is that the money could be much more impactfully utilized. but that was clearly not the priority, now was it? Imbecile, do you know how much state of the art equipment costs and the staff needed to treat those patients? Of course you don't because you think they cost $10/hr. The hospitals are not turning down the patients on regular insurance plans. They are rightly wary of accepting Obamacare exchanges because they're worried about being sucked into the worm hole of questionable reimbursements down the road. If you think access to health care is a birth right, you should work for free on a street corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 hey dipsh^&, any idea what the out of pocket cost for treating the benefactors pet illness, prostate ca, will be for the average pt at sloan kettering? and what about those on the exchanges or still without insurance? do their cancers deserve lesser care? are they not worthy of these great mens donations? the point is that the money could be much more impactfully utilized. but that was clearly not the priority, now was it? You make it sound as if charitable contributions are only genuine if applied the way you would prefer them to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 You make it sound as if charitable contributions are only genuine if applied the way you would prefer them to be. i'm saying charitable donations are no way to fund something as vital and complex as medical research or cancer care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 i'm saying charitable donations are no way to fund something as vital and complex as medical research or cancer care. So we'd all be better off without it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 So we'd all be better off without it? most of us would be better off without for profit medicine, yes. a few would be worse off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 most of us would be better off without for profit medicine, yes. a few would be worse off. You have that exactly backwards, but why ruin your streak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 most of us would be better off without for profit medicine, yes. a few would be worse off. "For profit medicine"? I was talking about donations from private citizens to build, equip, and staff more medical facilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 "For profit medicine"? I was talking about donations from private citizens to build, equip, and staff more medical facilities. I think what you guys are missing is that to birddog, it makes no sense to watch uber-wealthy people decide on their own to donate millions of dollars towards something like a hospital when the federal government would be better taxing the ever-loving bejeesus out of those uber-wealthy to gain access to those millions, and then putting that money to work where the government sees fit, not the uber wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 I think what you guys are missing is that to birddog, it makes no sense to watch uber-wealthy people decide on their own to donate millions of dollars towards something like a hospital when the federal government would be better taxing the ever-loving bejeesus out of those uber-wealthy to gain access to those millions, and then putting that money to work where the government sees fit, not the uber wealthy. i don't care what they say. you're not so dumb at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 i don't care what they say. you're not so dumb at all. At least you're honest about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Why does anyone think the government could more properly allocate funds than a private donor? Because they have such a great track record, or because "this time, it'll be better!"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 "For profit medicine"? I was talking about donations from private citizens to build, equip, and staff more medical facilities. "For-profit charity." Amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 "For-profit charity." Amazing. Not necessarily - it's a mundane occurance as far as the Clintons are concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 actually proatate ca is a great example of where research money is often misapplied. wanna know why? Isn't it better to find and treat prostate cancer early? continued... Otis Brawley, MD, chief science officer of the American Cancer Society: "It is very well accepted that 40% to 60% of localized prostate cancers that we cure are in men who did not need to be cured." Barnett S. Kramer, MD, MPH, director of the office of disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health: "Unfortunately right now we are left with diagnosing a large number of people without precise enough knowledge to spare those who don't need to be treated from treatment." But a healthy man who is told he has cancer no longer feels like a healthy man. In the U.S., most such men will seek treatment. from webmd (i can cite many more academic sources but this makes the point). in my opinion and in many public health experts as, the greatest research priority in this area should be identifying pts that will benefit from treatment and those that won't. but that's not where most of the research is aimed. it's aimed at treatment overall. there's big money at risk in less treatment. there's big money to be gained by more and newer treatments. this isn't a universal truth but as evidence of it's existence check out the uproar that develops every time a medical organization proposes less testing and treatment for any disease. anybody wanna bet me that we won't see papers addressing the above question coming out of this new funding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 in my opinion and in many public health experts as, the greatest research priority in this area should be identifying pts that will benefit from treatment and those that won't. but that's not where most of the research is aimed. it's aimed at treatment overall. there's big money at risk in less treatment. there's big money to be gained by more and newer treatments. this isn't a universal truth but as evidence of it's existence check out the uproar that develops every time a medical organization proposes less testing and treatment for any disease. anybody wanna bet me that we won't see papers addressing the above question coming out of this new funding? See: "Care Act, Affordable." Jesus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 See: "Care Act, Affordable." Jesus... amazingly insightful comment.... less is sometimes more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts