Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (8468)	8/20/2009 1:58:05 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

It might be hard to imagine, but sometimes it might be best. The problem with that argument though is that even if the idea presented is correct, and 90% of the time it is best, the other 10% of the time there really is a serious problem. Even if half of those times are situations where you can't do much because the cancer is too aggressive and too well developed, that still leaves you with only a ration of one to 20. Normally that would be enough, esp, when the thing you might have to go through unnecessarily/uselessly is cancer treatment. OTOH dying of cancer is even worse than cancer treatment. Many people would decide that taking the treatment, even if it has a 95% chance of being useless (90% chance of being useless because it not needed + a 5% chance of you dying anyway, and not after a much longer time, or after a healthier or otherwise better period before your death), is worth it if it give you a 5% chance of saving your life.

To: i-node who wrote (8468)	8/20/2009 6:25:01 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 42652

we see more articles like this one , for instance, prostate exams, lately the position appears to stop them. i have read stats that very few would ever have developed to kill someone vs die before any cancer would kill you. Another exam not acceptable by medical profession appears to be full body scans. It shows growths throughout the body, which may or may not be cancer. The response is the body has many growths that come and go or remain without further developing. i know of a few who found a growth on their kidney, they elected surgery against their doctor's recommendation. one found a cancer , had it removed now under treatment the other none but he sure feels a hell of lot better knowing it is gone. One person's life may have been saved and another person got a false alarm that if he had not had the full body scan would not have gone through the stress. Still the person now knows there are no other growths, at this time, throughout his body. these tests and procedures were done at their expense , none were covered by insurance. Perhaps the person with the cancer did get payment on appeal.

To: i-node who wrote (8468)	8/20/2009 8:18:28 AM
From: Lane3	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

We know that preventive medicine is expensive. But if one of my family members had a cancer found due to mammography I cannot imagine their going to take a "wait and see" attitude. And that in a nutshell is the inherent conflict between public health and individual health and one of the many reasons for not putting the latter under the purview of the former. The flip side of the inherent conflict is when someone in a large group is identified with a virulent transmittable disease and the entire party is quarantined to prevent spread but condemns the entire quarantined group. Public health and individual health do not have the same goals. We must not forget that.