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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (522962)	10/23/2009 12:13:07 PM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1580442

Public Strongly Supports Dem Effort To Open Insurance Industry To Competition This is the first polling I’ve seen on the issue, and it shows very strong public support for the new push by Dem Congressional leaders to strip the insurance companies of their exemption from anti-trust laws: Anti-trust laws are intended to prevent companies and other business entities from working together in ways that limit competition. For more than 100 years, health insurance companies have been exempt from anti-trust laws. Should the law be changed so that health insurance companies are subject to anti-trust regulations? 65% Yes 12% No 23% Not sure Polling has mostly been mixed on whether the strategy of attacking the insurance industry has paid off, partly because the industry had succeeded in muddying the waters by making nice noises about how it really, really — really! — doesn’t oppose reform. But in recent days, the industry’s tactical screw-ups — releasing that widely-criticized report claiming that reform would hike premiums, for instance — seem to have suddenly crystallized memories of its historical opposition to reform and focused public anger a bit more. The above polling suggests the public is hungry for action against it, too. Public option, anyone? theplumline.whorunsgov.com

To: Alighieri who wrote (522962)	10/23/2009 12:15:35 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580442

Early detection and prevention. Yet, available research has shown that this has not provided any improvement in survival rates. He said that early detection don't improve survival rates? Its always interesting to me how Dave hears things that are contrary to what the rest of us are hearing. I bet a shrink could have a field day with him.

To: Alighieri who wrote (522962)	10/23/2009 12:24:11 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580442

He said that early detection don't improve survival rates? Sounds to me like you are repeating soundbites out of context. Of course it sounds this way to you. Because ideologically, you can't accept that preventive treatment doesn't automatically improve outcomes, nor does it save money. It is what I've been trying to tell you for a long time. ================================= "The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial followed more than 76,000 US men for 7 years.1 The intervention group received annual PSA screening, and the control group received usual care that might include screening. The study found that prostate cancer was diagnosed in more men in the intervention group but that mortality rates were not statistically different between the groups. Thus, annual PSA screening did not reduce mortality." [edit: But it DID cost money].