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: puborectalis who wrote (727526)	7/18/2013 10:39:07 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB one_less Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580821

>> the cost of preventing cancer is far less than treating it.... Not exactly. As a fake physician, you are undoubtedly aware that "cancer" is a very broad term. Some cancers can be treated effectively, other there is little treatment to be done. But "preventing" cancer is not cheap: The American Urological Association, has, for example, recently provided the following revisions to previous guidelines: - The AUA recommends against screening in men under age 40. - The AUA recommends against routine screening in men of average risk aged 40 to 54 years old. The ACP has come up with sort of similar advice: - The ACP says men between the ages of 50 and 69 should discuss the limited benefits and substantial harms of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test with their doctor before undergoing screening for prostate cancer. - It recommends against screening for men younger than 55 who are at average risk, as well as for men 70 and older. Now, there is no real "risk" associated with prostate cancer screening. But there IS cost. And what these fools are doing is weighing the overall cost of finding the disease earlier against the overall cost of treatment. It will "cost" less to just let some of them go -- even though it would clearly save lives. You can't really "prevent" it, but by catching it early you can save lives. Yet, they've idiotically advised their memberships to save money where spending the money leads to a healthier population. All in response to Obamacare. To make matters worse, it isn't just prostate cancer. Various specialty organizations have conveniently decided it isn't worth the money to do the screenings because, heaven forbid, someone might get a false positive or a cancer may be detected that would never have become life threatening in the first place. This totally supports the notion that excellence in health care is expensive. If you want to be as successful as possible in treating cancer, you need to spend the money to do early treatment. Yet, Obamacare and its supporters have taken us the other direction.