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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (68156)	4/24/2018 10:25:22 AM
From: Steve Lokness	1 Recommendation Recommended By abuelita Respond to of 361498

However, Michael Lyman, professor of Criminal Justice Administration at Columbia College of Missouri, told the BBC that the officer may have had a "duty" to kill the suspect. bbc.com

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (68156)	4/24/2018 12:29:35 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 361498

Preventive medical care can produce better results for patients and that's great, so I'm not putting it down. It can save people's lives. But it doesn't save money. Sure when you avoid very expensive medical care for a specific patient that preventive care did save money, but your providing such care to many people for each case where a huge amount of care is saved. If your including diagnostics as preventive care they not only cost money directly but also encourage more treatment, some of which saves money, some of which produces better results but costs money, some of which is unnecessary or even sometimes counterproductive while also costing money. Overall it increases costs. That cost may be worth paying, again "can produce better results" (note not "certainly will produce better results"), but it isn't' a free lunch. Its paying more in order to get a benefit. ---------------- Think preventive medicine will save money? Think again ... Currently, many people who do not benefit from a preventive service receive it, paying something for nothing. Studies have calculated those numbers, which can be surprisingly high. For instance, 217 high-risk smokers would have to undergo a CT lung scan for one to be spared death from lung cancer, according to a database of studies maintained by Dr. David Newman, an emergency physician at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. One hundred post-menopausal women who have had a bone fracture would have to take drugs called bisphosphonates in order for one to avoid a hip fracture. By comparison, only 50 people with heart disease must be treated with aspirin for one to avoid a heart attack or stroke, making this a good buy. The numbers of people who need to be treated for one to benefit are so high because so few will get the disease the preventive is meant to avert. It’s like treating every house for termites, said Neumann, co-author of the Robert Wood Johnson report: The vast majority would never have gotten infested in the first place, so the thousands spent to avoid the infestation is money for nothing. The failure of many preventive services to improve health, plus the large number of people who have to receive preventive care for one to be spared an illness he or she would otherwise get, limit the economic savings... reuters.com Preventative Health Care Does Not Save Money Studies Undercut the Popular Narrative moneytips.com No, Giving More People Health Insurance Doesn’t Save Money Margot Sanger-Katz nytimes.com