PSA Testing

[cj's dad]

Another wonderful accomplishment under Barry Hussein's admenstruation.

The "United States Preventative Services Task Force" has recommended that testing for this deadly disease will no loner be covered by Medicaid.

Link:

http://drsamgirgis.com/2012/07/31/psa-to-test-or-not-to-test-that-is-the-question/

[Tom]

Too many test results came back "Barack Obama."


Think about it.........

[Steve R]

Another wonderful accomplishment under Barry Hussein's admenstruation.

The "United States Preventative Services Task Force" has recommended that testing for this deadly disease will no loner be covered by Medicaid.

Link:

http://drsamgirgis.com/2012/07/31/psa-to-test-or-not-to-test-that-is-the-question/
Maybe the National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Prevention study on 75,000 American men that found PSA screening was of ZERO benefit with 80% false positives had something to do with it. Or maybe it's a socialist plot to get rid of the old white men that drive the Republican party.

[Tom]

Or maybe we should allow DOCTORS to decide what is needed and for who rather than some bean-counting bureaucrat.

In the end, the educated patient, in discussion with their physician, should make the decision to use the PSA test as a screening modality for prostate cancer.

[Dave Schwartz]

Here you see the real problem in American health care.

The problem is not too many people without insurance.

The problem is that medical care is simply too expensive.

If the government wants to have "socialized medicine," then that is what we should have. However, the plan is not for anything resembling socialized medicine. It is for socialized insurance.

And make no mistake - this is not just an issue from the Dems side. The Repubs have done nothing to address this either.

IMHO, the approach to problem solving in Washington has always been:

"Let's look for a solution to the problem providing it does not hurt the bottom line of any major contributors."

Just ask yourself what the biggest problems are and watch how the real solutions are never considered because of the above quote.

Medicine
Illegal Immigration
Income Tax cheating
Campaign Funding
Poverty

There are no solutions ever considered that include anything that would damage the "big boys."

[cj's dad]

Maybe the National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Prevention study on 75,000 American men that found PSA screening was of ZERO benefit with 80% false positives had something to do with it. Or maybe it's a socialist plot to get rid of the old white men that drive the Republican party.

Or just maybe this is the beginning of the death panels. Obamacare has to be paid for by cuts to programs. This is just the beginning.

And since I'm in a helping mode today, let me edumacate you a little; black men are 240 % more likely to get PC than are white males.

You can thank me later.

Link:
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/statistics/race.htm

[lamboguy]

interesting point about hurting the big boys. since 1970 tax revenues have gone up 12 fold, corporate earnings have increased 39 fold, while the minimum hourly pay has gone from $1.60 per hour to $8.00 per hour. within those numbers you will figure out what is wrong with our economy.

[Steve R]

Or just maybe this is the beginning of the death panels. Obamacare has to be paid for by cuts to programs. This is just the beginning.

And since I'm in a helping mode today, let me edumacate you a little; black men are 240 % more likely to get PC than are white males.

You can thank me later.

Link:
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/statistics/race.htm
1. The so-called death panels already exist. They are the insurance companies which deny coverage by every means possible. The entire profitability of private insurance companies depends on not paying.

2. The demographics of disease have absolutely no relationship to whether medical tests or procedures are effective or beneficial.

But in the Republican conservative tradition, I agree. Anyone wishing to pay for an ineffective or inconclusive medical test or procedure should be allowed to...just not with taxpayer money.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Another wonderful accomplishment under Barry Hussein's admenstruation.

The "United States Preventative Services Task Force" has recommended that testing for this deadly disease will no loner be covered by Medicaid.

Link:

http://drsamgirgis.com/2012/07/31/psa-to-test-or-not-to-test-that-is-the-question/

Where does it say that in the article? Or did you just post this article to explain PSA? Medicaid provides care for primarily children and the disabled, not older men, so I don't even understand your point???

[Saratoga_Mike]

Or maybe we should allow DOCTORS to decide what is needed and for who rather than some bean-counting bureaucrat.

Only if you're - or your private plan's - paying for it. I don't want my tax dollars paying for unlimited medical care - I'm a little surprised that you do.

[Tom]

I'm saying I do not want government idiots making ANY medical calls.
I don't want government idiots making any type of calls, actually! :D

[Dave Schwartz]

interesting point about hurting the big boys. since 1970 tax revenues have gone up 12 fold, corporate earnings have increased 39 fold, while the minimum hourly pay has gone from $1.60 per hour to $8.00 per hour. within those numbers you will figure out what is wrong with our economy.

Lambo,

Are you saying that the minimum wage is too high?

[FantasticDan]

And since I'm in a helping mode today, let me edumacate you a little; black men are 240 % more likely to get PC than are white males.240%? :eek:

http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/guide/prostate-cancer-risk-factors

Prostate cancer occurs about 60% more often in African American men than in white American men and when diagnosed is more likely to be advanced.

[cj's dad]

1. The so-called death panels already exist. They are the insurance companies which deny coverage by every means possible. The entire profitability of private insurance companies depends on not paying.

2. The demographics of disease have absolutely no relationship to whether medical tests or procedures are effective or beneficial.

But in the Republican conservative tradition, I agree. Anyone wishing to pay for an ineffective or inconclusive medical test or procedure should be allowed to...just not with taxpayer money.

1 - I must not be insured by one of those companies. MY health insurer paid 100% for a hip replacement. 100% for back surgery, and 100% for two arthroscopic knee surgeries.

2 - YOU were the one who brought up race. I simply corrected your mistake.

3 - The CDC has stated that without testing available to all, which would include those unable to pay, 40,000 more men will die from PC.

Welcome to the future of medicine in the USA.

[cj's dad]

240%? :eek:

http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/guide/prostate-cancer-risk-factors

Misread the graph; I thought it was 240 to 100 when it reads 240 to 160.

Thanks for the correction. Just proves that even a brilliant mind can make a mistake

[lamboguy]

Lambo,

Are you saying that the minimum wage is too high?no, the minimum wage should be something like $12.00. that's one of the reason's why corporate profits are so high. i am not begrudging corporations for making money. all i am trying to bring out is the vast difference and why there are economic problems.

it sounds like everyone in America is jumping on the bandwagon now about Obama wanting to raise the taxes of the very top earners who benefit the most in this country from the rules. the truth of the matter is that even if you soak the very rich out of all the money they have, it won't do anything to get this country out of the financial problems that they have created by operating with very poor judgement the last 15 years. there is no quick fix here.

[Steve R]

I'm saying I do not want government idiots making ANY medical calls.
I don't want government idiots making any type of calls, actually! :D
Why are government idiots worse than for-profit insurance company idiots when it comes to making medical calls?

[johnhannibalsmith]

no, the minimum wage should be something like $12.00....

Yeah, then we could see the unskilled, primarily low income group that depends on those type of jobs have their unemployment rates go to 50%. Every time minimum wage goes up, the people that are alleged to be the beneficiaries of the policy take it a little more in the shorts. Fewer jobs are ultimately available and those that are overqualified and might not take such a job in lieu of one in their actual field are that much more incentivized to take such a job, leaving someone that actually NEEDS a job like that with one fewer option.

[Steve R]

1 - I must not be insured by one of those companies. MY health insurer paid 100% for a hip replacement. 100% for back surgery, and 100% for two arthroscopic knee surgeries.

2 - YOU were the one who brought up race. I simply corrected your mistake.

3 - The CDC has stated that without testing available to all, which would include those unable to pay, 40,000 more men will die from PC.

Welcome to the future of medicine in the USA.
If you're unfamiliar with the litany of horror stories surrounding insurance companies' failure to pay then I'd say you are completely out of touch with reality. Google it and learn.

And WOW, talk about bringing up race in the discussion! The reference was to the "old white men that drive the Republican party", not white men vs black men. That you saw it as a racial comment rather than a political comment says a lot about you.

Finally, I guess you missed the web page at the CDC site where they ask:

Should I Get Screened for Prostate Cancer?

"CDC and other federal agencies follow the prostate cancer screening recommendations set forth by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,External Web Site Icon which recommends against PSA-based screening for men that do not have symptoms."

[lamboguy]

Yeah, then we could see the unskilled, primarily low income group that depends on those type of jobs have their unemployment rates go to 50%. Every time minimum wage goes up, the people that are alleged to be the beneficiaries of the policy take it a little more in the shorts. Fewer jobs are ultimately available and those that are overqualified and might not take such a job in lieu of one in their actual field are that much more incentivized to take such a job, leaving someone that actually NEEDS a job like that with one fewer option.
that's very easy to say if you are not the one that is on minimum wage. try paying rent, buying food at the supermarket and paying for rotten health insurance on those wages.

i didn't say that raising the wage is the solution to economic problems either. i just pointed out the problem.

[johnhannibalsmith]

that's very easy to say if you are not the one that is on minimum wage. try paying rent, buying food at the supermarket and paying for rotten health insurance on those wages.

i didn't say that raising the wage is the solution to economic problems either. i just pointed out the problem.

I've worked plenty of minimum wage jobs - in fact - they are my favorite jobs. So, yeah, it is easy to say. I've been employed through raises in minimum wage and I've seen hours cut as a result. I've been told by superiors to staff fewer workers on a shift. I've seen what happens to the guy that is looking for a $5 an hour job to make it when the job artificially pays more than it should - his chances of employment go down as someone with the skills for a better job is willing to work at the pizza place because the pay is suddenly acceptable.

It sounds really good if you just assume that when you make these changes that the affected parties will just do everything exactly the same and only the wage level will change. It just never actually works quite like that. What good is a $12 minimum wage to someone with less than a high school education, someone that depends upon minimum wage jobs, when the pay is good enough that college graduates are lining up for the positions? It's all too easy to say that it's "easy to say".

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'm saying I do not want government idiots making ANY medical calls.
I don't want government idiots making any type of calls, actually! :D

Even when you're paying for it, as is the case for Medicaid? I'm very surprised.

[lamboguy]

lets put this into a different perspective. if you walk into a supermarket and you want to buy a small jar of pickles, it cost $4.00 for that jar. if you work for the minimum wage of $8 an our, you are now working a half hour to buy that jar of pickles. if you have a bad stomach and need to take metamucil, a small container will run you $16, or it will take you 2 hours of work to go to CVS to pay for it. i know that company's can go overseas and pay about $1 per hour to find workers. i just trying to bring out the difference between a have and a have not. i don't have the cure for the problem.

[TJDave]

The problem is that medical care is simply too expensive.


Medical care is a regulated monopoly.

A license to steal.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I understand the point because I've lived it. The problem with the thinking that just arbitrarily raising minimum wages to some point thinking that you will bring the standard of living up for certain people is that if those people end up without a job at all, you haven't helped. I'm not adamantly opposed to a minimum wage like some that share my philosophies, but you have to be careful not to price wages in such a way that you either price low-level workers out of the job market completely or that you don't force employers to compensate with fewer opportunities for employment - and worst of all - that you don't promote a combination of both.

[TJDave]

I've worked plenty of minimum wage jobs - in fact - they are my favorite jobs. So, yeah, it is easy to say. I've been employed through raises in minimum wage and I've seen hours cut as a result. I've been told by superiors to staff fewer workers on a shift. I've seen what happens to the guy that is looking for a $5 an hour job to make it when the job artificially pays more than it should - his chances of employment go down as someone with the skills for a better job is willing to work at the pizza place because the pay is suddenly acceptable.


Hiring the overqualified is counterproductive. The equivalent of cancer.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Hiring the overqualified is counterproductive. The equivalent of cancer.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I've worked in plenty of places that hired the best candidates knowing that they would move on as soon as possible. High turnover meant fewer raises. ;)

[TJDave]

The problem with the thinking that just arbitrarily raising minimum wages to some point thinking that you will bring the standard of living up for certain people is that if those people end up without a job at all, you haven't helped.

Minimum wage = minimum performance. Although it may put more money in pockets, It does nothing to raise standards.

[TJDave]

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I've worked in plenty of places that hired the best candidates knowing that they would move on as soon as possible. High turnover meant fewer raises. ;)

Higher turnover and fewer raises is NOT a good thing. Just means the cancer is growing.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'm not exactly certain that your statements in the last two posts are related to the context of my opinions on the downside of raising a minimum wage to twelve bucks as Lambo suggests. I'm not really sure how to respond to either because they just kind of appear without explanation for what the objection actually is. The post about not raising standards - I'm not sure if you are talking about productivity or standards in applicants. I'd argue that you get you a larger pool of available applicants, including those that would not apply if wages were lower, often those that have the background to legitimately compete for "higher level" jobs and positions. I'm not endorsing high turnover and fewer raises as a strategy, but it is a strategy that seems to be employed. I can remember working for a successful chain that offered raises after a year of part-time work - and generally after a year - management did everything possible to convince you to walk away and find a new job.

[Steve R]

Medical care is a regulated monopoly.

A license to steal.
I don't live in the U.S. Earlier this year I suffered a severe laceration of a forefinger requiring nine stitches. It was on a Sunday morning no less. Fortunately, my GP lives nearby so I called him immediately. He told me to meet him at his office in 30 minutes. At the office he treated the wound and applied the stitches. He gave me a prescription for antibiotics and pain killers.

The treatment on a Sunday morning including the nine stitches, a tetanus shot, antibiotic pills, painkillers and a followup visit to remove the stitches a week later cost a total of $160.

Online I read of someone who had just five stitches put in at a hospital ER in the U.S. and his bill was $1334 not including any medications as part of the treatment.

Monopoly or whatever, medical costs in the U.S. are way too high.

[JustRalph]

This is why it's being dropped.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/06/24/psa-tests-might-hurt-a-lot-more-than-you-think/


Canada did the same thing if memory serves me

[Tom]

Online I read of someone who had just five stitches put in at a hospital ER in the U.S. and his bill was $1334 not including any medications as part of the treatment.

Monopoly or whatever, medical costs in the U.S. are way too high.

That is because your GP was charging for your treatment.
The hospital have to charge not only for the treatment at hand, but all the other treatments that are not paid for, for union wages for many workers, for life saving equipment, operating rooms, high technology.....it ain't cheap. And Obama adding a tax on medical devices is only driving costs up. Instead of being a total tool about insurance, this idiot is totally ignoring WHY HC is expensive.

There are ways we can lower the cost, but congress is too stupid to address the problem - they only address their own agendas.

[highnote]

If you don't want the PSA there is always the option to get the DRE.

[nijinski]

1 - I must not be insured by one of those companies. MY health insurer paid 100% for a hip replacement. 100% for back surgery, and 100% for two arthroscopic knee surgeries.

2 - YOU were the one who brought up race. I simply corrected your mistake.

3 - The CDC has stated that without testing available to all, which would include those unable to pay, 40,000 more men will die from PC.

Welcome to the future of medicine in the USA.

What you may be missing though is , that 100% is usually the contracted
rate and not the the actual rate the doctor believes he or she should get.
It's the allowable insurance company payment.

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe it's just me, but ever since Obamacare started to take hold as a very real possibility, it seems a lot of diagnostic tests suddenly have fallen off the recommended list.

Prostate screening as detailed here. Mammograms now recommended for women over 50, when it used to be over 40.

The AMA was NOT happy with these decisions:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47889110/ns/health-health_care/t/doctors-not-happy-about-mammogram-guidelines/#.UKSWEYc0V8E

You can't tell me these government recommendations are not in part influenced by a desire to cut costs now with Obamacare on the horizon. You simply can't.

[plainolebill]

I don't think it's true that saving money is the main issue with the decisions about testing, at least PSA testing. I really don't know much about mammogram testing.

From the perspective of someone who was diagnosed with prostate cancer nearly 9 years ago I get why the panel has decided against PSA testing. This is a tough issue - the medical profession has consistantly overtreated pca and all the treatments have the potential for serious side effects. They've understated the side effects, overstated the efficacy of treatment for many years.

My understanding is that PSA testing may save the life of 1 of 100 men with pca while causing undue suffering for many who may not have required treatment whatsoever. We're not talking about just some inconvenience, search the web and look at the morbidity issues for prostate surgery and radiation therapy. Not to mention that 1 of 100 men who go onto the operating table are not going to make it. Then there is the one man who will have been saved. How do you parse that out? I've got mixed feelings about it.

Rather than protest the decision the AMA might have been a little more proactive to begin with - but urologists and radiologist make money doing treatment not advising men to not panic, change their lifestyle a little and "We'll keep an eye on your disease".

[sammy the sage]

Maybe it's just me, but ever since Obamacare started to take hold as a very real possibility, it seems a lot of diagnostic tests suddenly have fallen off the recommended list.

Prostate screening as detailed here. Mammograms now recommended for women over 50, when it used to be over 40.

The AMA was NOT happy with these decisions:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47889110/ns/health-health_care/t/doctors-not-happy-about-mammogram-guidelines/#.UKSWEYc0V8E

You can't tell me these government recommendations are not in part influenced by a desire to cut costs now with Obamacare on the horizon. You simply can't.

So...and the point being?

Shouldn't that make the pugs happy...instead of trying for political spin.

I mean after all...if they were able...there wouldn't be ANY screenings at all...much less medicare/medicaid.... :rolleyes:

Remember...I voted against the incumbent

But "o" so interesting here is that costs/services being cut; which is EXACTLY what the other side wanted...and now they're WHINING about it... :lol:

[ceejay]

the medical profession has consistantly overtreated pca and all the treatments have the potential for serious side effects. They've understated the side effects, overstated the efficacy of treatment for many years.

…

Rather than protest the decision the AMA might have been a little more proactive to begin with - but urologists and radiologist make money doing treatment not advising men to not panic, change their lifestyle a little and "We'll keep an eye on your disease".
I have heard the PSA test referred to as "the urologist full employment test."