PDA

View Full Version : Lol...Socialised medicine at work...



PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 05:30 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/03/04/offbeat.implants.issue.reut/index.html


German singer's implants heat debate
Tuesday, March 4, 2003 Posted: 11:06 AM EST (1606 GMT)


BERLIN, Germany (Reuters) -- A popular German singer who had breast implants paid for by health insurers has sparked a debate about what is wrong with the country's generous but cash-strapped welfare system.

Pop singer Juliette said she had an operation to enlarge her breasts three years ago, and her health insurance paid the bill, raising eyebrows about the extensive treatment Germans receive at a time when insurers are facing huge deficits.

"Yes, I have new breasts," the 22-year-old told Bild daily. "I had done ballet for several years and that's why I had small breasts. That was a burden. I wanted breasts that fit my body."

Health experts said even though breast implants are only paid by insurers in exceptional circumstances, the issue of cosmetic surgery and other non-essential treatment raises fresh doubts over the generosity of Germany's healthcare system.

Proposals to trim some services have nevertheless met angry resistance from patients and unions, loath to give up special treatments such as health spa visits, cooking courses, and even insurer-funded taxi fares.

"One needs to evaluate whether services that are of purely cosmetic nature should be covered by the insurers," said Bert Ruerup, head of a government-appointed panel searching to cut costs, on Tuesday when asked about Juliette's operation.

"Looked at from abroad, the German system looks very attractive," said Ruerup. "It's very good for patients. But the system is relatively expensive."

Biggunndunn
03-04-2003, 05:38 PM
nice

Kamikaze
03-04-2003, 05:39 PM
I'm gonna cry Straw Man at this one.

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 06:08 PM
Hey, this is the system at work...:)

Kamikaze
03-04-2003, 06:14 PM
No, you're just taking one bad example and then using it to discredit the entire system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is building up and then burning down a straw man. :)

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
No, you're just taking one bad example and then using it to discredit the entire system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is building up and then burning down a straw man. :)

If it was ONE example, then sure. But apparently such abuses are rampant as demonstrated by " Proposals to trim some services have nevertheless met angry resistance from patients and unions, loath to give up special treatments such as health spa visits, cooking courses, and even insurer-funded taxi fares. ", and "generous but cash-strapped welfare system". Those two comments certainly make it sound like there are systemic problems, and the entire structure is facing collapse unless changes are made. Did you not get that impression from those lines? Oh, and a "Straw Man" fallacy, is when you use a flawed example or argument to represent the actual example or argument. If I were to argue your position as being for totally subsidised medicine when you were actually only in favor of partially subsidised medicine, that would be a straw man. Now, if those examples hadn't existed and I presented this one case as sytemic, that WOULD be a straw man.

Chauncey
03-04-2003, 08:29 PM
Hey, how about this example....

In 1993, I was diagnosed with testicular cancer. I had a radical orchidectomy (relatively minor operation) and a reteroperiteneal lymphodectomy (major, major operation). Just for kicks, the hospital sent me the bill for both operations...it was $75 K. I was 27 at the time, just recently married...you tell me where I could come up with that kind of cash ?

Luckily I'm Canadian and our "Socialized Medicine" took care of it. I'm literally living proof that our medicare system works....

Peebs
03-04-2003, 10:43 PM
Hope everything is well with you now Chauncey! :)

Because you know the good ol USA we have THE finest Medical care in the world...

IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT.

Case example-Medicare recipients who NEED supplimentary insurance because Medicare ALONE pays CRAP have a choice of two insurance companies....count them 2 Ladies and Gentleman right here in Nassau County LI....for all the seniors we have in this county they have a choice of BCBS and HIP which recently raised their rates. Oxford, USHC and Healthfirst65 all pulled out of the Mdicare program because they were not making any profit leaving Seniors high and dry without Medical or Prescription coverage.
Try living on a fixed income and having to pay an additional $105 a month for your supplimentary insurance.



OR try and FIND a private doctor who accepts Medicaid. God forbid you need to see a Dermatologist because you have a supicious mole that could possibly be cancer....no private Dematologists accepts medicaid and the waiting list for the (once County, now privatized) Hospital Dermatology clinic is 6 months....SIX MONTHS!?!? Do you know how much a melanoma can grow in 6 months?

Chauncey
03-04-2003, 11:22 PM
Another good example...

Two months ago, I had a suspicious mole myself, went to see my family doctor. She referred me to a plastic surgeon, and I saw him within the week. He did a biospy and we found out it wasn't anything to get excited about. A week later I had it lasered off.

Cost to me ? $0...just like the big surgery I mentioned above

Sniper
03-05-2003, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by Chauncey
Hey, how about this example....

In 1993, I was diagnosed with testicular cancer. I had a radical orchidectomy (relatively minor operation) and a reteroperiteneal lymphodectomy (major, major operation). Just for kicks, the hospital sent me the bill for both operations...it was $75 K. I was 27 at the time, just recently married...you tell me where I could come up with that kind of cash ?

Luckily I'm Canadian and our "Socialized Medicine" took care of it. I'm literally living proof that our medicare system works....

Hey Chauncey,

I live in upstate NY and I get to interact with quite a few of my Canadian neighbors. In talking with them, I have found that most LOVE the Canadian medical system. Since you're Canadian, is this your point of view as well? Would this be the viewpoint of most of the people you know? We've had some debate about this and it would be great to get a Canadian's viewpoint on the subject.

I've also heard some Canadian's talk about Canada's system becoming more Americanized... Many strongly dislike this idea. What are your thoughts about this?

Dolfan984
03-05-2003, 02:49 AM
That's awesome Chauncey. I wish our government had half the intellegence Canada does when it comes to health care.

iceblizzard69
03-05-2003, 07:54 AM
I heard America wants to get into the Canadian health care market.....whatever that means.

Chauncey
03-05-2003, 09:14 AM
Yeah, basically, up here your employer is required to pay health care premiums, whether you work flipping burgers or making 5 mill a year as an athlete, etc. If you are retired, on social assistance, welfare, etc. and are not employed, then you are covered too. Basically, as long as you are a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant, your basic health care, i.e. doctors, hospitals, specialists, in-hospital treatments, optometrists, etc. are covered. Even chiropractic visits are partially funded.

Prescription drugs are not covered by our government health insurance for employed people...most have supplamentary plans through their employers and usually the premiums are split 50-50 between the employee and employers, but some have fully contributory plans, like me (i.e. employer pays the whole premium).
For retired folks, folks on social assiatance, etc. the governemnet picks up the tab for prescription drugs through a separate program.

My family is not exactly the healthiest, both my wife and I have had to do or are going through various cancer surgeries/treatments. If I had to pay for all of this I'd surely be living in a cardboard box near Toronto, couldn't afford to have kids, etc.

And yes, there have been some changes over the last 10 years or so. In Ontario, the gov't has started to allow private clinics, so that if you have the $$ to jump to the front of the line for CAT scans, MRI's, etc. These haven't taken off yet, partially because the access to these services has been improved over the last 5 years, and also because the Feds will cut funding to these clinics, i.e. if they will not receive any gov't medicare $$'s if they are charging user fees for services normally covered.

Personally, living in 3 different Ontario communities over the last 15 years, I have never had an inordinate delay in obtaining health care, CAT scans, surgeries, etc. as the anti-socialized medicine camp will point out.

PhinPhan1227
03-05-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
Hope everything is well with you now Chauncey! :)

Because you know the good ol USA we have THE finest Medical care in the world...

IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT.

Case example-Medicare recipients who NEED supplimentary insurance because Medicare ALONE pays CRAP have a choice of two insurance companies....count them 2 Ladies and Gentleman right here in Nassau County LI....for all the seniors we have in this county they have a choice of BCBS and HIP which recently raised their rates. Oxford, USHC and Healthfirst65 all pulled out of the Mdicare program because they were not making any profit leaving Seniors high and dry without Medical or Prescription coverage.
Try living on a fixed income and having to pay an additional $105 a month for your supplimentary insurance.



OR try and FIND a private doctor who accepts Medicaid. God forbid you need to see a Dermatologist because you have a supicious mole that could possibly be cancer....no private Dematologists accepts medicaid and the waiting list for the (once County, now privatized) Hospital Dermatology clinic is 6 months....SIX MONTHS!?!? Do you know how much a melanoma can grow in 6 months?


My mom is on medicaid, and has had three facial growths removed, two of which were cancerous, and the procedures were done by private dermatologists. The system has problems, but it's not the same everywhere.

PhinPhan1227
03-05-2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Chauncey
Hey, how about this example....

In 1993, I was diagnosed with testicular cancer. I had a radical orchidectomy (relatively minor operation) and a reteroperiteneal lymphodectomy (major, major operation). Just for kicks, the hospital sent me the bill for both operations...it was $75 K. I was 27 at the time, just recently married...you tell me where I could come up with that kind of cash ?

Luckily I'm Canadian and our "Socialized Medicine" took care of it. I'm literally living proof that our medicare system works....


Congrats on your successful surguries. In answer to your question, I'd hope that you had insurance through your employer. The American medical system does need to be overhauled, but Socializing it isn't the answer, as several other countries examples attest to. Comparing Canada to the Us isn't really appropriate, since our two population are vastly different, as are our demographics. Canada just doesn't have the same burdens on it's medical system that the US has.

Chauncey
03-05-2003, 11:39 AM
How are we vastly different ? What are these additional burdens on your medical system that we wouldn't have in Canada ? Granted, our population is @ 10% of the US in size, but other than that, I'm having trouble understanding what it is you're trying to say here.

PhinPhan1227
03-05-2003, 12:20 PM
The population size difference is a huge factor in and of itself. Another major factor is the number of illegal immigrants who currently reside here, and are coming in every day. They place a tremendous burden on our healthcare system, as they consume our resources, but are minimal contributors to our tax revinue. We also have MANY more major urban centers which always place a heavier burden on medical care than the corresponding number of people in rural settings. Lastly, the last time I checked, our countries legal system is somewhat different from Canadas, and the malpractice insurance rates here are MUCH higher than they are up north. I could be wrong about that last part, but that's my understanding. The US also has a level of advancement in specialization that Canada doesn't have, so you could say that the ACTUAL quality of healthcare (as opposed to it's availability) here is superior to Canada's, and therefore more expensive. All of that points to our having costs that Canada doesn't have.

Peebs
03-05-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
My mom is on medicaid, and has had three facial growths removed, two of which were cancerous, and the procedures were done by private dermatologists. The system has problems, but it's not the same everywhere.

I'm happy for your Mom but did you READ my post? It was specific to a specific area and county. I work in the Medical Billing Dept. I handle Medicaid claims, policies, applications etc...I'm it. If it's a question, problem of concern with Medicaid they come to me. I do referrals to specialist for our Doctor's.

Currently in this county it is MANDITORY for all Medicaid recipients to be enrolled in a managed care plan to save the state money. There are a list of exclusions and exceptions but generally it applies to the general Medicaid population. Currently there are 5 different plans the client can enroll in (NYC has more plans as does Suffolk). Now these recipients are considered "insurance" patients and not "Medicaid" patients.
But alas like everything else.....these plans will start to lose money eventually and pull out of the Medicaid program leaving the clients from seeing providers for much needed services.
One of the plans offered is owned by Catholic Health Services and what they neglect to tell prospective clients is that they offer NO reproductive coverage which includes basic yearly GYN exams and Pap smears....

So eventually there will not be clients in this county with Medicaid only but seeing what the fiscal state NYS is in specifically this county I can't see this program or the insurance companies in it sticking around too long.

PhinPhan1227
03-05-2003, 12:49 PM
Sorry, I missed that part. The funny thing is, if I had, I would have used it as an example. A medical system like Canada's could probably work in a state like Iowa which doesn't face the same pressures as a state like New York, where it couldn't work. A state like New York has a whole set of pressures that Iowa doesn't have, and that's why Canada is a bad example to use in stating what the US should do.

Chauncey
03-05-2003, 02:03 PM
89% of Canada's population lives in an urban setting.

I'll give you that malpractice insurance is higher in the US because of the proclivity to sue.

You're really going out on a limb when you say the level of advancement in specialization is better or that the quality is better. Maybe in terms of volumes of specialists, but certainly not in terms of knowlege. We have more or less the same qualifications that must be met in the various specialties, as a matter of fact, trained Canadian specialists are in high demand in the US...they are constantly headhunted.

Also, Doctors don't have to worry about insurance status or an interfering HMO when making treatment decisions here. If you have a disease that needs treatment, it is ordered by the specialist whether or not you're a CEO or a Fry Cook at McDonalds.

PhinPhan1227
03-05-2003, 02:32 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about "man for man" quality, I'm talking about overall numbers of specialists, medical Centers, etc. These all add to the costs incurred. Also when you point to an 89% number of Canadians in urban settings, I've BEEN to Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto, and I didn't find and areas that would compare to the types of urban populations which inhabit the larger American cities. Again, the MAJOR drains on US healthcare, are from those individuals who use it the most while paying the least, and the costs of malpractice insurance. Remove those two problems, and it would be pretty easy to provide effective healthcare. But instead look at Germany, which still doesn't have the level or cost that the US has, but is much closer that Canada. Their system is nearly bancrupt.

Chauncey
03-05-2003, 02:51 PM
Sounds more like a social problem in the US, the way you describe it, as opposed to a medical issue.

In Germany's case, it's probably wise to point out that in the 10-15 yrs since the amalgamation of E&W Germany, they've probably had difficulties in adjusting, bringing up both sides (E&W) to an acceptable care level. I can just imagine the costs of trying to upgrade facilities and staff in a former eastern bloc country.

PhinPhan1227
03-05-2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Chauncey
Sounds more like a social problem in the US, the way you describe it, as opposed to a medical issue.

In Germany's case, it's probably wise to point out that in the 10-15 yrs since the amalgamation of E&W Germany, they've probably had difficulties in adjusting, bringing up both sides (E&W) to an acceptable care level. I can just imagine the costs of trying to upgrade facilities and staff in a former eastern bloc country.


It's also an issue of abuse. People are taking advantage of the services provided. Further, they also have immigration problems similar to the US. Either way, of course there are social problems in the US. But short of shutting down our borders, those problems aren't going away any time soon. The bigger you are, the more poor people you're going to have, and the more healthcare will cost. Until some solution is found for THAT fact, universl healthcare will never be a reality in the US.

Chauncey
03-05-2003, 06:58 PM
How do you take advantage of services provided ? You're either sick or not sick.

Sniper
03-05-2003, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Again, the MAJOR drains on US healthcare, are from those individuals who use it the most while paying the least.

So the poor get sick more often than those who can afford healthcare? You are making a claim here so back it up with a fact.

PhinPhan1227
03-06-2003, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
So the poor get sick more often than those who can afford healthcare? You are making a claim here so back it up with a fact.


Oh good lord! Fine, I'll go get you the stats. But you can't tell me that you aren't aware of the fact that there is an inverse relationship between socio-economic status and 1)birthrate, 2)poor diet, 3)education about health issues. All of those facotrs lead to those who are poorer being less healthy than those who are wealthier. But as I said, I'll go get you stats.

PhinPhan1227
03-06-2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Chauncey
How do you take advantage of services provided ? You're either sick or not sick.


Incorrect, read the article that started this thread. In Germany, they are abusing the system. Even here in the US, there have been several stories run on people calling 911 and getting an ambulance to take them to the hospital for what turned out to be routine care because they didn't want to pay for a taxi or bus. Also making trips to the ER for what amounted to check-ups or colds (and it was obvious, not a simple mistake) rather than actual emergency situations. That's abuse of the system, and it steals resources from those who truly need them.

Sabre Ally
03-07-2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Oh good lord! Fine, I'll go get you the stats. But you can't tell me that you aren't aware of the fact that there is an inverse relationship between socio-economic status and 1)birthrate, 2)poor diet, 3)education about health issues. All of those facotrs lead to those who are poorer being less healthy than those who are wealthier. But as I said, I'll go get you stats.

Well, then what we need to be doing is closing that gap between those who are poorer and those who are wealthier, eh? Then everyone will be equal and you won't be discriminating against us poor people anymore. :rolleyes:

Dolfan984
03-07-2003, 03:33 AM
Great post Sabre Alley.

PhinPhan1227
03-07-2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Sabre Ally
Well, then what we need to be doing is closing that gap between those who are poorer and those who are wealthier, eh? Then everyone will be equal and you won't be discriminating against us poor people anymore. :rolleyes:

No problem...make more money. It's called taking responsability for yourself instead of counting on someone else to do it for you. As the line from the movie says..."There are two kinds of people. The first kind thinks that no matter what happens, there will always be someone there to help you out, and pick you up. The second kind knows that when push comes to shove, you've only got yourself to count on. Which kind of person are you?" Of course, if you don't want to deal with it on that level, you can look at the fact that if you DO want to decrease to gap between the have's and have nots, you'll have to do something about illegal immigration. Either you'll have to close the borders (not exactly the most American thing to do), or you'll have to work with NAFTA to build their economies to the point where coming here isn't as desirable (not very popular with Unions). Take your pick. Oh, and there's nothing discriminatory about pointing out that the poorer you are, the more of a burden you are on the economy and healthcare. Those are just established facts.

Sabre Ally
03-07-2003, 06:18 PM
Make more money, make more money. Excuse me but, I have BEEN WORKING SINCE I WAS 16! So don't give me that line. I have a college degree. It doesn't make any difference if there are no jobs to be had.

NAFTA? NAFTA is one of the MAIN reasons that the gap is widening.

PhinPhan1227
03-07-2003, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Sabre Ally
Make more money, make more money. Excuse me but, I have BEEN WORKING SINCE I WAS 16! So don't give me that line. I have a college degree. It doesn't make any difference if there are no jobs to be had.

NAFTA? NAFTA is one of the MAIN reasons that the gap is widening.


In case you missed it, the "make more money", was ever so slightly sarcastic on my part. What wasn't however was the fact that "narrowing the gap" is the responsability of those on the bottom, not those on the top. "Redistribution of wealth" is NOT an American ideal. It's actually about the least American concept I've ever seen. Times ARE hard right now, but they won't get any better by corrupting the paradigms that this country was built on. Again, if you want to narrow the gap, narrow the gap. But don't look at what other people have and say that they should have less so you can have more. You want it, find a way to go out and take it. And as for NAFTA, you want to stop companies moving their factories to Mexico, give Mexico an even playing field with the Us.

Sabre Ally
03-09-2003, 04:41 AM
****, I can't wait to get out of this messed up country if it's really about what you say it's about.

Peebs
03-09-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Oh good lord! Fine, I'll go get you the stats. But you can't tell me that you aren't aware of the fact that there is an inverse relationship between socio-economic status and 1)birthrate, 2)poor diet, 3)education about health issues. All of those facotrs lead to those who are poorer being less healthy than those who are wealthier. But as I said, I'll go get you stats.

Ummm don't need stats.
It's simple. The poor can't afford proper healthcare therefore they are sicker and DIE earlier than their wealthier counterparts.
Poor women are more likely to die from breast cancer and ovarian cancer than wealthier women. WHY? Because they are not afforded the early detection OR there isn't a Healthcare provider in their community.
What about the elderly and those on fixed incomes? They can't afford suplimentary insurance to pick up what Medicare doesn't. AND do you know what Medicare pays? On a $80.00 doctor office visit...about $4.00. AND Medicare is the pricing STANDARD for all Insurance companies. All private insurance companies base their fee schedules to the medicare standards. Great government program established for our elderly :rolleyes:
Medicaid is no longer the states cash cow. For a single Mother the gross income level (which is based on the poverty levels set up by the Government) for Medicaid acceptance is $895. So if you earn LESS THAN $895 a month GROSS you are able to get Medicaid. $895??????? So if you are working at a job earning minimum wage...$5.25 @ 40 hours per week......(the DSS calculation is your weekly gross x 4.33=) is $909.30...you lose. You don't get Medicaid. Add on more kids and the gross monthly income requirements also go up.
So this is WHY the poor are sicker....

Sniper
03-09-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
Ummm don't need stats.
It's simple. The poor can't afford proper healthcare therefore they are sicker and DIE earlier than their wealthier counterparts.
Poor women are more likely to die from breast cancer and ovarian cancer than wealthier women. WHY? Because they are not afforded the early detection OR there isn't a Healthcare provider in their community.
What about the elderly and those on fixed incomes? They can't afford suplimentary insurance to pick up what Medicare doesn't. AND do you know what Medicare pays? On a $80.00 doctor office visit...about $4.00. AND Medicare is the pricing STANDARD for all Insurance companies. All private insurance companies base their fee schedules to the medicare standards. Great government program established for our elderly :rolleyes:
Medicaid is no longer the states cash cow. For a single Mother the gross income level (which is based on the poverty levels set up by the Government) for Medicaid acceptance is $895. So if you earn LESS THAN $895 a month GROSS you are able to get Medicaid. $895??????? So if you are working at a job earning minimum wage...$5.25 @ 40 hours per week......(the DSS calculation is your weekly gross x 4.33=) is $909.30...you lose. You don't get Medicaid. Add on more kids and the gross monthly income requirements also go up.
So this is WHY the poor are sicker....

As terrible as that is, many more people simply fall through the cracks and don't receive healthcare at all. Many people slave away at a service industry type jobs. These jobs frequently don't have health insurance benefits, but pay just enough to make people ineligible for Medicaid. I wonder if this is by design? Our healthcare system is messed up, but that is what happens when business has more say in public policy than individuals do.

Dolfan984
03-09-2003, 02:43 PM
Minimum wage here is 6.25, but I'll be damned if you can find a good job anymore.

Peebs
03-09-2003, 05:38 PM
Did I under estimate the minimum wage?? :eek: I might have. So even at $6.25 an hour it REALLY doesn't allow you to qualify for Medical Public assistance.
THE one good thing Gov Pataki did start in NYS was "Family Heath Plus". It was based on a MN type of state insurance that uninsured families can "buy into". The problem with the program so far is that you still pay a premium, which for people surviving from paycheck to paycheck might still be too much to pay. Also TRYING TO GET THROUGH ON THE PHONE to sign up and receive the paperwork is near next to impossible! Then trying to get through the bureaucracy of the required documents....:rolleyes:

PhinPhan1227
03-10-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Peebs
Ummm don't need stats.
It's simple. The poor can't afford proper healthcare therefore they are sicker and DIE earlier than their wealthier counterparts.
Poor women are more likely to die from breast cancer and ovarian cancer than wealthier women. WHY? Because they are not afforded the early detection OR there isn't a Healthcare provider in their community.



You also don't need facts apparently. Ovarian cancer is actually more prevalent in wealthy women than in poor women. The reason for that is that in America, the higher you go on the Socia Economic ladder, the later women get pregnant. And the later they get pregnant, the more years they spend with regular ovulation. And the more you ovulate, the better chance you have of developing ovarian Cancer. Thie is one of the most well documented "reversals" of the usual link between lower Socio-economic standing, and higher health risk. Check some facts Peebs.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9707/01/nfm.ovarian.cancer/

Peebs
03-10-2003, 02:37 PM
Ummm read my post AGAIN..

I clearly said "early detection" those without medical insurance do not get early detection therefore the disease is far more advanced and they die.
Insured women may get the disease but the cure rate is higher.

WharfRat
03-10-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
Did I under estimate the minimum wage?? :eek: I might have.

Actually.... The federal minimum wage is $5.15/hr... but states have the option to pass thier own minimum wage laws, making it higher, or in a few cases, lower....for instance, NJ and NY are at $5.15.... but Rhode Island is $6.15, and Oregon is $6.90...

here's the link....

State by State minimum Wages (http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm)

Sniper
03-10-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
You also don't need facts apparently. Ovarian cancer is actually more prevalent in wealthy women than in poor women. The reason for that is that in America, the higher you go on the Socia Economic ladder, the later women get pregnant. And the later they get pregnant, the more years they spend with regular ovulation. And the more you ovulate, the better chance you have of developing ovarian Cancer. Thie is one of the most well documented "reversals" of the usual link between lower Socio-economic standing, and higher health risk. Check some facts Peebs.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9707/01/nfm.ovarian.cancer/

Socioeconomic status isn't mentioned once in that article. There is nothing in that article that even remotely mentions that there is a link between socioeconomic status and ovarian cancer.
Your entire statement is 100% B.S.


For arguments sake, let's say what you say is true. According to you, wealthier women tend to put off childbirth. If this is true then it probably means they use some some form of birth control which REDUCES the number of ovulations they have. Accoording to the article, this reduces the probability of ovarian cancer occuring.

PhinPhan1227
03-10-2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
Ummm read my post AGAIN..

I clearly said "early detection" those without medical insurance do not get early detection therefore the disease is far more advanced and they die.
Insured women may get the disease but the cure rate is higher.

You said "Poor women are more likely to die from breast cancer and ovarian cancer than wealthier women. " and that fact is patently FALSE! The figures are clear that more women die of ovarian cancer who are in the middle and upper classes than those of the lower classes. Those are the facts. There were 100 other diseases you could have picked that would have made your point valid, but that wasn't one of them. Lastly, what did you think of the 60 minutes piece last night? If we have no doctors willing to become OB/Gyns, because they can't afford insurance NOBODY is going to get ANY care.

PhinPhan1227
03-10-2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Socioeconomic status isn't mentioned once in that article. There is nothing in that article that even remotely mentions that there is a link between socioeconomic status and ovarian cancer.
Your entire statement is 100% B.S.


For arguments sake, let's say what you say is true. According to you, wealthier women tend to put off childbirth. If this is true then it probably means they use some some form of birth control which REDUCES the number of ovulations they have. Accoording to the article, this reduces the probability of ovarian cancer occuring.

Dang Sniper, you really need to keep yourself calm. Take a look at this link...and see if my argument is "100% BS"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usouthal.edu/genetics/cancer.htm


Established Breast Cancer Risk Factors ...
(Risk Factors generally recognized and corroborated in the medical literature)
Higher Socio-Economic Status (Lifestye differences)

Late age at first pregnancy
No children

The National Cancer Institute estimated that 40% of the breast cancer in the United States is attributable to: having no children, late-age of first pregnancies, high socio-economic status and family history.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nuff.org/health_cancer.htm

Endometrial Cancer

Risk factors include high socioeconomic status and never given birth or few pregnancies.
A decrease in risk has been observed in women with multiple births.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.findarticles.com/g2603/0005/2603000567/p1/article.jhtml

Ovarian cancer is also linked to high socioeconomic status in women.


Care to kick in one more apology Sniper?

Sniper
03-10-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Dang Sniper, you really need to keep yourself calm. Take a look at this link...and see if my argument is "100% BS"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usouthal.edu/genetics/cancer.htm


Established Breast Cancer Risk Factors ...
(Risk Factors generally recognized and corroborated in the medical literature)
Higher Socio-Economic Status (Lifestye differences)

Late age at first pregnancy
No children

The National Cancer Institute estimated that 40% of the breast cancer in the United States is attributable to: having no children, late-age of first pregnancies, high socio-economic status and family history.

We were talking about ovarian cancer and this is about breast cancer. This clearly says 40% of breast cancer cases is attributable to having no children, late-age of first pregnancies, high socio-economic status and family history. I wonder what the other 60% is attributable to?



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nuff.org/health_cancer.htm

Endometrial Cancer

Risk factors include high socioeconomic status and never given birth or few pregnancies.
A decrease in risk has been observed in women with multiple births.

This is exactly what Peebs mentioned. The higher your socio-economic status the more likely it is you get treatment and the greater chance that you will survive. The poor typically don't get treatment and have a higher mortality rate.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.findarticles.com/g2603/0005/2603000567/p1/article.jhtml

Ovarian cancer is also linked to high socioeconomic status in women.

See the reason above



Care to kick in one more apology Sniper?

It is still B.S., but inadvertant B.S. on your part.

Peebs
03-10-2003, 05:11 PM
Funny you pulled ONE point out of a list.






Age. The incidence of the disease increases with age. Half of all cases are diagnosed after age 65.
Race. The incidence of the disease is highest among white women and lowest among blacks.
High-fat diet. When Asian women move to the more affluent Western countries and adopt a diet that is rich in fat, the incidence of ovarian cancer among them rises. Furthermore, ovarian cancer is highest in those countries with the highest consumption of dairy foods (Switzerland, Denmark, and Sweden) and lowest in those countries with the lowest dairy intake (Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore). Ovarian cancer is also linked to high socioeconomic status in women.
Family history. Women who have even one close relative with the disease increase their risk threefold. In addition, if a woman has had breast cancer, she is at an increased risk for ovarian cancer.
Early menstruation/late menopause. Menstruating early (before age 12) and experiencing menopause late seem to put women at a higher risk for ovarian cancer. It is believed that the longer a woman ovulates, the higher her risk of ovarian cancer (some researchers think exposure to estrogen during the monthly cycles is the cause). Since ovulation occurs only during the childbearing years, the longer she menstruates, the greater her risk. Pregnancy gives a break from ovulation and exposure to estrogen for nine months. Hence, multiple pregnancies actually appear to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. Similarly, since oral contraceptives suppress ovulation and reduce exposure to estrogen, women who take birth control pills have a lower incidence of the disease.
Fertility drugs. One study has shown that prolonged use of certain fertility drugs, such as clomiphene citrate, may increase a woman's risk of developing ovarian tumors.
Talcum powder. Some studies have suggested that the use of talcum powder in the genital area may double a woman's risk of getting the cancer. The incidence of ovarian cancer is higher than normal among female workers exposed to asbestos. Since talc contains particles of asbestos, some researchers believe that is what accounts for the increased risk.

THAT wasn't just one point for whom is "at risk". women on the pill...women who took ferility drugs....WOMEN WHO HAVE INSURANCE can afford those.
So what I get out of ANY list of women MORE likely to develop breast, ovarian, uterine, cervical is...
If your a woman and have any of those parts you are at risk for those cancers..
BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE INSURANCE, you don't seek medical care, don't have the very simple screening tests. You develop cancer and die.
THAT'S the bottom line. Plain and simple.
But if you have adequate Health insurance you are able to have a yearly pap smear, pelvic exam and mammography. Early detection means you can be a cancer survivor.


Same goes for men too....no insurance-no prostate blood tests. No testicular exams....

Sniper
03-10-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
You said "Poor women are more likely to die from breast cancer and ovarian cancer than wealthier women. " and that fact is patently FALSE! The figures are clear that more women die of ovarian cancer who are in the middle and upper classes than those of the lower classes. Those are the facts. .

Actually the fact is black women have a higher mortality rate for these and other cancers. There is a correlation between race and socio-economic status.

The website you supplied even shows that blacks do have higher mortality rates:

http://www.nuff.org/health_cancer.htm

PhinPhan1227
03-10-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
We were talking about ovarian cancer and this is about breast cancer. This clearly says 40% of breast cancer cases is attributable to having no children, late-age of first pregnancies, high socio-economic status and family history. I wonder what the other 60% is attributable to?



This is exactly what Peebs mentioned. The higher your socio-economic status the more likely it is you get treatment and the greater chance that you will survive. The poor typically don't get treatment and have a higher mortality rate.



See the reason above


It is still B.S., but inadvertant B.S. on your part.

Yes, the PERCENTAGE of deaths is smaller among women with a higher socio-economic status, but the overall NUMBER of deaths are still higher. Further, Peebs said Ovarian AND breast cancers, read her post. LASTLY, the other 60% is predominantly attributable to genetic factors. If your mother had breast cancer, you're automatically high risk, regardless of any other risk factors. Give it up Sniper, it's an established fact that both Ovarian and Breast cancers are linked to higher Socio Economic status because women of higher incomes wait longer to have children. If you have any further doubts, just call a freaking OB/Gyn, or Oncologist. Heck man, I may argue for the sake of arguing, but I don't act purposely obtuse just to keep the argument going. Sheesh!

Peebs
03-10-2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Lastly, what did you think of the 60 minutes piece last night? If we have no doctors willing to become OB/Gyns, because they can't afford insurance NOBODY is going to get ANY care.

Don't have to..
I work in the field. I know Doctors who are still practicing GYN care but knocked off delivering babies because of escalating Malpratice Insurance. OB has a HIGH malpractice rate and the insurance is becoming too expensive to afford.
WHY?
We live in a "sue" society. AND because of the structure of the insurance system the US currently has, a doctor has to see 4 times MORE patients than in the past to keep a practice alive. The insurance schedule is mirrored after the Medicare pay schedule, which I pointed out earlier.

Peebs
03-10-2003, 05:19 PM
Socio Economic status because women of higher incomes wait longer to have children. If you have any further doubts

And we pointed out as did the article links you supplied those aren't the ONLY factors.

PhinPhan1227
03-10-2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Actually the fact is black women have a higher mortality rate for these and other cancers. There is a correlation between race and socio-economic status.

The website you supplied even shows that blacks do have higher mortality rates:

http://www.nuff.org/health_cancer.htm

Again, a higher PERCENTAGE, of deaths, not a higher number. I already addressed this with Peebs...read the whole post.

PhinPhan1227
03-10-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
Don't have to..
I work in the field. I know Doctors who are still practicing GYN care but knocked off delivering babies because of escalating Malpratice Insurance. OB has a HIGH malpractice rate and the insurance is becoming too expensive to afford.
WHY?
We live in a "sue" society. AND because of the structure of the insurance system the US currently has, a doctor has to see 4 times MORE patients than in the past to keep a practice alive. The insurance schedule is mirrored after the Medicare pay schedule, which I pointed out earlier.


So what is your solution to the problem? Do you agree that we should have a cap on awards? If not, what would you do? Being that you work in the industry, I'd really like to hear your opinion on the matter.

PhinPhan1227
03-10-2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
And we pointed out as did the article links you supplied those aren't the ONLY factors.

No those aren't the only factors, but those are the biggest NON-GENETIC factors. If your mom had breast cancer, you're high risk regardless of how much money you make. And the articles also pointed out that the most deaths WERE from among higher soci-economic women. Again, that was the one point of yours which I disputed, and the articles/stats bear my point out.

Sniper
03-10-2003, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Yes, the PERCENTAGE of deaths is smaller among women with a higher socio-economic status, but the overall NUMBER of deaths are still higher.

Oh my friggen Lord. Percentages are the fairest way to look at it because you are standardizing the number among groups. I've had more than enough Statistics courses to know that raw numbers don't mean much.


Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Peebs said Ovarian AND breast cancers, read her post. My bad. It still doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about everything else.


Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
LASTLY, the other 60% is predominantly attributable to genetic factors. If your mother had breast cancer, you're automatically high risk, regardless of any other risk factors. Give it up Sniper, it's an established fact that both Ovarian and Breast cancers are linked to higher Socio Economic status because women of higher incomes wait longer to have children. If you have any further doubts, just call a freaking OB/Gyn, or Oncologist. [B]

That article doesn't quantify where that other 60% comes from. In fact, it says "While most breast and ovarian cancer is not inherited, 5-10% of cases are thought to be inherited." So when you say "LASTLY, the other 60% is predominantly attributable to genetic factors." just shows ignorance or an inability to read.


Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
[B]Heck man, I may argue for the sake of arguing, but I don't act purposely obtuse just to keep the argument going. Sheesh!

I know you aren't obtuse on purpose. It comes naturally to you.

PhinPhan1227
03-10-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Oh my friggen Lord. Percentages are the fairest way to look at it because you are standardizing the number among groups. I've had more than enough Statistics courses to know that raw numbers don't mean much.

My bad. It still doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about everything else.



That article doesn't quantify where that other 60% comes from. In fact, it says "While most breast and ovarian cancer is not inherited, 5-10% of cases are thought to be inherited." So when you say "LASTLY, the other 60% is predominantly attributable to genetic factors." just shows ignorance or an inability to read.



I know you aren't obtuse on purpose. It comes naturally to you.


You're more than welcome to look at it by percentage, but that's NOT what Peebs said. Rather than jumping in to an argument about which you obviously know diddly, why not READ something? Again, why not give an OB/Gyn or Oncologist a call? Ask him/her if Socioeconomic status is linked to higher rates of Ovarian/Breast cancers and deaths. That was my ENTIRE point, and the stats, and medical literatue bear that point out. But instead, you'd rather AGAIN resort to name calling.
Hardly the tactic I'd expect from someone who claims to be a peacenick, but it's certainly become a pattern with you...:lol:

Sniper
03-11-2003, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
You're more than welcome to look at it by percentage, but that's NOT what Peebs said.

You were arguing this:

"the PERCENTAGE of deaths is smaller among women with a higher socio-economic status, but the overall NUMBER of deaths are still higher."

I am pointing out that using the overall number is not a good way to look at it. That obscures the fact that black women are more likely to die.


Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Rather than jumping in to an argument about which you obviously know diddly, why not READ something?

The problem is your posts are so innaccurate it is comical. Your "facts" are pretty much complete bull**** or complete misinterpretations. You are the perfect example of someone who knows just enough to be dangerous.

Do me a favor... It gets quite tedious refuting all the errors you make in one of your typical posts, so please keep your post to a few sentences. This will save me the trouble of breaking up one of your posts into separate quotes solely for the purpose of refuting them line by line.


Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Again, why not give an OB/Gyn or Oncologist a call? Ask him/her if Socioeconomic status is linked to higher rates of Ovarian/Breast cancers and deaths. That was my ENTIRE point, and the stats, and medical literatue bear that point out.

You cannot discount that there is a genetic link for breast cancer. There is evidence that whites are more likely to develop it than other races (and yet blacks have a higher mortality rate from it). Since whites tend to have higher SES, it could give the false appearance that SES is a factor. It could also be that it is detected more often in whites because of pre-screenings, better medical care, etc.

I'd hardly call a few websites medical literature :lol: You probably also consider McDonald's gourmet food. At the end of this post, I will put the abstract of real medical journal article just so you can see the difference vs. the fluff you read.


Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Hardly the tactic I'd expect from someone who claims to be a peacenick, but it's certainly become a pattern with you...:lol:

That's probably because I have a short fuse when it comes to people who lie. I don't like it when people make **** up and try to pass it off as fact. Here's just ONE of your bull**** examples out of many:


Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
LASTLY, the other 60% is predominantly attributable to genetic factors.

You are so full of ****. I challenge you to cite the specific sentence on that webpage that says that. Here's the webpage:

http://www.usouthal.edu/genetics/cancer.htm

The only thing I can find on that webpage that gives any percentage for inheritence is the 2nd sentence on that webpage. It is much lower than the "fact" you provided us with. It says this:

"While most breast and ovarian cancer is not inherited, 5-10% of cases are thought to be inherited."


It is clear that you have no interest in an HONEST debate with anyone.

Sniper
03-11-2003, 02:01 AM
This is real medical literature PhinPhan. Just read it... I'm in no mood to read a post of yours that completely misinterprets the findings of these authors.

Title: Socioeconomic status and breast carcinoma survival in four racial/ethnic groups.
Author(s): O'Malley CD; Le GM; Glaser SL; Shema SJ; West DW
Author's Address: Northern California Cancer Center, Union City, California.
Source: Cancer [Cancer] 2003 Mar 1; 97 (5), pp. 1303-11.
Pub. Type: Journal Article
Language: English
Journal Info: Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 0374236 ISSN: 0008-543X Subsets: PreMEDLINE-In Process; AIM; IM
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Although overall survival for invasive breast carcinoma remains high, black women experience poorer survival than whites. Less is known about the survival of Hispanics and Asians, who may share clinical and socioeconomic risk factors similar to blacks. To better understand racial/ethnic survival patterns, we investigated the effect of socioeconomic status (SES) and disease stage on racial/ethnic differences in breast carcinoma survival in a large population-based cohort. METHODS: Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (SEER), we identified 10,414 white, 940 black, 1100 Hispanic, and 1180 Asian females diagnosed with breast carcinoma in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area between 1988 and 1992. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to generate survival rates and Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the risk of death by race/ethnicity, after adjustment for clinical, demographic, and census-derived SES variables. RESULTS: The 10-year unadjusted survival rates were 81% for whites, 69% for blacks, 75% for Hispanics, and 79% for Asians. Adjusting for stage decreased the relative risk of mortality for blacks from 1.81 to 1.29; the stage-adjusted relative risk for Hispanics (1.11) and Asians (1.02) did not differ significantly from whites. Additional adjustment for age, tumor characteristics, and treatment factors did little to alter the relative risk in blacks; adding blue-collar status to the model further decreased the relative risks for blacks to 1.22. Residing in a blue-collar neighborhood was independently associated with a 1.16 increase in risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for multiple factors, blacks continue to have slight but significantly poorer survival after breast carcinoma compared with whites, whereas the survival of Hispanics and Asians did not differ from whites. Cancer 2003;97:1303-11. (Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.11160)
Entry Date(s): Date Created: 20030224
Citation ID(s): PMID: 12599239 Medline UI: 22486317
Database: MEDLINE
Persistent Link to this Article: http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=12599239&db=cmedm&tg=PM

Sniper
03-11-2003, 02:43 AM
Here's a bonus article for you. Again, there no need for you to misinterpret it.

Title: A comparison of survival of black and white female breast cancer cases in Upstate New York.
Author(s): Polednak AP
Author's Address: Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, State University of New York, Stony Brook 11794.
Source: Cancer detection and prevention [Cancer Detect Prev] 1988; 11 (3-6), pp. 245-9.
Pub. Type: Journal Article
Language: English
Journal Info: Country of Publication: UNITED STATES NLM ID: 7704778 ISSN: 0361-090X Subsets: IM
MeSH Terms: Breast Neoplasms/*mortality
Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology; Breast Neoplasms/pathology; Caucasoid Race; Comparative Study; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Human; Middle Age; Negroid Race; Neoplasm Staging; New York
Abstract: A comparison of observed (absolute) survival rates was made for 890 black and 24,372 white female breast cancer cases diagnosed at age 24-84 years from 1976 to 1981 while residents in Upstate New York, using data on passive follow-up as reported to the population-based New York State Cancer Registry. Although survival rates were significantly lower in black vs. white cases at 1 and 3 years after diagnosis for all stages combined, racial differences in survival within each clinical stage were small. Noteworthy were the nearly identical survival rates for blacks and whites diagnosed at stage 1 (local disease). Thus, black-white differences in socioeconomic status, especially when stage at diagnosis is considered. Within clinical stage 3 (metastatic) cases, however, survival tended to be poorer in younger (less than 60 years) black vs. white patients. These data suggest the need for programs aimed at early detection of breast cancer among black women at younger ages.
Revision Date: 20001218
Entry Date(s): Date Created: 19880824 Date Completed: 19880824
Citation ID(s): PMID: 3390848 Medline UI: 88270417
Database: MEDLINE
Persistent Link to this Article: http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=3390848&db=cmedm&tg=PM

PhinPhan1227
03-11-2003, 10:40 AM
In the words of Dan Akroyd, "Sniper you ignorant slut". You want to talk about a Straw Man fallacy? You've just given the ideal example of one. My argument discussed the overall numbers of women who CONTRACT and DIE from Breast/Ovarian Cancer because that was what was SAID by Peebs, and you decide to change the parameters of the argument and THEN dispute my facts! YES a higher percentage of poor women who contract these illnesses die from them than wealthier women. But that WAS NOT THE POINT! You want to argue THAT, fine, start a new thread and have a ball. As to my statement that the other 60% was attributable to inheritance, I should have qualified that to point out that I was discussing incidences of the Cancer that INCLUDE risk factors. The vast majority of these cases (70%) have no known risk factors at all. Of those that DO, age is the highest risk factor, followed by genetics. 60% was probably a high number to throw out, but being that it's the #2 risk factor, it's still significant. Either way, the actual number is irrelevant since the discussion was about Socioeconomic impact. The risk factors of age and genetics have no impact on the discussion of Socioeconomic impact on illness and death. If you'd pull your head out of your rectum, you'd see that I even conceded to Peebs before you decided to go off the rocker that percentage of deaths is a better scale, and that she should have just picked a different example. But what else should I expect from someone who can't keep his temper in a rational discussion? Just out of curiosity, why haven't you addressed the PURPOSE of the whole post? The healthcare system of Germany is in a shambles, and is almost bankrupt. And since Germany more closely resembles the US demographically than Canada, it presents a better picture of the pressures we would face here in trying to establish a similar system. But rather than addressing that issue, you'd rather jump in and name call. Maybe you should change your nick from Sniper to Howitzer? It would more accurately describe your level of subtlety