2012 Elections in the USA

Esten, you are so full of it. The original post indicated the patient in question had already had surgical intervention, removal of one lobe of the lung, and the chest x-ray was for follow up. Procedure code and matching diagnostic code were rejected for payment by Medicare. The physician was frustrated with his ability to follow up due to the denial forcing the patient to now pay for a follow up test which was covered 18 months ago. I would think a cancer specialist at MD Anderson might know what he is talking about.

So Esten, why are you always trying to change the discussion to general population screening? The only person unable to stay on topic here is you, as usual. Typical liberal B / S if you don't have the facts through everything but the kitchen sink in to obscure the discussion.

If anyone is in a fight to deny women access to healthcare it is Obama and ObamaCare. Two of the three tests you listed directly affect women, mamaograms and PAP smears. Obama is all for making sure women get free contraceptives but could care less about breast or cervical cancer. So who is waging the war on women?

Better go back and check with the American College of Obstetrics and Gyneclogy my friend, you will find a very different view!

Big Boss Man, some how I doubt we suddenly had a surge of 9 million housewives in 3 1/2 years! I do agree in the past that part of the population which did not work were either housewives, infirmed, or retired, doubt that accounts for the "shrinkage" your seeing the BLS claim now.

Doppelganger, quoting the WSJ article you submitted:

"When people leave the labor force it could be due to discouragement of the long-term unemployed or by choice over retirement or child care. The labor force has dropped dramatically over the course of recession and recovery, and concerns have been raised it was due to discouraged workers."

So here the author gave three reasons: discouragement, retirement and childcare but focused on discouragement.

Again I think there is a secular trend toward retirement that was identified ten years ago and it is definitely part of the number.

I think that people are now realizing the value of childcare. We are moving away from the Hillary Clinton view of "It Takes a Village." We are seeing the rise of home schooling like Rick Santorum did. Google home schooling finds a USA Today article claiming a rise of 400k students between 2003 and 2007. I think it is more popular now not less. Those mothers are probably dropping out of the labor force but engaged in gainful activity.

Then there is the cyclical issue of discouragement. How do you split the 9 million? If the ex-plumber that I cited is raising children is he discouraged or is he engaged in an activity worth $60k when he could only make $40k.

I think there are many free riders cashing checks on the lengthened unemployment benefits. According to the BLS unemployed mothers of children under the age of 18 has increased by a million since 2008. Obama and the Democrats should be blamed for that one. Anyone could have seen that coming. BTW by percent the levels are the same as in the 1980s.

[url]http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2011.pdf[/url]

Until someone does the hard analysis we are in the world of "Could". That is why I reacted in the first place.

I am enjoying our discussion Doppel.

Yes you would think a specialist at MD Anderson would know what he's talking about. Why don't you ask him why he's recommending something his profession doesn't support? While you're at it, ask him about the risk-benefit ratio of the followup treatments the patient might have to endure from a false-positive x-ray. Maybe he's looking to generate more revenue for his practice.

[QUOTE]So Esten, why are you always trying to change the discussion to general population screening?[/QUOTE]The point is [i]asymptomatic[/i] populations. If the patient was successfully treated, and the symptoms gone, that patient is asymptomatic. No different from the general population, except for the additional risk factor of prior cancer. I explained this before. I also researched your claim many hours online, and found no exceptions for the detection of recurrent cancer. In fact I found (and posted) a study showing chest x-ray to be a poor test for recurrence in asymptomatic patients.

There may be some limited value, but Medicare has to make choices on how to spend limited dollars. If $10M to pay for "A" can save 100 lives, but for "B" can save 1000 lives, what's the best choice? Medicare can't pay for everything.

[QUOTE]If anyone is in a fight to deny women access to healthcare it is Obama and ObamaCare. Two of the three tests you listed directly affect women, mamaograms and PAP smears. Obama is all for making sure women get free contraceptives but could care less about breast or cervical cancer. So who is waging the war on women?[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO!! Go back and read what I wrote. Obama (via PPACA) has ensured screening for breast and cervical cancer WILL BE FREE. Co-pays are now prohibited. PPACA expands access for women, not only for these tests, but also the number of women who will be able to get them for free. Encouraging the use of these screening tests is a win-win for women's health and healthcare costs.

Doppel, I know you're all riled up against Obama, maybe you should take some time out and clear your head a little bit.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 422081]That's an easy one.

1. It's the Supreme Court's fault.

2. It's Congress' fault.

3. It's George Bush's fault.[/QUOTE]Even easier is guessing how Republicans will explain anything negative:

1. It's Obama's fault.

[QUOTE=Esten; 422137]Even easier is guessing how Republicans will explain anything negative:

1. It's Obama's fault.[/QUOTE]It is easier because it is true.

LMAO Esten. Obama's Preventive Services Taskforce (aka death panel) decided they were not paying for mammograms due to in their estimation the false positives outweighed the benefits of the test for women 40-49 years of age. So it is the patient's choice to have the test done, if the patient is willing to pay for it. Now just exactly how is a test 'free' if it is not authorized for payment and the patient has to foot the bill? While the Preventive Services Taskforce did determine a mammogram once every two years was acceptable, I. E. Covered for payment, for women 50 to 75 years of age.

Check with the American Cancer Society and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology both recommend screening for women to begin at 40 years of age and be performed annually. Well Esten, I guess these two outfits are talking out their ass and must hate Obama and ObamaCare.

Regarding the chest x-ray, you need to really look a little closer at the data. MD Anderson is one of the leading research institutes in the world when it comes to cancer. I would strongly suspect your 'studies' are much like those used by Obama's Preventive Services Taskforce – flawed!

Take a look at the leading study the Preventative Services Taskforce used to justify their position, it 'synthesized data from 66 other studies'. These folks selected the studies they wanted then willowed it down to what they wanted. Not new research that independently confirmed their hypothesis, just regurgitation of old material. The other used 'four computer models that simulate life histories for individual women'. Never dated a 'simulated' woman before but I'll bet you have.

So tell me Esten, how exactly is this 'free' if it's not approved or offered in the first place.

[QUOTE=Esten; 422136]I am enjoying our discussion Doppel.

There may be some limited value, but Medicare has to make choices on how to spend limited dollars. If $10M to pay for "A" can save 100 lives, but for "B" can save 1000 lives, what's the best choice? Medicare can't pay for everything.[/QUOTE]You make my point about ObamaCare and the 'death panels' for me Esten. Just like Canada, England and other countries with this style of 'healthcare' system it all comes down to once you reach a certain age. 55 to 60 depending on the country, you no longer deserve care so go home and die quietly while we spend the money on younger people, like the 'occupy' crowd since they deserve it. Does not matter you old people paid Medicare payroll taxes you whole life and your employers matched it. Let's take care of the jackasses who won't work but are more 'worthy' because they are young.

BBM, the WSJ article centered on the folks dropping out of the work force due to being long term unemployed and discouraged. These folks are still unemployed and still want a job, just can not find one. The article does mention child care and retirement as having a MINOR affect on the drop with the central factor being discouragement.

Please don't tell me you think the majority of those 9 million plus folks retired or became Mr. Mom! Even the BLS is not trying to say they retired.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 422144]BBM, the WSJ article centered on the folks dropping out of the work force due to being long term unemployed and discouraged. These folks are still unemployed and still want a job, just can not find one. The article does mention child care and retirement as having a MINOR affect on the drop with the central factor being discouragement.

Please don't tell me you think the majority of those 9 million plus folks retired or became Mr. Mom! Even the BLS is not trying to say they retired.[/QUOTE]Yes, I will stick to my guns. I really do not believe, assuming this an argument against Obama's policy, it is the policy of the Republican Party to increase the size of the labor force. If elected, Republicans will be overjoyed if the labor force shrinks while jobs increase thereby lowering unemployment. Republicans are the party of the homemaker. Both Romney and Santorum's wives were stay at home mothers. Laura Bush left teaching to raise children.

The baby boomers will be retiring in the next 10 years me included. I am holding out because I think austerity is the only solution.

Stricter immigration enforcement has reduced the size of the labor force. Anecdotal evidence is that Mexican immigrants are returning to Mexico which is also reducing the labor force. It makes sense with the lack of construction jobs. From a sample of one, we offered a job to a student engineer that turned us down and went to work in Taiwan instead. Personally I just do not know any discouraged unemployed and I live in high unemployment county. I have a lead on a minimum wage graveyard shift job that can lead to $34k a year in 3 years. I have given the connection to 5 or 6 people and not one has followed through. I do not think that people are willing work at anything which takes them out of the ranks of the discouraged. Alabama has trouble finding crop workers now that the immigration laws are being enforced.

There are many reasons to vote Republican in November but the reason that Republicans will increase the labor force is BS. Here's a link to another article that is one-sided in it is assessment and follows your view. Notice these are all blogs and not in the reporting part of the WSJ or Weekly Standard.

[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/one-thing-clear-not-enough-new-jobs_643170.html[/url]

The article also implies that Republicans are happy that America is struggling which is more BS. I don't think Romney thinks that at all.

Enough politics, I am in BA next week and need to figure out places I want to visit. Skittenbrewer, can I buy you a meal?

Big Boss Man, with all due respect, I just find it very hard to believe 400,000+ folks decided to become Mr or Mrs Mom in April as that many people exited the job market. The BLS's statistics shows about 25% of the folks exiting the job market are baby boomers retiring so what about the other 75%

I'm with you on stricter immigration enforcement, but as you point out in the southern states as the illegals (I guess under political correctness I just committed a hate crime) are being pushed out of the fields, the farmers are having a hard time replacing the work force. I believe the reason for this is the government (Republican and Democrat) have made it too profitable to remain unemployed and on the government dole / plantation. Why go get a job and actually work when you can lay on your ass and get paid by Uncle Sugar?

There are many high paying jobs out there but few candidates with the qualifications to fill them. Not much call for French Revolutionary Literature Majors out there or other 'soft' degrees for that matter. All three engineering companies I have for clients are looking for mechanical engineers but are having a hard time finding them since the program is so difficult, ditto for electrical and system engineers. The jobs are there the people with the requisite training are not.

Today Welfare is so attractive and pays well enough through its myriad of sources that untrained and uneducated people would rather depend on Uncle Sugar than do the labor their grandparents and great grandparents did. Welfare has made them 'too good for that sort of work'.

With the populace of France becoming tired of the austerity policies of their current government they have elected a Socialist president who has taken up Obama's themes of soak the corporations and the rich to finance the social welfare system. We Americans can now watch these programs in action in France, the flight of capital from France accompanied by continued contraction of the economy as the businesses that drive it are taxed to death.

France will follow in the footsteps of Greece, Spain, and Italy. It won't take long for Europe / Euro Zone to begin to implode when Germany finally throws in the financial towel and lets the rest of Europe sink in their own social spending ocean of debt.

We need to explore, find, and build industries / services where we can have comparative advantage- meaning the ability to offer better products / services for lower prices. We do not have comparative advantages in blue collar jobs, and in some professional jobs. Education among the people and innovativeness among entrepreneurs are important.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 422149 ]Yes, I will stick to my guns. I really do not believe, assuming this an argument against Obama's policy, it is the policy of the Republican Party to increase the size of the labor force. If elected, Republicans will be overjoyed if the labor force shrinks while jobs increase thereby lowering unemployment. Republicans are the party of the homemaker. Both Romney and Santorum's wives were stay at home mothers. Laura Bush left teaching to raise children.

The baby boomers will be retiring in the next 10 years me included. I am holding out because I think austerity is the only solution.

Stricter immigration enforcement has reduced the size of the labor force. Anecdotal evidence is that Mexican immigrants are returning to Mexico which is also reducing the labor force. It makes sense with the lack of construction jobs. From a sample of one, we offered a job to a student engineer that turned us down and went to work in Taiwan instead. Personally I just do not know any discouraged unemployed and I live in high unemployment county. I have a lead on a minimum wage graveyard shift job that can lead to $34k a year in 3 years. I have given the connection to 5 or 6 people and not one has followed through. I do not think that people are willing work at anything which takes them out of the ranks of the discouraged. Alabama has trouble finding crop workers now that the immigration laws are being enforced.

There are many reasons to vote Republican in November but the reason that Republicans will increase the labor force is BS. Here's a link to another article that is one-sided in it is assessment and follows your view. Notice these are all blogs and not in the reporting part of the WSJ or Weekly Standard.

[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/one-thing-clear-not-enough-new-jobs_643170.html[/url]

The article also implies that Republicans are happy that America is struggling which is more BS. I don't think Romney thinks that at all.

Enough politics, I am in BA next week and need to figure out places I want to visit. Skittenbrewer, can I buy you a meal?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 422143]LMAO Esten. Obama's Preventive Services Taskforce (aka death panel) decided they were not paying for mammograms due to in their estimation the false positives outweighed the benefits of the test for women 40-49 years of age. So it is the patient's choice to have the test done, if the patient is willing to pay for it. Now just exactly how is a test 'free' if it is not authorized for payment and the patient has to foot the bill? While the Preventive Services Taskforce did determine a mammogram once every two years was acceptable, I. E. Covered for payment, for women 50 to 75 years of age.

Check with the American Cancer Society and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology both recommend screening for women to begin at 40 years of age and be performed annually. Well Esten, I guess these two outfits are talking out their ass and must hate Obama and ObamaCare.[/QUOTE]Wrong again. The PPACA has a provision that defers to the USPSTF 2002 guidelines which recommends screening mammography every 1-2 years for women aged 40 and older. It doesn't follow the more recent USPSTF guidance in this case, so it's hard to make a case this is Obama's Taskforce, which was B/S anyways.

You're making a fool out of yourself with your constant lack of fact-checking.

[QUOTE]Regarding the chest x-ray, you need to really look a little closer at the data. MD Anderson is one of the leading research institutes in the world when it comes to cancer. I would strongly suspect your 'studies' are much like those used by Obama's Preventive Services Taskforce – flawed![/QUOTE]It's not Obama's Taskforce. The science is far less-disputed on lung cancer (vs. breast cancer) , even the American Cancer Society recommends against routine screening of asymptomatic patients. Your doctor is an outlier.

[QUOTE]You make my point about ObamaCare and the 'death panels' for me Esten. [/QUOTE]Death panels.... you sound like Sarah Palin. LOL. Here's a news flash for you Doppel: no private or public health insurance system has or will ever have unlimited funds. Look into it. The best you can hope for is that dollars are spent wisely. And once again, PPACA does not cut Medicare benefits.

Super packs will destroy the electorial process: the super pacts misrewpresent the truth and both side are not trustworthy.

The Mitt: the wallstreet crowd parades not half truths but maybe 25% truths:

[url]http://factcheck.org/2012/05/stimulus-money-for-jobs-overseas/[/url]

In the Miami market the ads were on shows ranging from the Sunday morning news shows to the afternoon flintstones-you can see I have far ranging tastes.

-

The budget debates-both sides are telling lots of half truths, but Obama likely is more full of it than the Mitt.

[url]http://factcheck.org/2012/04/fall-preview-obama-vs-romney-and-ryan/[/url]

Factchecker makes an interesting read after all the baloney spread by the spin masters on both sides. Actually read the factchecker article completely is you are going to discuss the buget debate.

-

The teaparty folks are even more full of it. Let's bring back the good old days-1919.

[url]http://factcheck.org/2012/03/tea-partys-targets/[/url]

The moderate voices in both parties should be silenced so only the most extreme irrational loud mouths with minimal thought attached to reality prevail!

There you go. 42% of Americans will be obese by 2030. Unemployment and hunger should not be a major issue in the future.