Indeed, that seemed to me the point Root was trying to make. Between all the bickering over statistics about breast cancer and whether or not mammograms are effective at early diagnosis and treatment, people seemed to have lost sight of the fact that he used this as an example, so it seemed appropriate to reinforce at least THAT aspect of what he was saying.

That point is worthy of debate on its own, and the point about insurance companies — whether government-run or private — making decisions about people’s care is also worthy of discussion. It’s one thing to discuss the problems with the present offering. It’s quite another to consider ways outside the box of fixing those problems.

Health care CANNOT BE a free market because the market is not rational on the demand side. That’s a critical element of the whole supply-demand balance — rational evaluation of any transaction. When the buyer may lose his life if he does not buy, he will pay any price the supplier asks. That’s why we can’t simply turn the whole ruddy business over to the free market. At the same time, the opposite extreme will have us all living with a medicare-like system or worse. I applaud any attempt at compromise and recognize readily that there can be no perfect solution. But we have to try.

No, I’m saying they should let doctors and patients decide what is appropriate care, not bean counters.

This discussion was provoked by a *recommendation*, which is just that – letting ‘doctors and patients decide’.

That, my droogs, is what you have to look forward to with government run health care. Am I saying they should spend more money? No, I’m saying they should let doctors and patients decide what is appropriate care, not bean counters. It’s bad enough to do this to our elderly and our poor. It’s quite another thing entirely to mandate DMV-style care for everyone.

Sounds like you may be a supporter of the St. Louis Accord…

However, the Grand Conversation between Ls who are absolutist, abolitionist, anarchists and those who are not very much revolves around 2 keys issues:

- How specific must an L vision be?
- Is someone NOT L if he or she advocates (or opposes) the “doable” over a certain timeframe?

For ex., if an L candidate criticizes ObamaCare (as Root and Kennedy are doing now) and, say, advocates increasing HSAs, if he or she NOT a L?

Or, put another way, is it IMPERATIVE that a L candidate MUST have an X-year plan to abolish Medicare and Medicaid, for ex.?

If not, why not?

I see nothing wrong with Libertarians taking a realistic position: “We have to get government out of providing health care issues in the long run and here are our concrete doable ways of winding it down over the next generation…”

Me: Has to? This is an imperative? Wow! What if, for ex., you had a time machine and you could test your theory.

Scenario A: Advocate abolition of Medicare today. Flash forward 30 years, and find nothing changed.

Scenario B: Advocate unwinding government from health care. Flash forward 30 years, and government is largely out of health care.

With those results, Around, would you STILL hold to your imperative? If so, why so?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-11-24-mammogram24ONLINE_ST_N.htm

“Dr. [ Susan]Love noted that not all medical groups agreed with the cancer society’s guidelines. Some recommend no screening for women under 50 or over 70, and some advise mammograms only every other year. In European countries that screen every other year, she said, the breast cancer death rates are no higher than in the United States.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03second.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Dr.%20Otis%20Brawley,&st=cse

Should Read: “Would I put it past either of the two political parties to put womens’ health in danger to appease the FOR-PROFIT HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY?”

Long day.

“The Federal Government’s decision to not fund mammograms for 40 to 50 year old woman is for one reason only”

This quote from Dr Lieberman is false: no government official has not stated at all anywhere that they will not fund mammograms for women 40 to 50 (except Repubicans who are trying to spread this conspiracy). Please cite your source for this, Dr Lieberman.

Please, this public option is a bailout of the insurance company, pure and simple. Would I put it pass either of the two political parties to put womens’ health in danger to appease BIG PHARMA?

Hell no, they are already doing this with the “Hyde On Steroids”-Stupak in the House and its counterpart in the Senate, but this does not appease BIG PHARMA, only the far right loons in this country.

and Dr Lieberman gives us this nice ditty: “The vast majority of the panel’s doctors are public health types – the ones who think they have the right to figure out if someone’s life is worth saving or not, based solely on how much money saving those lives will cost the politicians in money that could be better spent bribing people who are healthy to vote for them in future elections.”

But until there is EVIDENCE that every person on this panel is in cahoots, with Obama, Baucus and the other Blue Dogs, and the HMO’s them these rants are nothing more than unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, regardless of initials after those who are espousing the rhetoric.

Here is a list of the actual board, that Dr Lieberman dismisses as “public health types” who, in his mind, only care about costs, and keep in mind, these are RECOMMENDATIONS from this board, RECOMMENDATIONS:

http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/USpstfab.htm#Members

So all of these people are in one accord politically and are conspiring with Obama and co??? Obama, Baucus, and HMOs could only wish that this was true.

I am not defending the panel, I am pointing out that this did not come from Obama or Congress as Wayne Root would have you believe, and if it did, then they had better show us some proof.

Root does not cite any evidence, just crazy generalizations, wild accusations, and having an M.D. does not give one special permission to repeat such nonsense. The only insight that Dr Lieberman gives us is that there are no oncologists on the board, a fair criticism, but certainly not evidence of this great conspiracy.

The below passage is the most amount of “proof” that Root can come up with.

“and Liberals, intellectuals, and the biased, Obama-loving media scoffed at the notion of government-run “death panels.” Well this incident is proof they are coming.”

Oh, this is such a scientific argument (not!)

Gentlemen, show us some proof: either put up or shut up with these Palin-esque proclamations.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ildbrmUDwz7FhuHTA9YQwvNSs5pgD9C4L2BG0

Why should society pay to keep a flat-lining, drooling vegetable alive?

Especially when a family who isn’t paying for it bases their wish to keep the living corpse alive based on some crazy ass religious belief.

Aroundtheblockafewtimes has it right at #27

Liberal intellengsia have long held that “society” spends “too much” on heroic medical procedures that rarely extend lifespans appreciably. While I hear their point, I surely don’t want the GOVERNMENT making those decisions. OTOH, they are making them NOW with Medicare.

If the LP wants to stand on principle then it needs to differentiate itself from Republicans and Democrats. Echoing the same talking points that we hear from GOP leaders and other rightwingers will not accomplish that.