FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2013, 06:06 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(09-12-2013 04:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The reason we get nowhere is because you won't be specific and state WHAT exactly is wrong with my claim.

(08-12-2013 10:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-11-2013 05:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This month, however, the FDA has banned all such genome research and ordered 23andme and all other genetic testing outfits to shut down.
(27-11-2013 08:23 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It's true that DNA testing is preventative medicine, and the FDA has banned it.

Drinking Beverage

Those things are not true.

(09-12-2013 04:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You just play word games, like arguing whether 23andme is diagnostic or preventative.

No, that's called pointing out to you that words mean specific things.

Which they do.

Therefore it is possible to use them incorrectly. As you did. Misusing vocabulary (let alone repeatedly and obstinately so) is not a great way to start an argument.

(09-12-2013 04:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  To force this to a resolution and make you either (a) state specifically what is wrong with my claim, or (b) run away from the challenge (as Chas did) proving publicly that you can't find anything specifically wrong with my claim and are making a big fuss out of nothing, here is my claim again. For each number, you only need to say 'agree' or 'disagree', so it's super simple, and will take you only 30 seconds, and then we'll know WHAT SPECIFICALLY you think is wrong with my OP.

See above. You claim the FDA "bans" genome research. False. You claim the FDA has "banned" DNA testing. False. You claim DNA testing is preventative. False. You claim the FDA ordered all other genetic testing outfits shut down. False. You claim all of the above (which arenot even true) are because of the ACA. False.

You are utterly incorrect as regards the above.

Now, you are proceeding to make different claims. You either cannot tell the difference or are so dishonest you don't care.

This marks the return of another trademark fallacy:
A: X and Y.
B: not-Y.
A: You said not-X.

Learn to logic.

Now, it's all well and good for you to make the following statements. I'm feeling charitable, so I will respond to your inanity. While reminding you (and the audience at home) that the statements which follow are not the statements you originally made. Which, if you'll recall, were false.

(09-12-2013 04:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  1. Before Obamacare, I had only 'catastrophic insurance' that did not cover routine care and testing. I got a 23andme DNA analyses which indicated a genetic predisposition to diabetes. In response to this, I got some tests done to measure my insulin resistance. I paid for those tests myself using privatemdlabs. In the end the test was unnecessary since my bloodwork came back just fine. I got an unnecessary test because of a 23andme report.

Thanks for sharing?

(09-12-2013 04:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  2. Now post Obamacare, I am required by law to buy a comprehensive plan that does cover routine care and testing, and since I'm paying for it, I might as well use it. Therefore, if I did the insulin tests today, I would have to get a doctor's order for the tests and submit the claim to my insurance company, and, assuming I met my deductible, the insurance company would pay for the tests, or at the very least have to process the claim.

To be covered by insurance a procedure must be justifiable.

If you pay out of pocket - which you are, now as ever, entirely free to do - then you can pay for whatever you want done by whoever is licensed to do it.

Are you going somewhere with this?

Your situation has gone from paying for an unnecessary procedure out of pocket to... paying for an unnecessary procedure out of pocket.

WELL RUSTLE MY JIMMIES, frankksj.

(09-12-2013 04:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  3. As the insurance company pays more in claims, as a general rule they also charge more in premiums.

Potentially. If they pay more in claims per person they may need to charge higher premiums to cover the costs. If they pay more in aggregate they may not.

Relevance?

(09-12-2013 04:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  4. Obamacare is a hot-button issue that Republicans are making a big deal out of.

True.

Relevance?

(09-12-2013 04:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  5. If premiums go up, Republicans will likely use this against the democrats in the next election.

Perhaps.

Relevance?

(09-12-2013 04:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  6. In the 2014 election year, the Democrats benefit by making sure people don't get unnecessary tests, thus keeping insurance premiums lower and not giving the Republicans fuel for the fire.

Unnecessary procedures aren't covered by insurance, and thus have no bearing on the matter.

Relevance?

(09-12-2013 04:41 PM)frankksj Wrote:  7. Therefore, Obamacare adds an extra incentive to stop people from getting DNA testing if it leads to unnecessary tests, as it did in my case.

This is insane troll logic.

Unnecessary procedures aren't covered by insurance. There is thus no connection between uncovered elective procedures and insurance rates.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 07:01 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
Thank you, CJLR Big Grin

And I mean that sincerely with no sarcasm. It was frustrating because I seriously and honestly could not understand WHAT about my OP you guys found to be so false. And I fully expected you would ignore those 7 statements where I tried to pin you down, like Chas did when I asked him those same 7. I'm very glad that I was wrong because now we've identified the root issue we disagree on, I'm willing to concede that I may have been wrong.

Of my 7 statements, there's only one single, simple issue that we disagree on. Point #2. My OP is based on the assumption that if someone gets a 23andme test that says they have some predisposition to a disease, like diabetes or breast cancer, and they make an appointment with their primary care physician to ask for some tests (insulin test, mammogram, etc.), that the insurance company would pay for the doctor's visit as well as the tests.

_IF_ that assumption were true, it seems you agree with all 7 of my points, even the final point #7. The reason why I assume it's true is because if I tell a doctor "I'm worried I'm coming down with diabetes", or a woman says "I'm worried I may be getting breast cancer", then I assume the doctor will order the tests to cover his own ass, and that insurance would cover the cost. Because _IF_ later on I end up getting diabetes, or a woman gets breast cancer, and we can show that we asked the doctor to preform diagnostic tests, but he refused to write the prescription, then we could sue the doctor for malpractice and negligence. And, if the doctor writes the prescription for a mammogram or insulin test, and the insurance refuses to cover it, and we get the disease, I assume we could sue the insurance company. Therefore, it was my understanding that if someone went to a doctor with a 23andme test result and asked for tests, it would be paid for by insurance.

Now you state: "Unnecessary procedures aren't covered by insurance. There is thus no connection between uncovered elective procedures and insurance rates."

So, fine. I will concede that _IF_ you are correct, that insurance would NOT cover the 23andme-induced tests, then you are also correct that Obamacare changed nothing and the "situation has gone from paying for an unnecessary procedure out of pocket to... paying for an unnecessary procedure out of pocket."

Now, will you have the same courtesy and admit, then, that if my original assumption was correct, and insurance WOULD cover the tests, then my conclusion that switching everyone who had catastrophic insurance to comprehensive insurance WOULD give the government an incentive to stop 23andme?

And lastly, Chas, Cjlr, Cathym, Revenant, Sporehux, Minimalist, GirlyMan, et al, why didn't one of you just say in the very beginning "Your post is wrong BECAUSE insurance won't cover diagnostic tests you want to get because of a 23andme report."

Why did it take 12 pages to get someone to FINALLY say WHAT specifically in my OP you disagreed with? And why 12 pages of insults because if my assumption was wrong, it was a genuine mistake. I've admitted all along that I've never bought comprehensive insurance before, and that it's merely an assumption that it covers diagnostic tests. If that one single point in my OP was false, it was not intentional.

And cathy, you comment how all the rest of you think alike and that means you guys are right and I'm wrong. But, were the role reversed, I wouldn't have gone on with 12 pages of insults. I would have done what Cjlr just did and state WHAT SPECIFICALLY I disagree with in the post. To me, it's silly to write a dozen pages of insults without even specifying what you think is wrong with the OP.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 06:10 AM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2013 06:21 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
"And lastly, Chas, Cjlr, Cathym, Revenant, Sporehux, Minimalist, GirlyMan, et al, why didn't one of you just say in the very beginning "Your post is wrong BECAUSE insurance won't cover diagnostic tests you want to get because of a 23andme report."


And cathy, you comment how all the rest of you think alike and that means you guys are right and I'm wrong. But, were the role reversed, I wouldn't have gone on with 12 pages of insults. I would have done what Cjlr just did and state WHAT SPECIFICALLY I disagree with in the post. To me, it's silly to write a dozen pages of insults without even specifying what you think is wrong with the OP."

Dude. You are confusing a different thread that I'm arguing with you on, and this one. Our discussion is on the thread for minimum wage. I popped over here and made two comments, not regarding the specifics of your actual argument, but at your ridiculously frustrating behavior.

We don't all think alike. I never said that. Let me say that again. We don't all think alike. I never said that. I only stated that 5 different people have told you the fallacies you use. Composition fallacy (like claiming I said we all think alike when I pointed to ONE thing we had in common). I said it before and I'll say it again. If 5 people tell me my breath smells like I just ate a shit Sunday, I'm gonna go brush my teeth and use a mint.

Other than popping over and helping you understand the difference between diagnostic and preventative, I wasn't involved in this discussion.

Further, even if I was in the discussion, which I wasn't, CJ has infinitely more patience than I do. Talking to you makes me want to put a gun in my mouth. So instead of eating a lead sandwich, I choose to limit my interaction with you.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 05:40 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(09-12-2013 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It was frustrating because I seriously and honestly could not understand WHAT about my OP you guys found to be so false.

All of it.

You drew a fallacious conclusion from incorrect premises.

(09-12-2013 06:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  See above. You claim the FDA "bans" genome research. False. You claim the FDA has "banned" DNA testing. False. You claim DNA testing is preventative. False. You claim the FDA ordered all other genetic testing outfits shut down. False. You claim all of the above (which are not even true) are because of the ACA. False.

(09-12-2013 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And I fully expected you would ignore those 7 statements where I tried to pin you down, like Chas did when I asked him those same 7. I'm very glad that I was wrong because now we've identified the root issue we disagree on, I'm willing to concede that I may have been wrong.

That's progress!

(09-12-2013 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Of my 7 statements, there's only one single, simple issue that we disagree on. Point #2. My OP is based on the assumption that if someone gets a 23andme test that says they have some predisposition to a disease, like diabetes or breast cancer, and they make an appointment with their primary care physician to ask for some tests (insulin test, mammogram, etc.), that the insurance company would pay for the doctor's visit as well as the tests.

If a doctor finds probable cause to perform or request a diagnostic, then the referral may be covered (or partially covered), depending on the terms of your particular coverage.

Purely elective procedures are not covered by insurance.

That's how health insurance works. Like, how it always has worked, everywhere in the world.

(09-12-2013 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  _IF_ that assumption were true, it seems you agree with all 7 of my points, even the final point #7.

Most of them are irrelevant, and the seventh point makes no sense. We'll return to that in a moment.

(09-12-2013 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The reason why I assume it's true is because if I tell a doctor "I'm worried I'm coming down with diabetes", or a woman says "I'm worried I may be getting breast cancer", then I assume the doctor will order the tests to cover his own ass, and that insurance would cover the cost.

If your medical practitioner feels more information is necessary, he or she may follow up with a referral for additional diagnostics.

(there are incidentally still many avenues open to you should you wish to have a portion or even all of your DNA sequenced - this is but one of the many things that are wrong with your OP)

Hypochondriasis is not covered by insurance.

If you say to your doctor, "I want X done", and they respond "there's no reason to do X", then you can go pay for X yourself just as has always been the case.

(09-12-2013 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Because _IF_ later on I end up getting diabetes, or a woman gets breast cancer, and we can show that we asked the doctor to preform diagnostic tests, but he refused to write the prescription, then we could sue the doctor for malpractice and negligence. And, if the doctor writes the prescription for a mammogram or insulin test, and the insurance refuses to cover it, and we get the disease, I assume we could sue the insurance company.

Not quite. The answer lies in two of your least favourite words: it depends.
(only a Sith deals in absolutes)

You might be able to sue the doctor, if there's cause to believe they were negligent in recognizing potential health issues.

You might be able to sue the insurance provider, if the procedure were deemed medically necessary under the terms of your health insurance plan and yet was denied coverage.

(09-12-2013 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Therefore, it was my understanding that if someone went to a doctor with a 23andme test result and asked for tests, it would be paid for by insurance.

"Therefore" is not at all an appropriate word there.

What you, the uneducated layman, might desire by way of medical treatment is irrelevant.

(09-12-2013 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Now you state: "Unnecessary procedures aren't covered by insurance. There is thus no connection between uncovered elective procedures and insurance rates."

Which is true.

(09-12-2013 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So, fine. I will concede that _IF_ you are correct, that insurance would NOT cover the 23andme-induced tests, then you are also correct that Obamacare changed nothing and the "situation has gone from paying for an unnecessary procedure out of pocket to... paying for an unnecessary procedure out of pocket."

Thank you.

(09-12-2013 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Now, will you have the same courtesy and admit, then, that if my original assumption was correct, and insurance WOULD cover the tests, then my conclusion that switching everyone who had catastrophic insurance to comprehensive insurance WOULD give the government an incentive to stop 23andme?

Not at all. That doesn't follow. Preventative treatment decreases long-term costs.

That's literally the whole point and definition of it. Better to pre-empt a crisis than respond to a crisis. Preventative treatment decreases long-term costs. If preventative measures are not taken a response must wait until the case is acute. This is more expensive.

This is literally one of the exact motivations for enacting the ACA, flawed though it still is. Preventative treatment decreases long-term costs.

Therefore it cannot possibly follow, as you contest, that costs will increase.

(this is likewise still ignoring the publically-acknowledged reasons cited by the FDA - along with the extensive accompanying case history - for acting as they did)

(09-12-2013 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And lastly, Chas, Cjlr, Cathym, Revenant, Sporehux, Minimalist, GirlyMan, et al, why didn't one of you just say in the very beginning "Your post is wrong BECAUSE insurance won't cover diagnostic tests you want to get because of a 23andme report."

Because you are comprehensively wrong on every level in your OP?

Because you've demonstrated in abundance that attempting to hold honest dialogue with you is akin to bashing one's head against a wall?

Because you throw around composition fallacies like they're going out of style?

Because if you're going to attempt to draw a conclusion regarding certain subject matter it might rather behoove you to at least attempt to ascertain whether your interpretation of said subject matter holds any water before drawing and presenting nonsensically conspiratorial conclusions with a facade of unassailable self-righteous pomposity?

(09-12-2013 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Why did it take 12 pages to get someone to FINALLY say WHAT specifically in my OP you disagreed with? And why 12 pages of insults because if my assumption was wrong, it was a genuine mistake. I've admitted all along that I've never bought comprehensive insurance before, and that it's merely an assumption that it covers diagnostic tests. If that one single point in my OP was false, it was not intentional.

Yes, but that's precisely the kind of thing you should find out before you rely on such points to perform your analysis.

You are presumably more experienced with car insurance, this being a necessity for operating a car on public roads in virtually every jurisdiction on Earth.

Does your car insurance cover aftermarket body work and sound rigs?

No.

(09-12-2013 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And cathy, you comment how all the rest of you think alike and that means you guys are right and I'm wrong. But, were the role reversed, I wouldn't have gone on with 12 pages of insults. I would have done what Cjlr just did and state WHAT SPECIFICALLY I disagree with in the post. To me, it's silly to write a dozen pages of insults without even specifying what you think is wrong with the OP.

Most people understandably don't have the patience to deal with your trollercoaster.

God knows where I find the time and inclination.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2013, 02:42 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
Apparently you're posting all this vitriol and you never even read my OP.

(10-12-2013 05:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Preventative treatment decreases long-term costs. If preventative measures are not taken a response must wait until the case is acute. This is more expensive.

If you read my OP you would realize that (a) you're just copying the point I already made, and (b) the logical conclusion I made went over your head. In the OP I wrote: “Preventative medicine, like this genetic testing, of course saves both lives and dollars in the long run... But, naturally, there is a modest cost NOW, both for the genetic testing, and also for the diagnostic tests (MRI's, etc.) it triggers. So, by banning preventative medicine today, it will likely reduce health care expenditures now, in 2014, and when the time comes to pay the price, it will be years in the future and people will have forgotten all about this mess and blame it on others.”

It's comical that you post my claim back to me “Preventative treatment decreases long-term costs”, but you put it in italics, as though this was some new insight.

Anyway, we're in agreement that the LONG-TERM costs are less. But you disputed my claim that there'd be an increase SHORT-TERM costs now, in 2014, writing “Therefore it cannot possibly follow, as you contest, that [short term] costs [in 2014] will increase”. And the reason you gave is that someone who asks for 'insulin test' or a 'mammogram' in response to a 23andme test showing a predisposition to diabetes or breast cancer is a hypochondriac, and it's an unnecessary procedure that wouldn't be covered by insurance. And you provide a clinical diagnosis that the person who does this has a mental illness (“Hypochondriasis is not covered by insurance.”)

First, it highlights the radical difference between liberals and libertarians. Sure, I have my opinions about what is and is not medically necessary. But I respect everyone has their own opinion, and will never claim I'm right and they're wrong. That's why I recommend everyone have their OWN health-savings account and be able to make their own decisions. You, however, are certain that any woman who gets a mammogram after learning she carries the breast-cancer gene is mentally ill and that it should not be covered by insurance. The problem is you don't realize it's just YOUR OPINION. You, like all liberals, are so convinced you're right, that instead of a system that lets individuals make their own choices, you want a government system where individuals are FORCED to do it your way. And you say you're a physicist, but this post shows you also fancy yourself a medical doctor since your entire argument rests on the assumption that a doctor would NOT “find probable cause” for an insulin test or a mammogram.

(10-12-2013 05:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  there are incidentally still many avenues open to you should you wish to have a portion or even all of your DNA sequenced - this is but one of the many things that are wrong with your OP

Great news! Can you give me the link to another company providing a comparable service to 23andme so we can get learn what diseases we are predisposed to?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2013, 07:23 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2013 07:33 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(11-12-2013 02:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Can you give me the link to another company providing a comparable service to 23andme so we can get learn what diseases we are predisposed to?

Sure. Here you go. Main reason they're in the FDA's good graces is they're certified by every different laboratory and medical device standard out there.

Breathing - it's more art than science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
11-12-2013, 07:35 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
Offtopic
Didn't the FDA just ban the use of antibiotics on beef, pork, & poultry?
Just asking. For facts! No opinions needed.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2013, 09:04 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(11-12-2013 07:23 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Sure. Here you go. Main reason they're in the FDA's good graces is they're certified by every different laboratory and medical device standard out there.

Thank you GirlyMan. One observation... I'm suspicious, though. According to alexa.com, that website has virtually no visitors. And when I google their domain+FDA the only hit is they claim "Our Kits Contain FDA Approved Components", indicating the kit is not FDA approved either, and the only reason the FDA shutdown 23andme is because they have hundreds of thousands of clients, and this site appears to have so few it's not on anybody's radar. My suspicion is that if gtldna.com ever got any traction the FDA would probably shut them down too. Do you have any links to the contrary?

Also, since you and I seem to be able to disagree and still remain civil... In my OP I claimed that if people got diagnostic tests now (like mammograms) it would increase short-term health-care costs in 2014 (ie the cost of the mammograms), even though it would reduce long term costs in the future. _IF_ cjlr, et al were arguing that politicians would never be so evil as to sacrifice our long-term health (like denying women mammograms) in order to get re-elected now in 2014 (by being able to show that the ACA didn't raise health care spending), well I could understand that argument, and there's no way to prove otherwise.

But what baffles me is that their argument seems really bizarre. Cjlr's counter is that "it cannot possibly follow, as you contest, that costs will increase" in the short term if people get tests, and the whole crux of his argument rests on the assumption that insurance will NOT cover diagnostic tests, like mammograms, insulin tests, etc., if the impetus was a 23andme test.

If cjlr is right, then to me this makes the ACA even worse, because I think everybody should get DNA tests, all women should mammograms, and take every preventative measure. So if cjlr is right, and everybody now has to hand their monthly health care budget over to insurance companies which will not cover such diagnostic tests, this means women will no longer be able to mammograms, I would be spending all this money now on Blue Cross and get nothing out of it--I _STILL_ would be on my own to pay for preventative/diagnostic procedures. See, when I formulated my argument, I had assumed that insurance WOULD cover those tests.

Since you've mentioned you have comprehensive insurance, can you weight in? If your wife got a 23andme test and it was revealed she had the 'breast cancer' gene and asked her doctor for a mammogram, would she be denied coverage and have to pay for the doctor's visit and mammogram herself out of pocket? What if you got a 23andme tests and it revealed you the 'diabetes' gene, would your insurance cover blood tests to see if you're pre-diabetic?

I trust that you'll give an honest answer... Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2013, 09:53 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2013 10:26 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(11-12-2013 09:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 07:23 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Sure. Here you go. Main reason they're in the FDA's good graces is they're certified by every different laboratory and medical device standard out there.

Thank you GirlyMan. One observation... I'm suspicious, though. According to alexa.com, that website has virtually no visitors. And when I google their domain+FDA the only hit is they claim "Our Kits Contain FDA Approved Components", indicating the kit is not FDA approved either, and the only reason the FDA shutdown 23andme is because they have hundreds of thousands of clients, and this site appears to have so few it's not on anybody's radar.

The problem the FDA has with 23andMe has nothing to do with their sales volume, it's either that they refuse to, or their laboratory tests and methodology are unable to, get CLIA and ISO 17025 certified. Without certification, they can't warrant the accuracy of their results and apparently some errors have already been made. GTL started as a DNA paternity and relationship test provider and so certification was a prerequisite to survive legal challenges. Last I checked was 3 or 4 years ago now when I told a long lost half-brother to use them to establish rights to my father's estate but think all they offered then was paternity and relationship testing. My guess is since then they've retooled to provide Predisposition Testing and the even more clever "Infidelity Testing". If 23andMe got CLIA and ISO 17025 certified the FDA would have no issue with them. For some reason they can't or won't. Your insinuation that their sales volume has anything to do with the FDA's action reeks of paranoia.

(11-12-2013 09:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Since you've mentioned you have comprehensive insurance, can you weight in? If your wife got a 23andme test and it was revealed she had the 'breast cancer' gene and asked her doctor for a mammogram, would she be denied coverage and have to pay for the doctor's visit and mammogram herself out of pocket?

Not a very good example since she's been getting them every couple of years or so for over a decade now and pays absolutely nothing. No genetic test required. Standard preventive care. A better example would be would they pay for a preventive double mastectomy? That I don't know. I doubt they've even had cause to consider it yet.

(11-12-2013 09:04 PM)frankksj Wrote:  What if you got a 23andme tests and it revealed you the 'diabetes' gene, would your insurance cover blood tests to see if you're pre-diabetic?

Another bad example since a fasting glucose test is a standard part of every panel I've ever had run. When it came in high the Doc ordered an A1C and glucose tolerance test which verified that I did in fact have prediabetes. So now the A1C is part of my standard panel. My standard panel which I get every quarter now runs $1300 and I pay $40.

My insurance company is very very proactive on preventive care and even sends me reminders when I'm overdue for a panel and offers incentives to get ADDITIONAL testing done which they think might save them money based on my current conditions (as indicated by the diagnostic codes on my lab scripts). They realize keeping my fat ass out of hospital or ER for as long as possible is in their best financial interest.

Breathing - it's more art than science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2013, 10:26 PM
RE: FDA bans preventative medicine to hide the cost of Obamacare?
(11-12-2013 02:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Anyway, we're in agreement that the LONG-TERM costs are less. But you disputed my claim that there'd be an increase SHORT-TERM costs now, in 2014, writing “Therefore it cannot possibly follow, as you contest, that [short term] costs [in 2014] will increase”.

Because that seemed to be the only thing approaching making sense.

Costs will increase if per-person coverage for the insurance provider increases. That could not be a more fundamental observation.

Do you have any reason at all to think that will happen?

No.

But you led off with the ol' IT'S A CONSPIRACY card anyway. I'm really not sure what response you expected to that inanity.

(11-12-2013 02:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And the reason you gave is that someone who asks for 'insulin test' or a 'mammogram' in response to a 23andme test showing a predisposition to diabetes or breast cancer is a hypochondriac...

That isn't what I said, but I'm long past expected you to exhibit reading comprehension.

I will try to put this very, very simply.

If you're at the point where an insulin test would be diagnostic then you're already symptomatic, so that right there's an odd example. If you're concerned about a possible predisposition (we may assume for now that the results provided by 23AndMe are statistically reliable, far from the only way to come into such concerns that it is) how might this inform your behaviour?

If you're concerned you may exhibit a predisposition to cancer (of any sort) - and it very much doesn't matter why you hold said concern, be it a genetic test, personal history, family history, or other reasons - then all I might reasonably conclude is that you would seek regular screening tests.

We consider once again the nature of insurance and treatment, whereby (for example) annual or biannual mammograms are incomparably cheaper than late-diagnosis breast cancer treatment.

Desiring said screening test, I reasonably conclude you will attempt to procure such, either directly from a provider or through your personal doctor, depending on your situation, which I know nothing about.

Here is where the trouble arises. Mind, I literally already said this exact things. What is covered (in whole or in part) by your insurance policy is dependent on your insurance policy and the opinion of your doctor.

So we see, once again this involves your two least favourite words, it depends. I offered no such opinion.

But don't let that stop you from enjoying your moment of gratuitous self-righteousness. It's a very endearing personality trait.

(11-12-2013 02:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... and it's an unnecessary procedure that wouldn't be covered by insurance. And you provide a clinical diagnosis that the person who does this has a mental illness (“Hypochondriasis is not covered by insurance.”)

You don't seem to understand how healthcare works in any developed country.

That did not stop you from making a comprehensively flawed argument in the OP.

(11-12-2013 02:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  First, it highlights the radical difference between liberals and libertarians. Sure, I have my opinions about what is and is not medically necessary. But I respect everyone has their own opinion, and will never claim I'm right and they're wrong.

Hey, look, it's a falsely dichotomous categorisation of every person on Earth's opinion based on your perception of in-group and out-group. Maybe try and go even one post without ludicrous sweeping generalisations? Just one?

All opinions are not created equally. I'd say there's just maybe an outside chance that professional medical practitioners have a slightly more informed opinion than you do.

(11-12-2013 02:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  That's why I recommend everyone have their OWN health-savings account and be able to make their own decisions.

Savings which, inevitably, will prove wildly insufficient for many people's expenses.

I am going to presume that, at the very least, you do understand what insurance is?

The large majority of people will probably not cover expenses commensurate with their cumulative payments. Some few will need to cover much, much more.

This is elementary statistics. People are unimaginably terrible at considering statistics - particularly where those statistics concern themselves.

(11-12-2013 02:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You, however, are certain that any woman who gets a mammogram after learning she carries the breast-cancer gene is mentally ill and that it should not be covered by insurance.

Well, that's certainly a delusionally inspired interpretation.

(11-12-2013 02:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The problem is you don't realize it's just YOUR OPINION. You, like all liberals, are so convinced you're right, that instead of a system that lets individuals make their own choices, you want a government system where individuals are FORCED to do it your way.

That's contained nowhere in what I wrote.

It is confined to the addled confines of your histrionic mind.

Which is, alas, par for the course.

(11-12-2013 02:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And you say you're a physicist, but this post shows you also fancy yourself a medical doctor since your entire argument rests on the assumption that a doctor would NOT “find probable cause” for an insulin test or a mammogram.

See, here's the problem you have once again amply demonstrated:
I didn't say that.

You made that up. You are apparently unaware that your fabrications are not the same thing as reality.

Let's try this again.

I attempted to point out to you that "because I want it" will not convince your doctor of a procedure's medical justification. "Because I want it" will not convince your insurance provider of a procedure's medical justification. "Because I want it" is more than sufficient justification for obtaining whatever legal procedure you desire from whatever licensed provider you desire so long as you simply pay for it yourself.

IT'S A CONSPIRACY. Yeah.

(11-12-2013 02:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 05:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  there are incidentally still many avenues open to you should you wish to have a portion or even all of your DNA sequenced - this is but one of the many things that are wrong with your OP

Great news! Can you give me the link to another company providing a comparable service to 23andme so we can get learn what diseases we are predisposed to?

GirlyMan's got you covered up the page.

Also there's this handy thing called http://www.google.com. I hear it's just the latest fad with those computer whiz kids these days.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: