“Me too!” “Me too!” “Please, save us from these doctors!”
Way too overprotective of people’s health, especially people with bad hearts.
Let’s get those death panels cranked up, people!
I didn’t know Medicare substituted it’s judgement on when it’s a good idea to try to keep a person’s blood flowing:
“While there are various industry and federal guidelines describing when it is appropriate for a patient to undergo certain procedures — Medicare, for instance, says a patient’s arteries must be 70 percent blocked to justify the use of a stent…”
If there is as much fraud as articles like this, and all the TV ads, suggest there is, then what we have is not just a lot of fraud, we have a whole lot of doctors violating their Hippocratic Oath. You cannot go a week anymore without seeing either in print or on the airwaves or the Internet a story about Medicare or HHS or just some media outlet pushing the agenda coming out with a story somewhere in the country where doctors are performing “unnecessary” procedures. Now, especially if it involves surgery or some other invasive procedure, but even if it involves prescription medication, if a doctor is treating a patient when a patient does not need the treatment, i.e. it is “unnecessary”, then the doctor is “doing harm”, because there is risk involved not justified if there is no indication for treatment.
So if thousands, or tens of thousands, of doctors are engaging in this “unnecessary treatment”, which would have to be the case if there is massive fraud because if it’s only in the tens or a few hundred that could be dealt with quickly and easily and get the quacks out of business, then the medical schools and the AMA are going to have to become proactive and tell their protege’s to quit practicing medicine so much.
And that brings up another aspect to this “unnecessary” treatment deal. What’s all this we hear about “wellness” programs, and “diet and exercise” regimens to keep people healthy? Are these really “necessary”? If a person is not ill but there are all these programs, government and private, with financial incentives (which somebody has to pay for) and all these “fitness” clinics and specialists and technicians on peoples who , not only are their artieries not 70% blocked, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them in the first place?
The argument, of course, is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and it is cheaper to keep a person healthy than to treat him after he becomes ill. Well, of course. The flip side, however, is that everybody has to go sometime, from some cause or another. But the rub comes in when we are talking about somebody whose artery is 65% blocked but who is denied a stent, and a year later that artery is 95% blocked. Or if there is a hard-and-fast 70% rule for all arteries and a person’s arteries are ALL 65% blocked, how much is it going to cost to treat the person when next year they are ALL 95% blocked?
Or is this why the government is pushing everyone to consider an “advance directive”, in which they sign a paper saying “If I’m too far gone, don’t bother.”???