100%. Most screenings are unnecessary if you are a healthy person. And the focus should be on health rather than healthcare that is designed by nature to keep you sick and unwell.
The populations that choose to screen more often than not, who should have insurance cover it 100%, are those with genetic predisposition to something. Lynch Syndrome. BRCA. There are families who have had multi-generational colon/breast/pancreatic/ovarian cancers due to genetic abnormalities that were passed from generation to generation. They are obviously fearful they will be next. I can compassionately understand why they would opt for more screenings than the general population. Their insurance companies should pay for that 100%.
Screening based on things like...well you're a certain age now, you need your screenings. As if they expect everyone over the age of 60 or 70 to get cancer. Screw the percentages...that is a fear tactic since no one is a "percentage". There is no one-size-fits-all in medicine like they want us to believe.
Then if they find something, trusting the screening was done correctly and the results are true, they will want to do more tests. Then you have to make the assumption and many times cross a bridge too far (for me anyway) that the medical mafia has the fix. Drugs, radiation, chemo...these are NOT fixes, they are toxic poisons. The real fix would be to address the root causes. Something no medico would be caught dead trying to ascertain.
Screenings are basically used as a scare factor for marketing more tests, drugs and procedures...none guaranteed to subvert the problem. The only thing that is for certain, the medical mafia will make big bucks. Health care professionals are trained to push these things and since most want to keep their jobs, they do. You are the dummy patient and they are the trained experts, got it?
Screenings are also used as discriminators. This person screened positive for the POSSIBILITY of some medical defect. Don't hire/insure/allow them to reproduce! They have defective genes. Hello Eugenics.
My MD interned with an old country doctor in a poor area of Mississippi. He admitted outcomes for those without insurance are about the same as those with.
You get all the gummit you pay for and the money flows...
If we were ALLOWED the freedom to choose to be insured or not, that would be a step in the right direction. Sadly we are NOT a free people. I digress. And if we were allowed to choose whether or not to be insured, then maybe we could have the freedom to choose from different insurance options. Our options were severely limited before the perversely misnamed Affordable Care Act. That insurers were not allowed to sell insurance across state lines drove the cost up with no benefit except to the legislators/regulators who were selling their votes. The consumer took it in the shorts. In a free country we would be able to decide whether or not to be insured. If we wanted insurance we would then be able to shop around and buy only the insurance we wanted. I would not be paying premiums for services I find morally repugnant and/or will never use.
WARNING! Recurring Theme Notice: Note that I did not use the word "need" in the rant above. What we "want" is a personal choice. Freedom. What we "need" is always decided by others. And NEVER has our best interest at heart. The Affordable Care Act is a sterling example of what you get when others decide what you "need". Imagine the bountiful shopping experience that New Yorkers will have when the city is running the grocery stores. The city will decide what you "need" to eat. This Concludes My Recurring Theme Rant.
100%. As a whole, for the average population, I am anti-screening period. If you have symptoms of something and you want to further investigate, then you, as the patient, you should get to decide to do so, and your insurance should pay for that 100%.
Random screening based on how old you are and blah blah is a hard pass for most people. And for myself as well.
for anyone who believes in the SafeAndEffective™ness of the medical-insurance industry, insurance should absolutely be forced to cover any procedure, diagnostic, or medication advised by a doctor.
otherwise insurance is just a racketeering tool to suck down people's money without providing the goods and services they're being paid to facilitate.
and typically the courts back up the racketeers, in the low percentages of cases where their victims can afford to lawyer up and sue them for their malfeasance.
just like the courts typically back medics in malpractice suits.
I don’t disagree, but, in general, I’d like to see a lot more health and a lot less “healthcare”.
100%. Most screenings are unnecessary if you are a healthy person. And the focus should be on health rather than healthcare that is designed by nature to keep you sick and unwell.
The populations that choose to screen more often than not, who should have insurance cover it 100%, are those with genetic predisposition to something. Lynch Syndrome. BRCA. There are families who have had multi-generational colon/breast/pancreatic/ovarian cancers due to genetic abnormalities that were passed from generation to generation. They are obviously fearful they will be next. I can compassionately understand why they would opt for more screenings than the general population. Their insurance companies should pay for that 100%.
Screening based on things like...well you're a certain age now, you need your screenings. As if they expect everyone over the age of 60 or 70 to get cancer. Screw the percentages...that is a fear tactic since no one is a "percentage". There is no one-size-fits-all in medicine like they want us to believe.
Then if they find something, trusting the screening was done correctly and the results are true, they will want to do more tests. Then you have to make the assumption and many times cross a bridge too far (for me anyway) that the medical mafia has the fix. Drugs, radiation, chemo...these are NOT fixes, they are toxic poisons. The real fix would be to address the root causes. Something no medico would be caught dead trying to ascertain.
Screenings are basically used as a scare factor for marketing more tests, drugs and procedures...none guaranteed to subvert the problem. The only thing that is for certain, the medical mafia will make big bucks. Health care professionals are trained to push these things and since most want to keep their jobs, they do. You are the dummy patient and they are the trained experts, got it?
Screenings are also used as discriminators. This person screened positive for the POSSIBILITY of some medical defect. Don't hire/insure/allow them to reproduce! They have defective genes. Hello Eugenics.
Government mandates and regulates insurance.
Is it really all necessary?
My MD interned with an old country doctor in a poor area of Mississippi. He admitted outcomes for those without insurance are about the same as those with.
You get all the gummit you pay for and the money flows...
If we were ALLOWED the freedom to choose to be insured or not, that would be a step in the right direction. Sadly we are NOT a free people. I digress. And if we were allowed to choose whether or not to be insured, then maybe we could have the freedom to choose from different insurance options. Our options were severely limited before the perversely misnamed Affordable Care Act. That insurers were not allowed to sell insurance across state lines drove the cost up with no benefit except to the legislators/regulators who were selling their votes. The consumer took it in the shorts. In a free country we would be able to decide whether or not to be insured. If we wanted insurance we would then be able to shop around and buy only the insurance we wanted. I would not be paying premiums for services I find morally repugnant and/or will never use.
WARNING! Recurring Theme Notice: Note that I did not use the word "need" in the rant above. What we "want" is a personal choice. Freedom. What we "need" is always decided by others. And NEVER has our best interest at heart. The Affordable Care Act is a sterling example of what you get when others decide what you "need". Imagine the bountiful shopping experience that New Yorkers will have when the city is running the grocery stores. The city will decide what you "need" to eat. This Concludes My Recurring Theme Rant.
Too many screenings, they take advantage of us even at the dental office x-rays x-rays, x-rays.🩻
100%. As a whole, for the average population, I am anti-screening period. If you have symptoms of something and you want to further investigate, then you, as the patient, you should get to decide to do so, and your insurance should pay for that 100%.
Random screening based on how old you are and blah blah is a hard pass for most people. And for myself as well.
for anyone who believes in the SafeAndEffective™ness of the medical-insurance industry, insurance should absolutely be forced to cover any procedure, diagnostic, or medication advised by a doctor.
otherwise insurance is just a racketeering tool to suck down people's money without providing the goods and services they're being paid to facilitate.
Insurance is 100% racketeering. People pay a lot of money for it and insurance companies do their damnest to pay as little as possible.
and typically the courts back up the racketeers, in the low percentages of cases where their victims can afford to lawyer up and sue them for their malfeasance.
just like the courts typically back medics in malpractice suits.
it's ALL a racket as far as I'm concerned.
I know if a polyp is found in colon screening or any biopsies are taken insurance then denies paying for it.
yes!
I think the same as you Duct Tape. And love the name 😂😂