Reading the stories today about the cervical cancer recommendations, I was struck by two things. First, the MSM like this New York Times piece is really on board with what is now being called "science based medicine." Between you and me I thought medicine these days was SUPPOSED TO BE BASED ON SCIENCE ALREADY since we'd stop the bleedings and such.
Secondly, I know this is going to sound catty, but wasn't one of the big things about why our system sucked was that we already weren't very good at preventable deaths? Don't the Europeans and French in particular score really well on those measures of preventable deaths? So do we square limiting screening with this goal? Or did I miss something?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good Point, but who's driving these studies to "weasel" out of paying for this stuff? Sounds like my experiences with my current insurance company. It is amazing to me that the voices on the Right has been able to pin this solely on the evil gulag government option.
ReplyDeleteThis whole healthcare debate reminds me of an argument between a dysfunctional married couple:
"Honey, have you seen my wallet?"
"You think I know where your wallet is because you think I'm fat!"
or something like that...
Let's face it... there are too many women anyway. While effectively marginalizing Hillary, it is time for the head dude in DC to seek a final solution.
ReplyDelete