Comments on: The Empire Strikes Back http://healthblog.ncpa.org/the-empire-strikes-back-2/ Health Care Policy and Reform Insights | NCPA Fri, 25 May 2012 12:21:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Stephen C. http://healthblog.ncpa.org/the-empire-strikes-back-2/comment-page-1/#comment-45635 Stephen C. Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:52:20 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=4923#comment-45635 Nice photo of Harry Reid. Nice photo of Harry Reid.

]]> By: Ken http://healthblog.ncpa.org/the-empire-strikes-back-2/comment-page-1/#comment-45613 Ken Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:24:43 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=4923#comment-45613 Forget the ads. Why aren't ABC and NBC telling us about what is going on in the Congressional committees? Are they part of the cover up? Read the preceding post. Forget the ads. Why aren’t ABC and NBC telling us about what is going on in the Congressional committees? Are they part of the cover up? Read the preceding post.

]]> By: Bart Ingles http://healthblog.ncpa.org/the-empire-strikes-back-2/comment-page-1/#comment-45609 Bart Ingles Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:46:48 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=4923#comment-45609 I see that Fortney Stark agrees with our wild-eyed Dr. Krugman. I see that Fortney Stark agrees with our wild-eyed Dr. Krugman.

]]> By: Devon Herrick http://healthblog.ncpa.org/the-empire-strikes-back-2/comment-page-1/#comment-45608 Devon Herrick Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:38:55 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=4923#comment-45608 Let me see if I understand this correctly? The U.S. health care system is frequently criticized because American lifestyles result in more chronic health conditions (including cancers) than in Europe or Canada. However, cancer screening (and curing cancer better than Canada and Europe) doesn't get much respect because everybody has to die of something. This doesn’t make sense! Let me see if I understand this correctly? The U.S. health care system is frequently criticized because American lifestyles result in more chronic health conditions (including cancers) than in Europe or Canada.

However, cancer screening (and curing cancer better than Canada and Europe) doesn’t get much respect because everybody has to die of something. This doesn’t make sense!

]]> By: Larry C. http://healthblog.ncpa.org/the-empire-strikes-back-2/comment-page-1/#comment-45607 Larry C. Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:21:38 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=4923#comment-45607 I like the Harry Reid quote. He probably hates it that there is a First Amendment. I like the Harry Reid quote. He probably hates it that there is a First Amendment.

]]> By: John Goodman http://healthblog.ncpa.org/the-empire-strikes-back-2/comment-page-1/#comment-45604 John Goodman Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:18:15 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=4923#comment-45604 Two points: 1. You can't have it both ways. The left wants to argue (a) screenings are good and the uninsured are dying early because they don't get all the mammograms and PSA tests that the insured get and (b) screenings are unnecessary and that the reason US cancer survival rates are the best in the world is that we do so much unnecessary screening. 2. An academic study (the most comprehensive ever) found that the US is number one in cancer survival. That is a fact. That fact is not changed by criticisms of the study. FactCheck is not supposed to reject academic studies because of some other academic's speculation about what might have happened if screening rates were the same. Two points:

1. You can’t have it both ways. The left wants to argue (a) screenings are good and the uninsured are dying early because they don’t get all the mammograms and PSA tests that the insured get and (b) screenings are unnecessary and that the reason US cancer survival rates are the best in the world is that we do so much unnecessary screening.

2. An academic study (the most comprehensive ever) found that the US is number one in cancer survival. That is a fact. That fact is not changed by criticisms of the study. FactCheck is not supposed to reject academic studies because of some other academic’s speculation about what might have happened if screening rates were the same.

]]> By: John R. Graham http://healthblog.ncpa.org/the-empire-strikes-back-2/comment-page-1/#comment-45602 John R. Graham Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:19:55 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=4923#comment-45602 FactCheck has become very partisan. They've also attacked Betsey McCaughey for her conclusion that the U.S. has better cancer outcomes for many cancers (http://tinyurl.com/mvpbke). The advocates of government take-over of access to medical services, which apparently now includes the Annenberg Center, argue that the better survival rates are somewhat explained by earlier detection in the U.S., and go on to conclude that if these folks just hadn't been screened, and their cancers ignored, they would have been hit by a bus or something before dying of cancer. So, we really shouldn't consider them cancer survivors, should we? (I over-simplify for effect.) So, the advocates of government take-over get themselves into a bit of a bind: Arguing on the one hand that the take-over will ensure more people have access to preventive care, but that the currently high prevalence of preventive care results in artificially high cancer survival stats! FactCheck must also be getting desperate if they're "fact checking" "chain e-mails." I get e-mails every week with goofier allegations than this one contains, and I'm sure Dr. Goodman and the scholars on this blog get plenty of them as well - but we don't spend our time debunking them on a website! FactCheck has become very partisan. They’ve also attacked Betsey McCaughey for her conclusion that the U.S. has better cancer outcomes for many cancers (http://tinyurl.com/mvpbke). The advocates of government take-over of access to medical services, which apparently now includes the Annenberg Center, argue that the better survival rates are somewhat explained by earlier detection in the U.S., and go on to conclude that if these folks just hadn’t been screened, and their cancers ignored, they would have been hit by a bus or something before dying of cancer. So, we really shouldn’t consider them cancer survivors, should we? (I over-simplify for effect.)

So, the advocates of government take-over get themselves into a bit of a bind: Arguing on the one hand that the take-over will ensure more people have access to preventive care, but that the currently high prevalence of preventive care results in artificially high cancer survival stats!

FactCheck must also be getting desperate if they’re “fact checking” “chain e-mails.” I get e-mails every week with goofier allegations than this one contains, and I’m sure Dr. Goodman and the scholars on this blog get plenty of them as well – but we don’t spend our time debunking them on a website!

]]> By: Ken http://healthblog.ncpa.org/the-empire-strikes-back-2/comment-page-1/#comment-45600 Ken Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:45:06 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=4923#comment-45600 I think Pete Stark is brain dead. I think Pete Stark is brain dead.

]]>