Say it isn't so Joe !!

not so sure it was...

I think you should go on pretending I somehow wrote anywhere that conditions are never identified in preventive care.

It is fitting for your pattern.

So in other words, this is your attempt at defining the % of heart attacks that come from a lack of preventive care captain strawman?

Or since you know you don't understand this topic at all, you're going to continue responding to things I've never said, correct?

Well, no they don't. Or you would be able to list the % of heart attacks that take place due to someone never getting "preventive care"

I'm not shocked you couldn't provide an answer.

Since you continue to pathetically respond to a point that was never made, you're projecting.

And this isn't the 1st time you've made an utter fool of yourself on this topic.

You don't seem to understand, you're not connecting any dots here.

You posted 1 link that has nothing to do with the topic at all and you've made 4 posts addressing something I never said.

Why is it that people like you and djbrow feel the need to utterly discredit yourselves by contining to show you can't address the point?

I mean, if you're correct, list the total yearly number of heart attacks in America, then list the # or % of those that happen to people who have never gotten "preventive care"

I'll wait.

That is pretty weak, even with your track record here.

Me: " heart attacks are not brought on by lack of "preventive care" with any great frequency in America"

You: "Preventative care won't decrease heart attacks, strokes, won't diagnose cancer before it reaches terminal stages"

Laughable, and playing to type.

Bravo.

Well, since my point was that preventative care can present some medical expenses from becoming exorbitantly costly, most would understand the heart attack was an example, that was confirmed by a person with more medical experience than you.

Are you denying that preventative care can impact the other examples used? Yes or no.

My favorite part is you deleted this from my post.

I will save you the need to type "strawman" so you can just copy and paste since that is your answer when you don't have one.

Actually,

it wasn't "confirmed" at all.

Right.

I think you should go on pretending I don't have answer. Especially when I quoted what I said in context of your strawman reply.

Wouldn't it be funny if you could articulate where and how it was "confirmed"?

Anyway, Every year about 715,000 Americans have a heart attack. Of these, 525,000 are a first heart attack and 190,000 happen in people who have already had a heart attack.

Wouldn't it be funny to see djbrow tell us how great the frequency of those 525,000 is vis-a-vis "preventive care"?

Don't hold your breath, folks.

Interestingly enough:  some evidence does suggest that there are opportunities to save money and improve health through prevention. Preventable causes of death, such as tobacco smoking, poor diet and physical inactivity, and misuse of alcohol have been estimated to be responsible for 900,000 deaths annually — nearly 40% of total yearly mortality in the United States.

None of those items require you to see a doctor.

So this statement: "my point was that preventative care can present some medical expenses from becoming exorbitantly costly" is false because the "savings" are offset by other costs. And because most "preventive" measures have little to do with seeing a doctor.

What djbrow is typing is the corollary to: If we ban guns, violent crime will decrease.

It is "common sense" until you actually look at data and think it through.

Like most leftist ideas.

Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

14,

Are you seriously arguing that preventative care is not beneficial and cannot prevent events from occurring?

Forget your numbers in post 114, they are useless. How many MORE heart attacks would occur if prevention was not part of checkups and general medicine?

Why you choose to argue just to argue is puzzling. 

Why not say that brushing and cleanings dont stop cavities and tooth decay.

Right.

I mean clearly diagnosis and treatment for high blood pressure, diabetes, substance abuse, high cholesterol, the early diagnosis of cancer, leukemia, and other potentially fatal illnesses through preventative care offers no savings.

And teeth cleanings and X-Rays do not stop cavities and severe tooth ailments.

Really they don't.

Really.

No. I've never talked about "events"

I've talked about costs.

Over & over.

Study after study confirms that "preventive care" does not lower health care costs.

If only those dummies at the NE Journal of Medicine knew as much about the topic as you....

Again, strawman.

I guess you don't understand the difference between cavity prevention and lowering health care costs.

I'm not surpised, by the way.

I'm not "arguing just to argue"

Someone took issue with something I said, when called out on it, said someone responded by attacking things I've never said.

If you think "preventive care" saves health care dollars, you're wrong.

Period. End of discussion.

Anyway, back to ObamaCare:

Employers around the country, from fast-food franchises to colleges, have told NBC News that they will be cutting workers’ hours below 30 a week because they can’t afford to offer the health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

NBC News spoke with almost 20 small businesses and other entities from Maine to California, and almost all said that because of the new law they’d be cutting back hours for some employees – an unintended consequence of the new law.

https://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/13/20010062-businesses-claim-obamacare-has-forced-them-to-cut-employee-hours?lite

Is this the part where we pretending saying "where is the Republican plan" is responsive to these events?

The point in question is whether or not preventive care would reduce cardiac events by allowing earlier diagnosis and treatment-

The cost effectiveness of such is a different discussion-

My responses were solely to your assertion that preventive care would not reduce "heart attacks"-

The helpful links that I posted more than confirm that, in fact, early diagnosis and treatment does reduce heart attacks-

Please provide data to refute this-

Oh costs. Not events. Gotcha.

Why didn't you say so!

I mean I clearly would agree that someone going to the doctor for a physical, finding they have severely high blood pressure, and having it treated with change of diet and medication won't save the cost of a having a severe heart attack.

Or that someone who goes to the doctor and is found with an isolated malignant tumor and it is treated offers no savings over that developing into stage 3 or 4 cancer.

Since we are talking about costs instead of events and all.

You provided zero links showing that heart attacks occur with great frequency because of a lack of "preventive care"

If you're correct, list the total yearly number of heart attacks in America, then list the # or % of those that happen to people who have never gotten "preventive care"

I'll wait.