The proper role and scope of government

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by classicman

So? Do you think there were any political reasons for that?
Heck, I'd probably rather have an even higher ratio than that. They're probably cheaper and lets be honest, no one was really ever tallying the dead mercenary numbers in the press.

The one to one ratio was 2 1/2 times that used in any other war. So W. and Cheney were giving out defense contracts left and right to their buddies.

[classicman]

And how has that changed in the last 2 1/2 years?

[SamIam]

I don't think it has. Why would anybody want to step off the gravy train? What were we talking about, anyhow?

[Lamplighter]

Google News puts up headlines and current links to the topic

Here are two articles on the same topic. Flip a coin to decide which you read first.
The articles are about the same length, so you may want to read the originals.
Then post your thoughts on the subject and/or the role of government.

Winona Daily News.com
Nov 6, 2011
Dr. Frank Bures
Imperfect medical tests still useful

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is a congressionally mandated,
independent panel of experts in primary medicine that reviews
evidence of effectiveness and develops recommendations for clinical preventive medicine.

The task force decided to recommend against screening for PSA in all healthy men
after a rigorous evidence review, concluding that there is moderate to high certainty
that the service has no benefit, or that the harms it may produce outweigh the benefits.
This is called a grade D recommendation. Grade C means the service is not routinely recommended.
Grades B and A are better, as expected.

The test originally was discovered and conceived as a tool to follow the activity of prostate cancer.
It was later adapted to its current role of gatekeeper.
It only measures the presence of a specific protein produced by prostate cells,
not just cancer cells. It cannot measure the biological activity of any tumor.
It merely looks at a static point and tries to infer the nature of a dynamic process.

“If the cancer is aggressive, everyone agrees that early diagnosis and treatment are best.
The problem is that it is often impossible to distinguish between the harmless and the deadly.”

----------

Forbes
Nov 21, 2011
Steve Forbes
The Department of Health and Human Services' Death Panel

We already have one. It’s called the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,
a committee of “experts” appointed by the Department of Health & Human Services.
This group recently declared that men should not be routinely screened for prostate cancer.
The most common test is the PSA, which is part of a blood test.
The panel also said no to rectal exams and ultrasounds,
claiming that testing does no good, that it doesn’t save lives.

Two years ago this task force said women under the age of 50 shouldn’t get
annual mammograms—a “finding” so preposterous even the
Department of Health & Human Services ran away from it.
This latest dictate is meeting the same fate. And rightly so.
After skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer found in men.
<snip>
What’s going on with mammograms and testing for prostate cancer?
At bottom, it’s an attempt to save money. Treatments are not cheap.
The panel claims that its recommendations won’t increase mortality,
which is about as convincing as saying that letting mosquitoes proliferate
in certain environs won’t increase the incidence of malaria.

If the government succeeds in dominating health care, as it’s now on its way to doing,
we can expect more of these weird and lethal findings.
The focus will be on rationing and saving money.
What we need in health care is more free enterprise, not Soviet-style controls.

[SamIam]

First of all, these are opinion pieces - one published in a newspaper and the other in the business magazine, Forbes.

I do not trust medical (or scientific) information from such sources. Is the Winona Daily News a peer reviewed journal? And who is Dr. Frank Bures? A renowned cancer researcher? The senior oncologist at the Mayo clinic? The local chiropractor who picks up spare change writing for the Winona Daily News? Or maybe the local GP who picks up quite a bit of loose change pandering to the fear of cancer.

Who knows?

I don't and the last thing I'd do is make major health decisions based on what I read in the News, earnest journalists though they may be.

Then we have Forbes, dedicated to business and those who run businesses - NOT a medical journal. As a matter of fact, Forbes has a vested interest in attacking government regulation of ANY sort, even including health guidelines. Steve Forbes gives us his anecdotal experience without mentioning his age - which is a major factor for prostrate cancer - and makes the assumption that every man in the world will share the same experience as he did.

Whatever

This is the research done at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) published in the highly regarded, peer-reviewed Journal of New England Medicine:

~snip~

At seven years, 50 deaths were attributable to prostate cancer in the screening group and 44 deaths were attributable in the usual-care group. Through year 10, there were 92 prostate cancer deaths in the screening group and 82 in the usual-care group. The difference between the numbers of deaths in the two groups was not statistically significant. Thus there was no detectable mortality benefit for screening vs. usual-care.

Given the uncertainties about the mortality benefits of PSA testing, NCI has been pursuing many avenues to find new ways of screening for prostate cancer, including several sets of biomarkers that are being validated in its Early Detection Research Network (EDRN), some using specimens from PLCO’s biorepository of tissue and blood. Some examples of the marker tests include using microstrands of RNA to detect disease, examining changes in genes such as GSTP1, and imaging of proteins in prostate cancer tissue.

This testing was part of a 17 year on-going study and included a subject pool of 76,693 men. Compared with the Steve Forbes study of one man - himself.

The NIH is working on developing a better test in order to save lives. The old test is just not all that helpful. Sorry, Frank

[classicman]

Obama doing the same thing Bush did.

[TheMercenary]

Who cares....

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Who cares....

About what?

A man's chances of getting prostrate cancer and what tests are appropriate?

or

How much weight should be given to the medical opinions of a gov't backed out fit which has a mandate to cut health costs?

I would think that all men would care about the former. The latter has important implications for government sponsored health care.

Merc, you just skim stuff that other people post if you read it at all. Honestly!

[TheMercenary]

Liberal Programs Deserve Blame for Income Inequality

The Congressional Budget Office documents income gains for everyone, not just the wealthy.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/0...lame-for-incom

[DanaC]

Joe!

Joe's back!

*big smile*

[regular.joe]

Thanks Dana. good to see you too!

[henry quirk]

"I have experienced first hand the idea of no government, and it is not a nice place."

So what? Who said anything about 'nice' or 'fair' or 'equal' or any of that crap?

While not always the case: 'peace' (or 'nice' or 'fair' or 'equal' or 'just', etc.) is just another word for 'controlled'.

#

"...most of the places with not a lot of government going on have lots and lots of Religion in government going on."

Not surprising as 'politics' and 'religion' are essentially the same thing: Idealism (the worship of 'god', whether it be divine arbiter or ideology, is the same across the board).

[regular.joe]

Dude, why wait for the United States to change? You should move tomorrow! I'll help pay your fair to Islamabad. It sounds to me like you would love it there. Don't stay in Islamabad though, way to much control there. Bolochistan or North West Frontier sound like about your speed.

Peace, nice, fair, equal and just are other words for controlled?? What dictionary do you use? It's hard to take you serious when you discuss things in such a manner. Is this radar with a different handle?

[henry quirk]

"You should move tomorrow!"

As an 'occupant' might say: make me.

#

"It's hard to take you serious when you discuss things in such a manner."

In post #53 of this http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=26210&page=4 Dana declares 'All threads in the Cellar are 'opinion' threads, essentially." So: pffftt! If you don't like the way I define or express or opine, that, 'dude', is your concern, not mine.

And: since I haven't a clue who you are, can't see how your (not) taking 'me' serious is sumthin' I need to worry about.

And: no, I'm not 'radar'...I don't use multiple handles and I don't change what works.

[regular.joe]

I don't want to make you move to another country. That's not what I am about. There is a line of logic, flawed though it may be, to my thinking though. Having been to many other countries, the U.S. is a very, very peaceful, nice, fair, equitable, and just place. By comparison. We aren't perfect, but we have it really good. So, since there are so many other places where government enforcement of regulations and laws is lax to say the least, it would be easier to move to one of these places then try to create this atmosphere in the US. It's also a selfish idea, I prefer the United States as it is today. Although it's not a perfect union, it is a bit more perfect then just about any place I've been. A damn sight more perfect then places I've been where there is no government. We have more then our fair share of the blessings of liberty, justice and domestic tranquility. We have a pretty damn good common defense, I help see to that.

I'm really not willing to give that up. Again, not trying to make anyone move where they do not want to go. It just sounds to me like you would like to live there rather then here.