Health Care "Myths"

[deleted213967]

Health care is admittedly an immensely complex and quite literally vital topic so we should not be surprised it suscitates such a heated debate.

What baffles me is the sheer number of raving lunacies still circulating out there (and from both sides, regretfully).

The most puzzling to me is that bizarre notion that a single-payer system would also amount to a "nationalization" of health care providers, such as physicians, as though health care providers and claim administration providers were interchangeable notions. Not even in France do physicians work for the state. They are every bit as private as ours, and spend far less time and money coping with 1 public bureaucracy than multiple private, for-profit ones.

Another, mostly conservative, dogma is that the private sector is always more efficient...

Many detractors of the single-payer system (which needs not be public) fail to consider the massive duplication of effort and diseconomies of scale that result from consumers, employers and health care providers having to interface (at a staggering cost) with a poorly-integrated patchwork of often technologically backwards insurance parties.






-

 

[Penis Aficionado]

One obvious question is: What good do private insurance companies bring to our health care system? How do they help either patients or medical professionals?

Well, clearly, they pay the bills. But the government could pay the bills too. And since private insurance companies exist to make profits, they are trying their hardest, every minute of every hour of every day, to figure out how to *not* pay health care bills. In other words -- how to *screw* patients and medical professionals.

Before Americans got so stupid, this would have been self-evident to everyone. That was when people realized that "free enterprise" was a *very useful tool* for providing people with the things they needed at the fairest price.

But now a huge percentage of the American Sheeple have been brainwashed into believing that free enterprise is not a tool -- it's the pure radiant light of all that is good and holy. And rather than manipulating free enterprise like a tool, to better get the things they need, the Sheeple will actually deny themselves the things they need, or convince themselves they have no right to those things -- in order to keep the God called free enterprise all-powerful and pure.

 

[3664shaken]

Health care is admittedly an immensely complex and quite literally vital topic so we should not be surprised it suscitates such a heated debate.

What baffles me is the sheer number of raving lunacies still circulating out there (and from both sides, regretfully).

Agreed

The most puzzling to me is that bizarre notion that a single-payer system would also amount to a "nationalization" of health care providers,

Hmmm if the government is in total control of health care, as in single payer, then obviously they have nationalized the health care system and the provider.

Not even in France do physicians work for the state. They are every bit as private as ours, and spend far less time and money coping with 1 public bureaucracy than multiple private, for-profit ones.

France actually is not a single payer system they do have have private health insurance so they are the same as the US. However in Canada which is a single payer system the doctors do work for the state. If the state stopped paying them, they would not make any money, therefore they are the states employees, no matter how you slice it or dice it.

Another, mostly conservative, dogma is that the private sector is always more efficient.

And of course in most instances it is, so it's not really a conservative dogma, just a realist fact.

Many detractors of the single-payer system (which needs not be public) fail to consider the massive duplication of effort and diseconomies of scale that result from consumers, employers and health care providers having to interface (at a staggering cost) with a poorly-integrated patchwork of often technologically backwards insurance parties. .

And this point has been addressed so many times its not even funny. Let people control their own health care through private HSA's that are transferable between states. allow insurance agencies to insurer nation wide, make the govt insurance pay going rates so that private companies can be in the real market place.

Just my thoughts.

 

[deleted213967]

France's system is indeed primarily a single-payer one (as in Caisse Primaire d'Assurance Maladie). It reimburses the brunt of the cost of visits and procedures in most cases via EFT and fairly rapidly. The simple universal claim form (which I have seen with my own eyes), would make most health care providers here drool.

However, employers and schools often offer complementary plans that pick up whatever the primary state-run system does not cover. More often than not, that portion is a mere 10% of the total cost.

It seems that in Western Europe, health is considered a right (as is here our "pursuit of happiness") and many people have no expectation of paying for it directly. They do indirectly of course, via heavy payroll withholdings.

 

[Trinity]

Agreed




Hmmm if the government is in total control of health care, as in single payer, then obviously they have nationalized the health care system and the provider.




France actually is not a single payer system they do have have private health insurance so they are the same as the US. However in Canada which is a single payer system the doctors do work for the state. If the state stopped paying them, they would not make any money, therefore they are the states employees, no matter how you slice it or dice it.


And of course in most instances it is, so it's not really a conservative dogma, just a realist fact.



And this point has been addressed so many times its not even funny. Let people control their own health care through private HSA's that are transferable between states. allow insurance agencies to insurer nation wide, make the govt insurance pay going rates so that private companies can be in the real market place.

Just my thoughts.

excellent thoughts.

 

[cdarro]

I live in Canada (Alberta). Doctors do not "work for the state". Neither Doctors nor any member of the public are compelled to participate in the system; I know personally of one large clinic in Calgary that has "opted out". There are at least three (albeit small) private hospitals in the same city. Periodically there are pushes by private insurers to gain a foothold in basic coverage, as they see the incredible profits to be made with our aging population, and all too often (at least in this province) the responsible Minister will side with them, at least publicly. But much of this is political jockeying in order to secure larger transfer payments (block financial grants) from the federal government. I've covered much of this and more in other threads in this forum.

Not trying to convince anyone they should adopt our system. You'll make whatever changes you think fit, or not. Not saying there aren't problems here. There are, and they are unlikely to be solved anytime soon due mostly to the intransigence of either side. But there are on this and other threads, some wildly inaccurate things being said about Canadian health care, and shotgunning people with selective use of headlines, quotes taken out of context and videos of people ranting on Youtube "proves" nothing but that some people spend far too much time on their computers.

Now excuse me while I go look for my umbrella. I'm sure the Fox News crowd will be pissing all over me shortly.

 

[deleted213967]

The trouble with this debate is that the various sides mostly see the tip of the iceberg: the insurance system (which indeed needs a major overhaul).

Below the surface lie far less controllable problems:

1. baby boomer retirement (control that!)
2. medical progress (that's a good thing!)
3. dismal health habits of Americans, and from early childhood

One hard fact that most of us want to ignore is that most of the staggeringly high cost of health care emanates from the 5% sickest Americans...

One even harder fact is that most of the treatments entail preventable conditions (or conditions whose onset can be considerable delayed). Prevention, however, entails lifestyle changes that most Americans are not able or willing to effect.

Both Hillary and Bill Clinton, after all, are junk food addicts. Barrack Obama is still a smoker...and those are leaders from whom you'd expect model behavior.

 

[b.c.]

A UK view is that health cover is essential, and we all have it. Treatments can be well beyond the means of even the wealthy, so absolutely everyone needs insurance. Someone who can afford say a fortune for a course of treatment can sure afford a health insurance premium.

In Britain we do this through National Insurance. It is a type of income tax which covers health and pension, and yes it is compulsary. There are reduced rates for people who really cannot pay much, and these can be absolutely miniscule, but still everyone pays. The sore point in the British system is that you cannot opt out. If you pay into a private pension it is additionally to your state pension (not instead of) which most people find acceptable. But if you buy private health insurance you pay both the state and the private health insurance in full.

Of course the US has to have a degree of compulsion in buying insurance cover. It is not an option for a civilised country to do other than treat someone who is ill, so it cannot be an option to not make provision. It has to be regarded as a first call on income.

Well, you know, you can't really compare the UK to the U.S. of A, don't you? I mean, maybe there (and in some countries) a national healthcare system is like, "No duh!" But here it's a little bit more complex.

You see the problem is that there is so much money in healthcare. OOdles of it!! And while this one group of people is raking in all the dough, they have this second group of people all riled up and worried about yet a third group.

And this third group are all of "those" people. You know, the ones on the take, on the "dole", the "entitled" ones, those "shiftless-laid-back-waiting for-their-government-check-sons-of-bitches" who are just sittin' around waiting to get their grubby little hands on "our" money (whoever the fuck "we" are supposed to be).

Shucks, if it weren't for "those people" healthcare probably wouldn't even be a fuckin' issue... no duh.

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

One obvious question is: What good do private insurance companies bring to our health care system? How do they help either patients or medical professionals?

Well, clearly, they pay the bills. But the government could pay the bills too. And since private insurance companies exist to make profits, they are trying their hardest, every minute of every hour of every day, to figure out how to *not* pay health care bills. In other words -- how to *screw* patients and medical professionals.

Before Americans got so stupid, this would have been self-evident to everyone. That was when people realized that "free enterprise" was a *very useful tool* for providing people with the things they needed at the fairest price.

But now a huge percentage of the American Sheeple have been brainwashed into believing that free enterprise is not a tool -- it's the pure radiant light of all that is good and holy. And rather than manipulating free enterprise like a tool, to better get the things they need, the Sheeple will actually deny themselves the things they need, or convince themselves they have no right to those things -- in order to keep the God called free enterprise all-powerful and pure.

You can't just dismiss anyone who agrees with free enterprise as being brainwashed. I support the free market because it's the best system we have. I've studied it, reviewed it, and looked at many other systems.

Oddly, I don't know what you mean by "before American's got so stupid." America has never been a communist society. American's previous to ourselves were blessed with one of the free-est markets the world has ever seen. Insurance is an old business. I'm really not sure where to go with your post.

Private companies exist for many reasons. I've personally started businesses to provide a service I felt was necessary; breaking even was acceptable so long as the service was there. If I make money at it, fine. If I don't, fine. Insurance companies make their money through premiums, and premiums are determined by risk assessments. If doctors raise their prices then the cost of insurance goes up. So, there is always a downward pressure on doctors to keep their services cheap. They also know that their customers will abandon them if they don't provide quality service. So, they are in a quandary. What happens? We get improved quality. Insurance companies are not keeping costs down enough, though. So, we have alternatives spring up. Health savings accounts are a good example.

If the government were in charge there is no motivation on them to keep prices low. None, whatsoever. They don't care if it cost 10% more this year, they have no dog in the fight. Tax payers would care a little, but most tax payers wouldn't actually end up with the bill. So who would? Rich people. So, what did it all boil down to? Communism. Far lefties trying to break the current system to 'equalize' the wealthy with the poor. Mind you, they want to do it by crap-ifying the health care system, not by bringing poor people up to the level of rich people (ie, progress). Think about the postal service. What happens when they raise the prices of stamps? Nothing. Everybody groans. That's all. We are stuck with a postal service that provides horrible customer service, relatively slow delivery, and ever increasing prices. We can never get out of it, we can never improve it, and it will never get cheaper. One would think that with mind boggling advances in automation, transportation, and information systems the prices of stamps should have gone down at some point. Where did the money go? It's not like postal workers are getting rich. It went to feed the extreme inefficiency that is 'government.'

 

[deleted15807]

Well, clearly, they pay the bills. But the government could pay the bills too. And since private insurance companies exist to make profits, they are trying their hardest, every minute of every hour of every day, to figure out how to *not* pay health care bills. In other words -- how to *screw* patients and medical professionals.

Before Americans got so stupid, this would have been self-evident to everyone. That was when people realized that "free enterprise" was a *very useful tool* for providing people with the things they needed at the fairest price.

Exactly.

there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.

I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations with this medical loss ratio.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/transcript4.html
​

 

[vince]

To those who say that a government run health plan would raise costs and government would have no interest in containing increases, I ask why is it that study after study indicates that in the U.S., the money spent per capita or as a ratio of GDP is the highest in the developed world? Those same studies indicate that despite spending way more of the national wealth on heathcare, the services the average citizen recieves is relatively poor compared to what is provided in other developed countries with national health care plans.

As for out of control bureaucracies, my sister who works in the medical field, has been telling me for years that they are swamped with paperwork and regulations from insurance companies. She says that if they didn't have dozens of different insurers, each with their own forms and regulations to deal with, they could reduce clerical staff and spend more time and resources taking care of patients.

Last time I checked, Germany, France, the UK, Sweden and Canada, were not communist countries. Not even close.

 

[deleted15807]

Facts have a liberal bias. From global warming to abstinence-only education to health care to preemptive war to 'regulatory relief'. Facts just don't matter.

 

[B_Marius567]

People with health insurance coverage do not look for a lower price because health insurance is paying it and making health insurance coverage cost more.

 

[deleted15807]

People with health insurance coverage do not look for a lower price because health insurance is paying it and making health insurance coverage cost more.

No but the companies they work for do it for them. Every year my company presents us with a menu of health insurance options. Without fail each year the deductibles go up (which is a back handed premium increase) and somewhere in the fine details you can see more and more of the cost of insurance is being passed onto the employee with various tweaks. In the future company provided insurance will most likely go the way of pensions....gone. You're on your own. Good fucking luck.

 

[andrexx]

Think about the postal service. What happens when they raise the prices of stamps? Nothing. Everybody groans. That's all. We are stuck with a postal service that provides horrible customer service, relatively slow delivery, and ever increasing prices. We can never get out of it, we can never improve it, and it will never get cheaper. One would think that with mind boggling advances in automation, transportation, and information systems the prices of stamps should have gone down at some point. Where did the money go? It's not like postal workers are getting rich. It went to feed the extreme inefficiency that is 'government.'

Think about the groceries you buy. Every year, food prices go up. Yes, they fluctuate throughout the year and sometimes things get cheaper, sometimes they skyrocket, but for the most part, grocery prices are constantly going up. This is with the PRIVATE sector running groceries! To pretend that the Postal Service should somehow be immune to price raises is ridiculous. This is especially true since the Post Office is required to break even each year (often they face deficits, true, but the requirement still stands) and this is why prices go up the penny or two each year. Things like gas, paying employees and their benefits, and other expenses keep going up each year. This happens at almost every company and government agency in the world - nobody is immune to it.

And to say customer service is horrible and delivery are slow is to generalize the system. I've had one document ever go missing in the mail which I partially blame myself for (I believe I may have done something wrong with labeling) and the people who work there have always been nice to me. As for delivery...I can put a stamp that costs less than half a dollar in my mailbox or any of the public mail drop-offs and have it picked up that day and sent off across the country and arrive at the requested address by about the third day. How is that slow? If you need an instant and cheaper fix to the problem, try email. I also get a guarantee that I will have someone come to my mailbox every single day, rain or shine, and deliver my mail. I never understand the complaints against the Postal Service.

So after that major digression, I suppose I should mention health care. While I love the private sector (it really does amazing things), I am not at all opposed to a government run option, coops, or a single-payer system. Something like health shouldn't be trusted to somebody who wants to make a dollar off of you. It doesn't make sense.

 

[cruztbone]

Vince, not only are you CORRECT, but each of the nations you cite report much higher consumer saftisfaction with their healthcare than does the US. Be sure to watch the president wednesday at 5pm make his speech to the joint session of congress. Perhaps finally the nutcases who oppose the public health care option will finally understand why WE NEED HEALTH CARE REFORM IN THE US.

 

[Trinity]

To those who say that a government run health plan would raise costs and government would have no interest in containing increases,

It would raise costs...the CBO has stated that the bills don't bend the cost curve and increase the deficit. The government hasn't run social security, medicare, medicaid or the post office cost effectively...

I ask why is it that study after study indicates that in the U.S., the money spent per capita or as a ratio of GDP is the highest in the developed world? Those same studies indicate that despite spending way more of the national wealth on heathcare, the services the average citizen recieves is relatively poor compared to what is provided in other developed countries with national health care plans.

That statement implies something that isn't true. Please provide citations if you maintain that your statement is fact.

Poor U.S. Scores in Health Care Don’t Measure Nobels and Innovation

Advocates of national health insurance cite an apparently devastating fact: the United States spends more of its gross domestic product on medical care than any nation in the world, yet Americans do not live longer than Western Europeans or Japanese. More Americans lack insurance coverage as well.

But the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader.

Medical innovations improve health and life expectancy in all wealthy countries, not just in the United States. That is one reason American citizens do not live longer. Furthermore, the lucrative United States health care market enhances research and development abroad and not just at home.

The American system also produces benefits that are hard to find in the numbers. The economist Arnold Kling in his “Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care” (Cato Institute, 2006) (catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=37&pid=1441301) argues that the expected life span need increase by only about half a year for the extra American health care spending to be cost-effective over a 20-year period. Given that many Americans walk less and eat less healthy food than most Europeans, the longevity boost from health care in the United States may be real but swamped by the results of poor lifestyle choices. In the meantime, the extra money Americans spend to treat allergy symptoms, pain, depression and discomfort contributes to personal happiness.
Compared with Europe, the American system involves more tests, more procedures and more visits with specialists. Sick people receive more momentary comforts and also the sense that everything possible has been done. This feeling is of value to the family even when the patient does not improve. In contrast, European countries have not created comparably high expectations about the medical process. If we count “giving people what they would want, if they knew it was there” as one measure of medical value, the American system looks better.

As for out of control bureaucracies, my sister who works in the medical field, has been telling me for years that they are swamped with paperwork and regulations from insurance companies. She says that if they didn't have dozens of different insurers, each with their own forms and regulations to deal with, they could reduce clerical staff and spend more time and resources taking care of patients.

As the article points out, issues of waste and red tape with paper work isn't a reason to move over to a Government Run Healthcare system. The specific inefficiencies should be addressed in our current system.

 

[vince]

It would raise costs...the CBO has stated that the bills don't bend the cost curve and increase the deficit. The government hasn't run social security, medicare, medicaid or the post office cost effectively...

If that is your view, then please explain why you think that America can't do these things well? What is it about the the U.S. system that makes you all unable to function efficiently as a collective?

Deutsche Post and La Poste work great. :smile:

That statement implies something that isn't true. Please provide citations if you maintain that your statement is fact.

I will if you will. See above and note that you did not provide any citations for your claims about Social Security, Medicare. Medicaid, or the Post Office.

(actually, no. I won't give you any "citations". I won't play the "Cut and paste links that prove me right" game with you. It's waste of pixels.)

Poor U.S. Scores in Health Care Don’t Measure Nobels and Innovation

I have always thought that in scientific research and innovation in the U.S is the world leader. Along with Germany and the UK of course. I think that the inventiveness of the people is due to their basic values, the education system and the culture of enterprise in the U.S. I doubt that the profits of insurance companies have much to do with it.

The family that has a medical crisis and has no insurance, or has paid high premiums for years only to be denied payment of their bills due to a "pre-existing condition" or whatever, does not give a damn about how many Nobel prizes have been awarded to American scientists.

As the article points out, issues of waste and red tape with paper work isn't a reason to move over to a Government Run Healthcare system.

Actually it didn't point that out at all. If fact, in the last paragraph says-

"American health care has many problems. Health insurance is linked too tightly to employment, and too many people cannot afford insurance. Insurance companies put too much energy into avoiding payments. Personal medical records are kept on paper rather than in accessible electronic fashion. Emergency rooms are not always well suited to serve as last-resort health care for the poor. Most fundamentally, the lack of good measures of health care quality makes it hard to identify and eliminate waste."

There is a citation for you. Happy now?

Plus, I'll believe what my big sister tells me about the problems and waste in the medical industry in the U.S., over what an article in the NY Times says. She lives it every day.

The specific inefficiencies should be addressed in our current system.

If that is possible, then I'm all for it. If it leads is to a fair system that affordable for all citizens, great. I'm not married to the idea of government run health care insurance systems. If you (the U.S.) can come up with a better, fairer, more efficient way, it would be wonderful. But in my own life experience, having lived in four different countries including the USA, the single payer system works better for the average person than the mess you all have to deal with.

 

[midlifebear]

A different take on the NHS:





My Cancer and lesson in healthcare

Just one lie, out several listed by The He/She and Holy its post: High Frequency Ultrasound treatment (HIFU) for prostate cancer IS NOT available in the USA. The FDA has yet to approve it. HIFU is available at specialty clinics in Toronto, The Dominican Republic, Japan, Mexico, UK, and Brazil. There may be other private clinics specializing in HIFU. But it ain't available in the USA. The primary reason is that the high frequency ultrasound treatment isn't offered in the USA is because there is a US company owned by US physicians that has been trying to get its HIFU trials accepted and approved as the only procedure in the USA. HIFU treatment available was originally developed in Japan -- not the USA -- and because of the incredible sums of money to be made with HIFU, the US company is lobbying the FDA that there is no "real substantive" evidence that the Japanese HIFU procedure -- the one NOT developed in the USA -- actually works. Funny thing, it's been successfully used for more that 10 years, but 10 years isn't long enough for the FDA to make an informed decision on its performance and safety. However, there plenty of research papers available via MedLine and medical journals that HIFU has about an 80% success rate in curing prostate cancer. For advanced prostate cancer, 80% success rate is damn fucking good. Still, it's a relatively radical procedure.

Another out right lie in that post is that the most advanced, cutting edge treatments for prostate cancer are developed in the USA. Wrong! Wrong in so many ways. The current robotic surgical procedure for saving nerves while cutting away all of the prostate and affected surrounding cancerous tissue was developed by a medical research group made up of Spanish and German engineers and surgeons. In fact, the one place in the world where men from other countries come in flocks to have such radical surgery is Barcelona where it's common for La Clinica Central Urologo to do three surgeries at the same time (they have the most robotic machines), knocking about 9 surgeries a day outof the park using this procedure. There are also a couple of these same robotic surgical machines engineered specifically for prostate cancer in Madrid, too.

As for Brachytherapy, the procedure where the prostate is seeded with paladium isotopes or the iodine isotope 125, it is a fairly common procedure in the USA, but costs about $60 to $75 thousand dollars (if you don't have insurance). And it is ONLY recommended when prostate cancer, or the adenomas, are confined within the prostate and has not affected the nerves going through the prostate or any surrounding tissue. This is usually referred to as Stage One prostate cancer. Rather than have the procedure done in the USA, I opted for the best urologist/surgeon in Buenos Aires who charged me a whopping U$S6,000 for all lab work -- this included an MRI among a bunch of other radioactive imaging tests, and all blood work, plus approximately 60 "seeds" of iodine 125 -- and included the surgery and subsequent followup appointments. The most expensive part of having had prostate surgery is just getting a simple PSA test done in the USA -- average cost $125, compared to $15 in Argentina and $0 in Spain. If any of you have blood drawn for lab work in the USA, check out the itemization of costs. They now commonly charge $30 for "venupuncture" that is, just sticking the fucking needle in your arm. This wasn't a common charge until the mid 1980's when physicians and labs "discovered" a new way to add an extra $30+ to your lab work charges. Note the difference between the $6,000 (in US dollars) I paid for state-of-the-art Brachytherapy compared to the U$S60,000 to U$S75,000 for the exact same procedure (without lab work) costs in the USA?

I'm pleased to be cancer-free going on four years now. And I can still get it up without any difficulty. But The He/She and Holy It posts only half truths, if she posts any truth at all in her rants.

Anyone wanting to know more about ALL of the available treatments for prostate cancer is welcome to send me a private message. This particular area of cancer is something about which I know more than many USA-trained urologists.

 

[Industrialsize]

Just one lie, out several listed by The He/She and Holy its post: High Frequency Ultrasound treatment (HIFU) for prostate cancer IS NOT available in the USA. The FDA has yet to approve it. HIFU is available at specialty clinics in Toronto, The Dominican Republic, Japan, Mexico, UK, and Brazil. There may be other private clinics specializing in HIFU. But it ain't available in the USA. The primary reason is that the high frequency ultrasound treatment isn't offered in the USA is because there is a US company owned by US physicians that has been trying to get its HIFU trials accepted and approved as the only procedure in the USA. HIFU treatment available was originally developed in Japan -- not the USA -- and because of the incredible sums of money to be made with HIFU, the US company is lobbying the FDA that there is no "real substantive" evidence that the Japanese HIFU procedure -- the one NOT developed in the USA -- actually works. Funny thing, it's been successfully used for more that 10 years, but 10 years isn't long enough for the FDA to make an informed decision on its performance and safety. However, there plenty of research papers available via MedLine and medical journals that HIFU has about an 80% success rate in curing prostate cancer. For advanced prostate cancer, 80% success rate is damn fucking good. Still, it's a relatively radical procedure.

Another out right lie in that post is that the most advanced, cutting edge treatments for prostate cancer are developed in the USA. Wrong! Wrong in so many ways. The current robotic surgical procedure for saving nerves while cutting away all of the prostate and affected surrounding cancerous tissue was developed by a medical research group made up of Spanish and German engineers and surgeons. In fact, the one place in the world where men from other countries come in flocks to have such radical surgery is Barcelona where it's common for La Clinica Central Urologo to do three surgeries at the same time (they have the most robotic machines), knocking about 9 surgeries a day outof the park using this procedure. There are also a couple of these same robotic surgical machines engineered specifically for prostate cancer in Madrid, too.

As for Brachytherapy, the procedure where the prostate is seeded with paladium isotopes or the iodine isotope 125, it is a fairly common procedure in the USA, but costs about $60 to $75 thousand dollars (if you don't have insurance). And it is ONLY recommended when prostate cancer, or the adenomas, are confined within the prostate and has not affected the nerves going through the prostate or any surrounding tissue. This is usually referred to as Stage One prostate cancer. Rather than have the procedure done in the USA, I opted for the best urologist/surgeon in Buenos Aires who charged me a whopping U$S6,000 for all lab work -- this included an MRI among a bunch of other radioactive imaging tests, and all blood work, plus approximately 60 "seeds" of iodine 125 -- and included the surgery and subsequent followup appointments. The most expensive part of having had prostate surgery is just getting a simple PSA test done in the USA -- average cost $125, compared to $15 in Argentina and $0 in Spain. If any of you have blood drawn for lab work in the USA, check out the itemization of costs. They now commonly charge $30 for "venupuncture" that is, just sticking the fucking needle in your arm. This wasn't a common charge until the mid 1980's when physicians and labs "discovered" a new way to add an extra $30+ to your lab work charges. Note the difference between the $6,000 (in US dollars) I paid for state-of-the-art Brachytherapy compared to the U$S60,000 to U$S75,000 for the exact same procedure (without lab work) costs in the USA?

I'm pleased to be cancer-free going on four years now. And I can still get it up without any difficulty. But The He/She and Holy It posts only half truths, if she posts any truth at all in her rants.

Anyone wanting to know more about ALL of the available treatments for prostate cancer is welcome to send me a private message. This particular area of cancer is something about which I know more than many USA-trained urologists.

Amen