3 ms·
I find this argument hilarious because it is literally admitting widespread iatrogenic harm, and the solution is not to do less harm, but to keep information aw
by jl2718 7y ago
I find this argument hilarious because it is literally admitting widespread iatrogenic harm, and the solution is not to do less harm, but to keep information away from the patient. How else would like to prove that the AMA is a regressive guild with state protection and financial support through the insurance industry? The only reason many doctors don’t like diagnostics is that it undermines their witchcraft, similar to how second-rate mechanics hate consumer OBD-2 port readers, while first-rate mechanics love them. The argument for less diagnostics is laughable. Diagnostics do not cause harm. The harm is being caused by doctors.
- apathy 7y agoBecause there aren’t any systematic perverse incentives baked into US healthcare or anything. Like, say, many if not most preventive measures being unreimbursible while treatment (especially Stone Age chemo protocols) are reimbursed at profitable rates. Nope, it’s those fucking physicians greedily trying to gut medicine. Like so: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/health/private-equity-dermatology.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/health/private-equity-der... Oh, whoops, my bad, it’s the usual malevolent actors and their stooges. Yes there are shitty doctors (I’ve worked with plenty). However, I would propose that the majority of the rot in the US system is structural. Socialized or properly regulated private systems do not have these scale of problems. Last but not least, I’m guessing you haven’t added up the cost of running a Snyderome per person. It’s not sustainable on a large scale at current prices. That is why cruder methods of risk stratification that cost less are the norm.