2 ms·

> I'll be shallow and say this. Anyone that thinks that it's better to find cancer late than early or diabetes or blood pressure needs a head examination. I'll

> I'll be shallow and say this. Anyone that thinks that it's better to find cancer late than early or diabetes or blood pressure needs a head examination. I'll be shallow and say this: I don't think you remotely understand what the article is saying. Let's make it simple and only consider a single of the article's points: there are not enough primary care physicians to provide yearly checkups for everyone. In this scenario, providing yearly checkups to someone healthy in their thirties is done at the cost of _not_ doing it for someone else. If that person is at a higher risk for cancer or diabetes, then promoting annual checkups for everyone can easily make it _harder_ to find cancer early since we're not focusing on high risk people. Of course there are many more points to the article (e.g. unnecessary treatment), but that single point is enough to make it quite obvious that the article is not entirely without merit. What I find incredible is that you keep repeating that the article is terrible yet even after repeated questioning you are unwilling (or unable) to actually quote any single aspect that you take issue with.

arisAlexis 3y ago
Yes the article is bs because your argument is that there aren't many physicians and maybe the insurance companies complain for costs and this is humongous vastly different than prevention and erly screening is bad. And the article doesn't differentiate. No more discussion, going to do my annual blood exam. You skip it.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  > Yes the article is bs because your argument is that there aren't many physicians and maybe the insurance companies complain for costs and this is humongous vastly different than prevention and erly screening is bad. And the article doesn't differentiate. No more discussion, going to do my annual blood exam. You skip it. This might be the most incoherent post you've made so far. Honestly, what are you even talking about? The article never once made an argument against screening. And the number of physicians and the cost of visiting them is extremely important for any analysis of the system. But yes maybe you're right that there should be no more discussion. You have after all not actually pointed out a single paragraph or sentence from the article that you claim is wrong. You haven't even really made any sort of argument. You've just repeated that the article and the research are wrong without providing any supporting explanation.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - arisAlexis 3y ago
    This is insane and your ego too. "The article never once made an argument against screening" How do you start screening without an annual physical? You book doodle appointments from things you saw on Wikipedia? I just can't, stop. Calm.
    - CogitoCogito 3y ago
      > How do you start screening without an annual physical? You book doodle appointments from things you saw on Wikipedia? I just can't, stop. Calm. So basically your point here is that you claim it is impossible to convey information about standard screening schedules without doing an annual physical? I mean you understand that's a ridiculous claim right? It could be done by a doctor over the phone, or a nurse, or another system. Your point is totally illogical. Why does it need to be yearly? Why not every other year? Why not every 6 months. Even taking your ridiculous claim as fact, it doesn't imply anything about how often these physical exams need to occur. > This is insane and your ego too. My ego? You've claimed over and over how bad the article is, yet you haven't pointed out any reasoning supporting your statement. You are the one with an enormous ego. You seem totally incapable of accepting that maybe just maybe you could possibly be wrong. Learn a little humility.
      - arisAlexis 3y ago
        Tell me a country you live and you can schedule screenings without actually having a physical even for the first time. Let's cut the bs and make a public bet with escrow. Only way to make people realize they talk bs.
        CogitoCogito 3y ago
        The US? https://www.honorhealth.com/healthy-living/time-colonoscopy-you-may-not-need-referral https://www.honorhealth.com/healthy-living/time-colonoscopy-... Hopefully we can now get passed the fact that you are unquestionably incorrect. I don't need your money, but if you'd like you could maybe take the public bet and send it to a public organization promoting colonoscopies. Aside from that, you should maybe take a moment to reflect and ask yourself why you're so stubborn about this topic. Let's say that research showed that annual checkups are unnecessary and don't promote overall health, but for bureaucratic reasons you are required to see your primary care physician in order to schedule screenings like colonoscopies. Well then obviously the answer is to change the system so that that no longer is required right? Right? Why is it you can't see this? Do you think that it's literally impossible for patients to receive this information except by way of a physical exam? Like you actually can't imagine another possible approach for this information to possibly reach the patient? edit: The more I think about it, the harder it is for me to wrap my head around your position. Your point is that basically that we need to get more people at risk for certain diseases to get certain medical screenings. You are (presumably aware) that the vast majority of those people are older. Your solution to this is to tell _everyone_ regardless of age or history to go to the doctor because that is the _only_ way to get people at risk this kind of information. You even stand by this position even though there is a clear shortage in many areas of primary care physicians meaning you are making it even harder for high risk people to go to the doctor by telling low risk people to do so. How can you not see that your position is ridiculous? How can you not see that overall this practice could possibly maybe just maybe not be a good idea?

arisAlexis 3y ago

Yes the article is bs because your argument is that there aren't many physicians and maybe the insurance companies complain for costs and this is humongous vastly different than prevention and erly screening is bad. And the article doesn't differentiate. No more discussion, going to do my annual blood exam. You skip it.

CogitoCogito 3y ago
> Yes the article is bs because your argument is that there aren't many physicians and maybe the insurance companies complain for costs and this is humongous vastly different than prevention and erly screening is bad. And the article doesn't differentiate. No more discussion, going to do my annual blood exam. You skip it. This might be the most incoherent post you've made so far. Honestly, what are you even talking about? The article never once made an argument against screening. And the number of physicians and the cost of visiting them is extremely important for any analysis of the system. But yes maybe you're right that there should be no more discussion. You have after all not actually pointed out a single paragraph or sentence from the article that you claim is wrong. You haven't even really made any sort of argument. You've just repeated that the article and the research are wrong without providing any supporting explanation.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- arisAlexis 3y ago
  This is insane and your ego too. "The article never once made an argument against screening" How do you start screening without an annual physical? You book doodle appointments from things you saw on Wikipedia? I just can't, stop. Calm.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    > How do you start screening without an annual physical? You book doodle appointments from things you saw on Wikipedia? I just can't, stop. Calm. So basically your point here is that you claim it is impossible to convey information about standard screening schedules without doing an annual physical? I mean you understand that's a ridiculous claim right? It could be done by a doctor over the phone, or a nurse, or another system. Your point is totally illogical. Why does it need to be yearly? Why not every other year? Why not every 6 months. Even taking your ridiculous claim as fact, it doesn't imply anything about how often these physical exams need to occur. > This is insane and your ego too. My ego? You've claimed over and over how bad the article is, yet you haven't pointed out any reasoning supporting your statement. You are the one with an enormous ego. You seem totally incapable of accepting that maybe just maybe you could possibly be wrong. Learn a little humility.
    - arisAlexis 3y ago
      Tell me a country you live and you can schedule screenings without actually having a physical even for the first time. Let's cut the bs and make a public bet with escrow. Only way to make people realize they talk bs.
      - CogitoCogito 3y ago
        The US? https://www.honorhealth.com/healthy-living/time-colonoscopy-you-may-not-need-referral https://www.honorhealth.com/healthy-living/time-colonoscopy-... Hopefully we can now get passed the fact that you are unquestionably incorrect. I don't need your money, but if you'd like you could maybe take the public bet and send it to a public organization promoting colonoscopies. Aside from that, you should maybe take a moment to reflect and ask yourself why you're so stubborn about this topic. Let's say that research showed that annual checkups are unnecessary and don't promote overall health, but for bureaucratic reasons you are required to see your primary care physician in order to schedule screenings like colonoscopies. Well then obviously the answer is to change the system so that that no longer is required right? Right? Why is it you can't see this? Do you think that it's literally impossible for patients to receive this information except by way of a physical exam? Like you actually can't imagine another possible approach for this information to possibly reach the patient? edit: The more I think about it, the harder it is for me to wrap my head around your position. Your point is that basically that we need to get more people at risk for certain diseases to get certain medical screenings. You are (presumably aware) that the vast majority of those people are older. Your solution to this is to tell _everyone_ regardless of age or history to go to the doctor because that is the _only_ way to get people at risk this kind of information. You even stand by this position even though there is a clear shortage in many areas of primary care physicians meaning you are making it even harder for high risk people to go to the doctor by telling low risk people to do so. How can you not see that your position is ridiculous? How can you not see that overall this practice could possibly maybe just maybe not be a good idea?