Well, it is about cost to society to some extent; no argument there. Do you want to pay an additional $2,000/yr for everybody else's three-year colonoscopies? Most people don't.
In the above example, scheduling at 5 or 3 year intervals vs. ten year intervals subjects a whole bunch of people to unnecessary risks while barely even saving an additional life. If you still think 3 year intervals are desirable, then why not make it 3 month intervals and save another 1/16 life. You see, there's got to be a cutoff somewhere.
“Well, it is about cost to society to some extent; no argument there. Do you want to pay an additional $2,000/yr for everybody else’s three-year colonoscopies? Most people don’t. “
You are making ridiculous assumptions — the whole point of insurance is exactly that some people will need extensive medical care, others may not, that’s how they establish — or at least used to — the premiums, so they are manageable for everyone.
But now that obamacare is expanding and the government is insuring many for free, the way to “make it work” is by not testing, not diagnosing people when their conditions may still be treatable, but wait until they are at death’s door, and then pronounce that it’s too late, it’s not worth treating them at that time, and let them die, preferably quickly.
Just because a medical test is recommended doesn’t mean everyone will opt to have one. Often the deductible alone makes these medical tests unaffordable, plus sometimes people don’t trust certain medical procedures.
What I object to is the change in recommendations all of a sudden. The idea that, suddenly, these tests are no longer necessary just doesn’t ring true.