Not sure what to make of your post. You asserted (in a prior post) that...progression of (paroxysmal) atrial fibrillation was a certainty (inevitable).

Put aside the paper I referenced & shared: The assertion that paroxysmal AF is inevitable was stated without any falsifiable/testable basis, empirical or otherwise. And my post was written in response (primarily) in the spirit of addressing the missing justification (whatever the epistemology).

As for my disaffection for...the cost of American cardiological healthcare: Here (in this forum) I cannot & will not enter into a thoughtful critical consideration of the larger subject of American fee-for-service health care.

I specifically mentioned the AHA--& nothing at all about American health-scientific research (which, by the way, is the field in which I work).

The AHA is a...professional...organization (profession = American cardiology).

It is NOT a research organization (though it does provide some modest grants for some research in addition to its paramount concern with advocacy for the profession of cardiology). I can & will continue to critique the AHA & the AMA for that matter--& other professional associations: Their ambit is professional advocacy (not science or even the practice of medicine).

As for the conflation of my critique of the AHA with a larger concern about American fee-for-service healthcare: I can & will continue to regard it (the AHA) with healthy skepticism. Such skepticism has NOTHING to do with the unrelated concept of ad hominem fallacy.

In fact, to suggest that a/my critique of the AHA for its professional & medical-industrial advocacy is some form of...ad hominem fallacy...might well be said itself to be a form...of ad hominem attack (though I personally would not make such a claim).

Critical consideration is integral to any intellectual enterprise, whatever its nature. And critical engagement lies at the heart of all inquiry: It is NOT to be equated with or erroneously dismissed as...ad hominem attack (it could well be but that claim of ad hominem fallacy must itself also be justified according to recognised logical standards).

On the larger subject of what some of us (namely, health services researchers) identify as American healthcare's defining preoccupation with fee-for-service healthcare: Many of us find it problematic.

Studies of cross-national comparative healthcare systems, expenditures, & outcomes abound. Many of us are concerned by the exorbitant amount of money--by any measure, including as a percentage of America's GDP, America spends on healthcare. For quick reference take a look at the Commonwealth Fund's periodic assessment of US healthcare...vis-a-vis other OECD nations, for example:

* The U.S. spends more on health care as a share of the economy — nearly twice as much as the average OECD country — yet has the lowest life expectancy and highest suicide rates among the 11 OECD nations;
* The U.S. has the highest chronic disease burden and an obesity rate that is two times higher than the OECD average;
* Americans have ewer physician visits than peers in most countries;
* Americans use some expensive technologies, such as MRIs, and specialized procedures, such as hip replacements, more often than our peers; &
* Compared to peer nations, the U.S. has among the highest number of hospitalizations from... preventable causes and the highest rate of avoidable deaths.

Back to the cost of American healthcare: The largest single component of the cost? Physician compensation.

For example: As of 2023, American cardiologists earn on average nearly $500,000 per year (those catheter-ablation revenues add up quickly).

Skepticism aside, it's worth asking--& it's an empirical question, given the much higher rate of such interventional cardiological surgical procedures performed in the US versus Europe, whether & to what extent is the higher rate of such intervention driven by behaviors not rooted in medical necessity (or what American EP cardiologist & researcher Dr. John Mandrola terms "medical conservatism")?

That's not an "ad-hominem" fallacy or attack: It's a falsifiable/testable (empirical) proposition. I join Dr. Mandrola & his colleagues in their dedication to "medical conservatism", especially in the practice of cardiology.

Read all about it here: https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(19)30167-6/fulltext

Cheers & stay safe.