A preview of future government-run health care rationing
Bob
[excerpt] A government panel's new recommendation that women start
mammograms at age 50, not 40, is has sparked angst, confusion, and
even anger -- among health advocates and medical experts alike.
As we told you in a story today, the U.S. Preventive Services Task
Force reversed existing recommendations that women get mammograms
every one or two years starting at 40. Now, it says, start in your
50s, and do them every two years.
And remember how doctors have urged women to do breast self-exams?
Well, skip those too. There's no evidence that teaching women to
examine their breasts actually saves lives, the panel now says.
So what's a woman in her 40s to think? That's the tenor of the emails
I've been getting in response to this story. Women are confused. For
years, doctors, patient advocates and every public service
announcement with a pink ribbon on it has urged women to get annual
mammograms and check their breasts for lumps. So, now what? Talk to
your doctor, says the panel.
But many doctors are against the new recommendations, especially
cancer specialists. CNN notes that the panel of 16 medical experts
includes no oncologists.
There are no clear cut answers, even among doctors. One tells the WSJ
health blog that there is no downside to breast self-exams, regardless
of what the data show. [end excerpt]
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/health/2009/11/controversial_mammogram_screen.html
Woodswun
'tisn't new. Some have been saying over 50 for years, now. See
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Updated_Breast_Cancer_Screening_Guidelines_Released.asp
And, there is not a consensus that screenings must be started at age
40 for all populations:
"The American Medical Association (AMA),32 the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG),33 the American College of
Radiology (ACR),34 and the American Cancer Society (ACS),35 all
support screening with mammography and CBE beginning at age 40. The
Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC),36 the American
Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP),37 and the American College of
Preventive Medicine (ACPM)38 recommend beginning mammography for
average-risk women at age 50. AAFP and ACPM recommend that mammography
in high-risk women begin at age 40, and AAFP recommends that all women
aged 40-49 be counseled about the risks and benefits of mammography
before making decisions about screening.37,38"
The risk of breast cancer goes from 1.5% to 2.8% (or thereabouts)
between the ages of 40 and 50, and a lot of that is people with high
risk factors (family history, first child after age 30, etc).
So, not really so controversial as you're trying to make it out to
be. If you have a family history of breast cancer, I'm sure you'd be
covered for mammograms.
Woods
Bob
>
> And, there is not a consensus that screenings must be started at age
> 40 for all populations:
The new guidelines do not mention risk factors. They ignore the 17% of
breast cancer incidents that occur among women in their 40s. They
ignore the several women I've heard comment on this who say they'd be
dead now if they waited until 50 for their first mammogram.
Jane
>
> And, there is not a consensus that screenings must be started at age
> 40 for all populations:
>
> "The American Medical Association (AMA),32 the American College of
> Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG),33 the American College of
> Radiology (ACR),34 and the American Cancer Society (ACS),35 all
> support screening with mammography and CBE beginning at age 40. The
> Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC),36 the American
> Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP),37 and the American College of
> Preventive Medicine (ACPM)38 recommend beginning mammography for
> average-risk women at age 50. AAFP and ACPM recommend that mammography
> in high-risk women begin at age 40, and AAFP recommends that all women
> aged 40-49 be counseled about the risks and benefits of mammography
> before making decisions about screening.37,38"
>
> The risk of breast cancer goes from 1.5% to 2.8% (or thereabouts)
> between the ages of 40 and 50, and a lot of that is people with high
> risk factors (family history, first child after age 30, etc).
>
> So, not really so controversial as you're trying to make it out to
> be. If you have a family history of breast cancer, I'm sure you'd be
> covered for mammograms.
>
> Woods
That is the policy here. If you have a family history, or other risk
factor, you will be screened earlier. I am quite certain it will work
that way there, too, but you will of course have to ask your insurance
company!
Many years ago, I asked my doctor why the standard for low risk women
was 50 here, vs 40 in the U.S. He said, and I quote 'it's a more
litigious society'. He explained that the research didn't show any
great advantage to screening low-risk women earlier.
Our breast cancer death rate is declining, as is yours, and the rates
are very similar: http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/49/3/138.pdf
Mind you, if socioeconomic status is reviewed it seems poor Canadian
women have the advantage. Go figure, eh!
Bob
Uh, insurance companies routinely cover mammograms starting at age 40.
But it seems this government entity, the U.S. Preventative Care Task
Force, has suddenly changed its mind about recommending mammograms for
women under 50. Just a few months ago, it was standing by its original
recommendations. Now, suddenly, out of nowhere, it has changed its
mind.
What could be the cause of that, other than the fact the government is
planning to take over our health care system, and they're thinking
ahead and making sure they won't have to pay for mammograms for women
under 50.
>
> Many years ago, I asked my doctor why the standard for low risk women
> was 50 here, vs 40 in the U.S. He said, and I quote 'it's a more
> litigious society'. He explained that the research didn't show any
> great advantage to screening low-risk women earlier.
The new recommendations make no mention of risk factors.
>
> Our breast cancer death rate is declining, as is yours, and the rates
> are very similar:http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/49/3/138.pdf
> Mind you, if socioeconomic status is reviewed it seems poor Canadian
> women have the advantage. Go figure, eh!
From the Washington Post:
[excerpt] But cost may be a less onerous issue than some women expect.
Some insurers -- CareFirst, for example -- do not charge a mammogram
co-pay in some of their plans. And the Komen Foundation and community
health centers can sometimes direct women to mammography centers that
offer screenings free or on a sliding fee scale, based on income.
[end excerpt]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051102792.html
That's how it stands now. But because of this new recommendation,
insurance companies will likely stop paying for mammograms for women
under 50. That's our government, in action!
Doc
"Bob" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6df96cb-7ae7-4777...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Obama's a cold heartless bastard, that's it isn't it?
Woodswun
Sounds about right. From what I was reading on the stats, it seems
like it's almost nonexistant in women under 50 who aren't in one of
the risk groups.
>
> Our breast cancer death rate is declining, as is yours, and the rates
> are very similar:http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/49/3/138.pdf
> Mind you, if socioeconomic status is reviewed it seems poor Canadian
> women have the advantage. Go figure, eh!
That is odd!
Woods
Woodswun
17% of women in their 40s get breast cancer?? I think you need to
rewrite that, or reread what you got that from.
They aren't ignoring anything, you just don't understand anything you
read.
Woods
Woodswun
>
> That's how it stands now. But because of this new recommendation,
> insurance companies will likely stop paying for mammograms for women
> under 50. That's our government, in action!
Interestingly, the fact that doctors recommended women remain in the
hospital for 3 days didn't stop insurance companies from refusing to
cover more than a day; doctors recommending that surgical patients
remain in the hospital for a week after surgery didn't stop insurance
companies from refusing to cover more than 2 days in the hospital;
etc.
You don't understand how the decision was reached, you don't
understand how to read any type of statistics to save your life, you
ignore what insurance companies already refuse to cover ... I think
you just enjoy becoming hysterical and look for things to become
hysterical about.
Woods
Bob
>
> "Bob" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >The new guidelines do not mention risk factors. They ignore the 17% of
> >breast cancer incidents that occur among women in their 40s. They
> >ignore the several women I've heard comment on this who say they'd be
> >dead now if they waited until 50 for their first mammogram.
>
> Obama's a cold heartless bastard, that's it isn't it?
People will die because of the decision made by that government panel.
If a *panel* makes a decision that leads to *death*, is it a death
panel?
Bob
Uh, I think you know what I meant. But go ahead and make a joke out of
the fact that there will be women in their 40s who will die due to the
decision of a government panel. And you sit there and defend it.
Incredible.
>
> They aren't ignoring anything, you just don't understand anything you
> read.
You've got to be joking. This, coming from you, who is almost always
wrong about almost everything? A government panel made a decision that
will lead to women in their 40s going without mammograms. Women will
die, and you don't care. Just another thing for you to be wrong about.
You're very good at it.
Bob
You think the government is going to *increase* days in the hospital
when government takes over our health care system? Wow, this is your
answer to a government panel raising the recommendation of minimum age
for mammograms?
>
> doctors recommending that surgical patients
> remain in the hospital for a week after surgery didn't stop insurance
> companies from refusing to cover more than 2 days in the hospital;
>
> etc.
>
> You don't understand how the decision was reached, you don't
> understand how to read any type of statistics to save your life,
You think the government is going to do a better job? Why?
>
> you
> ignore what insurance companies already refuse to cover ... I think
> you just enjoy becoming hysterical and look for things to become
> hysterical about.
So you're defending the government panel's decision to raise the
recommendation for minimum age for mammograms? There are women in
their 40s who would live under the old system, but will die under the
new system, and you're fine with that?
Doc
Stop defending the sensationalizing headline-grabbing fucking bitch, junior.
Promote another Republican woman -- any number are readily available -- that
wouldn't look ridiculously green behind the ears in the world's most
powerful political and military position. If she can't fucking follow
through with her self-described 'commitment' to Alaskans, she has no
business ramping herself up for the greatest commitment of all.
She's a cheap vain unstable demagogue, junior, pure and simple. A Huey Long
or a Joe McCarthy with a bra and panties. Using misleading labels as 'death
panels' only stirs the radicalized rightwing that was pissing its jittery
Jockeys' at that time.
You can find this silly demagogue bellowing in the media every time a
political controversy arises that affords her some more cult following. And
she is a cult leader, junior. The cult of Palin.
Look at her unabashed book tour stunting. Jeezus, the ditzy woman's unable
to differentiate between shallow celebrity and 'serious' politicking.
A small town bitch who seized on an ol' doddling bastard's ill-considered
high-power offer and has taken off like a flaming ICBM.
But like all warheads, when they hit ground, they blow the hell apart.
Get a grip, you stupid personality cult fanatic.
If you think this is where 'serious' politics should be at or heading, then
jump on her back, and dig in your heels, you dummy. Ride that Palin Horse
into the Reagan sunset.
America can't find anything more qualified and 'serious' than this Wasilla
clown? If so, we're in deeper shit than I know we're in already.
Actors, psychos, fools, and fascists.
They're all your pals. Dance with them in the inferno.
Doc
Bob
>
> "Bob" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >On Nov 17, 10:05 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>"Bob" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>>>The new guidelines do not mention risk factors. They ignore the 17% of
>>>>breast cancer incidents that occur among women in their 40s. They
>>>>ignore the several women I've heard comment on this who say they'd be
>>>>dead now if they waited until 50 for their first mammogram.
>
>>>Obama's a cold heartless bastard, that's it isn't it?
>
> >People will die because of the decision made by that government panel.
> >If a *panel* makes a decision that leads to *death*, is it a death
> >panel?
>
> Stop defending the sensationalizing headline-grabbing fucking bitch, junior.
Why? We have our first example of a government death panel. Deal with
it.
Doc
Horseshit. Deal with the government's Shock&Awe Death Penises that fatally
fucked innocent Iraqis.
Jane
Bob doesn't understand science, period.
Bob
>
> "Bob" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Nov 19, 7:19 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Stop defending the sensationalizing headline-grabbing fucking bitch,
>>>junior.
>
> >Why? We have our first example of a government death panel. Deal with
> >it.
>
> Horseshit. Deal with the government's Shock&Awe Death Penises that fatally
> fucked innocent Iraqis.
Are you talking about 1998, when President Clinton and Prime Minister
Blair bombed the crap out of Iraq for four days? Or maybe you meant
the people of Belgrade rather than Iraq, when Clinton and Blair bombed
the crap out of Belgrade for weeks. Is that what you meant when you
changed the subject away from the topic you could no longer defend?
Bob
I see. So maybe you can explain why it's better for women to wait
until they're 50 to start having mammograms? Maybe you can explain the
"science" involved in having women in their 40s, who could have been
saved with earlier mammograms, start dying instead?
Jane
Why not advocate for mammograms for women in their 30s? Why not screen
everyone yearly for every possible disease?
Bob
I get a physical every year (or close to it, anyway). But if a woman
in her 30s wants annual mammograms, she's free to do that as it stands
today. But when the government steps in and starts limiting our
choices, it will be a whole different story.
Jane
You get a physical every year. So do I. you are not screened for
everything under the sun, though. Why not?
The standard is here is age 50, unless there is a risk factor. Our
death rate is very similar to yours, except among low-income women,
where our rate is lower. I posted the cites, above. Our death rate is
declining, just as yours is. You are not going to have women dropping
like flies. You're being hysterical, as Woods pointed out.
Bob
I didn't say they'd be dropping like flies. I said there would be
deaths, however, and that doesn't seem to matter to you or Woods. Cold.
Jane
Woods and I are basing our argument on science and logic. You want to
base it on emotion (which is actually fairly ironic, for a myriad of
reasons). Arguments based on emotion are pointless, so argue with
yourself.
Doc
You know precisely what war I refer to. And I told you repeatedly (and
please google it up) that I never supported that horrid bombing by Clinton,
as did only less than half the congress, and the American people.
It was another fat leadership policy blunder.
The bombing included the Geneva outlawed cluster bombs, for christs' sake.
It did the embattled Clinton no good at all, and rationalizations that the
Serbian/Albanian people don't have the balls and rage to toss out a lousy
leader, and that we must, again, intervene to do their bloody work for them,
or that a tinhorn dictator with a small army threatens the planet, is all
more hegemonic arrogant nationalistic sewage of the type idiots like you
swim in.
As for proposals in HR 3200, it may surprise you to know I have a rather
thorough understanding of the complex, overweight bill's 'death panel'
provisions, and I maintain that is totally counterproductive to use
inflammatory language ot galvanize resistance against a key part of it.
It could've been fairly dealt with, in unsensationalized terms, and not have
a political opportunist aggravate the situation, fueling even more foolish
townhall distractions, fears, and anger.
A rather balanced look at the summer tempest over this is here --
http://covertrationingblog.com/uncategorized/james-madison-sarah-palin-and-hr-3200
I don't deny that the huge bill has its serious problems, but that the
Right's so-called alternative far too much favors medical corporate control
and its unbridled greed over our healthcare concerns.
At the end of the day, junior, America has nothing to boast of by knowing
that many millions have been unable to get affordable, adequate medical
attention, for decades, despite our self-touted position as having the
world's highest standard of living and a leader in medical technology and
practices.
You and your hairy-assed Right would do better to realize that sad fact, and
work together with the Left, rather than just throwing up a partisan-driven
blanket NO to everything proposed, and in any shape or form, lending any
credence to outrageous distractions.
But, ultimately, like most things politically charged, and imbedded with
self interest and extreme greed, and especially in this fuckedly sad year,
the bill won't make it pass the Senate, so your counter point is likely a
moot one.
Doc
Bob
I'm basing my argument on a 48-year-old breast cancer survivor that I
know personally. Imagine she had waited until age 50 for her first
mammogram. So go ahead and claim "science" and "logic" are on your
side. People will die if we follow your (and Woods') logic. And you
don't care. Cold.
Bob
Yes, and you only raised it in this instance to change the subject
away from the topic under discussion.
Doc
But,you ran with it, preferring to divert it into ridiculous partisanship.
Unnecessary warfare is as evil and ugly as demagogues and their faithful
flock.
Woodswun
If the government can limit choices by not allowing women to get
abortions, why not limit other perfectly legal procedures to save some
cash for the insurance industry? That's what the Right Wing likes,
right, saving money for the poor, impoverished insurance companies?
It makes a lot more financial sense to limit mammograms to women under
40 than it does to disallow abortions.
Woods
Woodswun
Would there be additional deaths? Where are you getting that
information from? Are you sure that blanket mammograms have saved
anyone that didn't have a background that would make them in the
recommended group for mammograms before 40?
Woods
Woodswun
What was her health history? Did she have her first baby after age
30? Did she have a family history of breast cancer, or unknown? Etc.
Did she have absolutely no other signs that something was amiss? (In
fact, even if you don't think there were, you aren't likely to know -
women don't tend to tell men about things going on with their breasts
and nipples, do they - so you've no idea about that).
Woods
Jane
Does she even exist? Easy enough for Bob to make someone up to bolster
his argument. As I said before, he is debating based on emotion (and a
visceral hatred of Obama), nothing else.
Woodswun
Well, if policies were set based on emotion, I'd be having men
screened for testicular cancer starting at age 20. I had a BIL who
was diagnosed with that when he was only 23 years old, went through
hell, but he survived (luckily, had connections at Sloan
Kettering ...).
Woods
Jane
As I kind of implied in my more sarcastic posts, it would be nice if
we could all be screened for everything. Even here, there are clinics
that provide that service for clients who wish to pay for it. And it
ain't cheap. And that's the point. No system can possibly pay to pay
to screen everyone for everything, no matter how remote the
possibility is that they have it. The possibility of someone under 50
with absolutely no risk factors having breast cancer is fairly remote.
As you pointed out there are exceptions to everything. i had a a good
friend die at 21 from lymphoma. Does that mean we screen all 21-year-
olds for lymphoma?
I guess if there were infinite financial resources, it could be done.
With our aging population, more and more of these allocation decisions
are going to have to be made. It's just reality. Countries that don't
do routine screening until age 50 are proof that the death rate is not
going to soar if the U.S. also goes to that standard. Nothing *cold*
about it.
I do find it highly amusing that 'War Monger Bob' thinks we are
cold, :).
Woodswun
Yes, me too. He also doesn't seem to have any idea what havoc all the
false positives have on women. I wonder how thrilled he'd be to have
biopsies taken of benign cycts in his testicles without any
anaesthesia, like women go through, after finding out that the false
positives are many times more numerous than real positives?
Woods
Bob
>
> "Bob" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>>You know precisely what war I refer to.
>
> >Yes, and you only raised it in this instance to change the subject
> >away from the topic under discussion.
>
> But,you ran with it, preferring to divert it into ridiculous partisanship.
You made it partisan when you referred only to Bush and Blair's
bombing of Iraq, while ignoring Clinton and Blair's bombing of Iraq,
and Clinton and Blair's bombing of Belgrade.
Bob
>
> On Nov 19, 10:44 pm, Bob <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 7:25 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 9:13 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 1:57 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Bob doesn't understand science, period.
>
> > > > I see. So maybe you can explain why it's better for women to wait
> > > > until they're 50 to start having mammograms? Maybe you can explain the
> > > > "science" involved in having women in their 40s, who could have been
> > > > saved with earlier mammograms, start dying instead?
>
> > > Why not advocate for mammograms for women in their 30s? Why not screen
> > > everyone yearly for every possible disease?
>
> > I get a physical every year (or close to it, anyway). But if a woman
> > in her 30s wants annual mammograms, she's free to do that as it stands
> > today. But when the government steps in and starts limiting our
> > choices, it will be a whole different story.
>
> If the government can limit choices by not allowing women to get
> abortions,
But that is not the case, is it?
>
> why not limit other perfectly legal procedures to save some
> cash for the insurance industry? That's what the Right Wing likes,
> right, saving money for the poor, impoverished insurance companies?
> It makes a lot more financial sense to limit mammograms to women under
> 40 than it does to disallow abortions.
Disallow abortions? What century are you in?
Bob
What recommended group? Before 40? We're talking about after 40, but
before 50. And I already mentioned a 48-year-old woman, whom I know
personally, who would be dead right now if she'd waited until 50 for
her first mammogram.
Bob
She's always been very healthy. I don't know her entire family
history, but her mother is alive and well, having never had breast
cancer. But you're assuming the new recommendations make exceptions
for certain women, and they don't. It's a blanket recommendation that
*women* wait until 50 to start having mammograms.
Bob
She does exist. I just saw her yesterday, as a matter of fact. She's
doing quite well. But even if she didn't exist, what makes you think
there aren't thousands of such cases in the United States? There is a
famous radio talk show host I could give you as an example. But don't
worry, vindictive bitch, I don't make stuff up just to win an
argument. Maybe that's something you'd do, which is why it occurred to
you to come up with the idea.
Bob
>
> I do find it highly amusing that 'War Monger Bob' thinks we are
> cold, :).
Hey, vindictive bitch, I'm not a warmonger, as I've explained here
several times.
Bob
>
> Yes, me too. He also doesn't seem to have any idea what havoc all the
> false positives have on women. I wonder how thrilled he'd be to have
> biopsies taken of benign cycts in his testicles without any
> anaesthesia, like women go through, after finding out that the false
> positives are many times more numerous than real positives?
Uh, no one forces you to have mammograms against your will, do they?
The point is that the government is going to start rationing health
care when they take over our health care system at some point. Which
means *choices* will be lost forever. No one forces any woman to go
through painful mammograms against their will. You're really wacky.
Woodswun
> On Nov 20, 3:39 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 10:44 pm, Bob <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 7:25 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 9:13 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 19, 1:57 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Bob doesn't understand science, period.
>
> > > > > I see. So maybe you can explain why it's better for women to wait
> > > > > until they're 50 to start having mammograms? Maybe you can explain the
> > > > > "science" involved in having women in their 40s, who could have been
> > > > > saved with earlier mammograms, start dying instead?
>
> > > > Why not advocate for mammograms for women in their 30s? Why not screen
> > > > everyone yearly for every possible disease?
>
> > > I get a physical every year (or close to it, anyway). But if a woman
> > > in her 30s wants annual mammograms, she's free to do that as it stands
> > > today. But when the government steps in and starts limiting our
> > > choices, it will be a whole different story.
>
> > If the government can limit choices by not allowing women to get
> > abortions,
>
> But that is not the case, is it?
It's proposed.
>
>
>
> > why not limit other perfectly legal procedures to save some
> > cash for the insurance industry? That's what the Right Wing likes,
> > right, saving money for the poor, impoverished insurance companies?
> > It makes a lot more financial sense to limit mammograms to women under
> > 40 than it does to disallow abortions.
>
> Disallow abortions? What century are you in?
For someone who is following the minutia of the Health Plan, you don't
seem to be very knowledgeable about it, do you?
Woods
Woodswun
Just answer the questions. I get the impression you can't ...
Woods
Woodswun
Does she have any children? If so, how old was she when she had her
first child? Is she adopted?
BTW, when you have a blanket recommendation, that assumes there are no
mitigating factors, like a history in the family, etc.
Woods
Woodswun
Gee, you went from insurers maybe not covering mammograms for some
women under 50 to ThE gOvErNmEnT "rationing health care". And you are
confusing biopsies (where they dig in and take tissue samples, without
any anaesthesia) with the mammogram itself ... do you have any idea at
all what the issues are?!? It sure doesn't sound like you have a
clue!!
Woods
Steven Douglas
>
> On Nov 20, 10:03 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 3:39 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 10:44 pm, Bob <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 7:25 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 19, 9:13 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 19, 1:57 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Bob doesn't understand science, period.
>
> > > > > > I see. So maybe you can explain why it's better for women to wait
> > > > > > until they're 50 to start having mammograms? Maybe you can explain the
> > > > > > "science" involved in having women in their 40s, who could have been
> > > > > > saved with earlier mammograms, start dying instead?
>
> > > > > Why not advocate for mammograms for women in their 30s? Why not screen
> > > > > everyone yearly for every possible disease?
>
> > > > I get a physical every year (or close to it, anyway). But if a woman
> > > > in her 30s wants annual mammograms, she's free to do that as it stands
> > > > today. But when the government steps in and starts limiting our
> > > > choices, it will be a whole different story.
>
> > > If the government can limit choices by not allowing women to get
> > > abortions,
>
> > But that is not the case, is it?
>
> It's proposed.
They're going to ban abortion? I don't think so, Woods. The Supreme
Court has ruled. No law written by Congress can overturn a Supreme
Court ruling. Is that too difficult for you to understand?
>
> > > why not limit other perfectly legal procedures to save some
> > > cash for the insurance industry? That's what the Right Wing likes,
> > > right, saving money for the poor, impoverished insurance companies?
> > > It makes a lot more financial sense to limit mammograms to women under
> > > 40 than it does to disallow abortions.
>
> > Disallow abortions? What century are you in?
>
> For someone who is following the minutia of the Health Plan, you don't
> seem to be very knowledgeable about it, do you?
Apparently I'm better informed on how Supreme Court rulings work than
you are.
Jane
> On Nov 20, 5:12 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I do find it highly amusing that 'War Monger Bob' thinks we are
> > cold, :).
>
> Hey, vindictive bitch
The new expression of the day. Shall we count how many times you
repeat it? You're like a parrot with a new word.
You disappoint me, hon. We were going to make nice, remember?
Steven Douglas
>
> On Nov 20, 10:13 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 5:20 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, me too. He also doesn't seem to have any idea what havoc all the
> > > false positives have on women. I wonder how thrilled he'd be to have
> > > biopsies taken of benign cycts in his testicles without any
> > > anaesthesia, like women go through, after finding out that the false
> > > positives are many times more numerous than real positives?
>
> > Uh, no one forces you to have mammograms against your will, do they?
> > The point is that the government is going to start rationing health
> > care when they take over our health care system at some point. Which
> > means *choices* will be lost forever. No one forces any woman to go
> > through painful mammograms against their will. You're really wacky.
>
> Gee, you went from insurers maybe not covering mammograms for some
> women under 50 to ThE gOvErNmEnT "rationing health care".
It was a government *panel* that made the recommendation. So it's not
out of the realm of possibility that insurance companies will start to
follow that recommendation. But the real reason for the recommendation
is to set the stage for when government eventually takes over our
health care system (a single-payer system, which is what the Democrats
eventually want).
>
> And you are
> confusing biopsies (where they dig in and take tissue samples, without
> any anaesthesia) with the mammogram itself ...
No, I didn't raise that issue. You did.
>
> do you have any idea at
> all what the issues are?!? It sure doesn't sound like you have a
> clue!!
My point is that no one will force any woman to have any procedure she
doesn't want, despite your claim above about the havoc of false
positives, etc.. You made it sound as if women are forced into having
such procedures, but now the government will save them from that until
they're 50. Meanwhile, women will die. And no, I'm not going to answer
your questions. The woman I mentioned exists, and she's alive today
because she didn't wait until she was 50 for her first mammogram.
Woodswun
I thought this thread was about the health care reform bill. If you
want to change to something completely unrelated, perhaps you should
change the subject. The helat care reform bill, which was the thread
in which I responded, doesn't allow any funds to be used for abortion.
Woods
Steven Douglas
But that's not the same as "disallowing" abortion, is it?
Woodswun
> On Nov 20, 7:40 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 10:13 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 20, 5:20 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, me too. He also doesn't seem to have any idea what havoc all the
> > > > false positives have on women. I wonder how thrilled he'd be to have
> > > > biopsies taken of benign cycts in his testicles without any
> > > > anaesthesia, like women go through, after finding out that the false
> > > > positives are many times more numerous than real positives?
>
> > > Uh, no one forces you to have mammograms against your will, do they?
> > > The point is that the government is going to start rationing health
> > > care when they take over our health care system at some point. Which
> > > means *choices* will be lost forever. No one forces any woman to go
> > > through painful mammograms against their will. You're really wacky.
>
> > Gee, you went from insurers maybe not covering mammograms for some
> > women under 50 to ThE gOvErNmEnT "rationing health care".
>
> It was a government *panel* that made the recommendation. So it's not
> out of the realm of possibility that insurance companies will start to
> follow that recommendation. But the real reason for the recommendation
> is to set the stage for when government eventually takes over our
> health care system (a single-payer system, which is what the Democrats
> eventually want).
Er ... not exactly. It was a 'federal task force', which is not the
same as a 'government panel'. It makes recommendations, but it's not
an arm of the federal govenment.
>
>
>
> > And you are
> > confusing biopsies (where they dig in and take tissue samples, without
> > any anaesthesia) with the mammogram itself ...
>
> No, I didn't raise that issue. You did.
>
>
>
> > do you have any idea at
> > all what the issues are?!? It sure doesn't sound like you have a
> > clue!!
>
> My point is that no one will force any woman to have any procedure she
> doesn't want,
No, your point was that women would not be permitted to have
procedures that they do want!!
>despite your claim above about the havoc of false
> positives, etc.. You made it sound as if women are forced into having
> such procedures, but now the government will save them from that until
> they're 50.
You're being disengenous - anyone who has a false positive is required
to have a biopsy performed before further action is taken - the
"choice" to which you refer is have it or risk death.
>Meanwhile, women will die. And no, I'm not going to answer
> your questions. The woman I mentioned exists, and she's alive today
> because she didn't wait until she was 50 for her first mammogram.
You won't answer the questions because it doesn't suit your purpose.
Woods
Doc
I didn't 'ignore' it, junior. Am I expected to list all the blunders of
leaders every time I give an example?
And haven't I acknowledged it many times before, as I just did again?
You do the same thing, you partisan snake in the grass.