Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
Just John H
cancerous tumor in her breast, at age 37.
Looks like the 'Bama folks would have everyone wait 'til age 50.
My daughter would probably be dead.
Thanks, Mr. President.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/16/mammography.recommendation.changes/index.html
or: http://tinyurl.com/yzqlt67
"The task force is composed of 16 health care experts, none of whom
are oncologists."
Pretty smart people though....
--
John H
nom=de=plume
news:adq8g59r0m9v02f39...@4ax.com...
It's a matter of policy vs. specific women's health. Most places are
ignoring the recommendations, basically saying that it should be up to the
woman to decide if it's worth the risk of false positives, which can lead to
rather invasive investigations.
I can certainly understand your concern about your daughter, but even under
the previous guidelines, the exam that discovered her problem wouldn't have
been a consideration unless she was in a higher risk category or something
was found with a regular exam.
You can make it as political as you want, but that isn't based in reality.
They are totally independent.
Secondarily, or perhaps primarily, this is a woman's decision in
consultation with her doctor, and so is choosing to or choosing not to
continue a pregancy. From your previous comments, there's a stench of
hypocrisy.
--
Nom=de=Plume
Vic Smith
<nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>It's a matter of policy vs. specific women's health. Most places are
>ignoring the recommendations, basically saying that it should be up to the
>woman to decide if it's worth the risk of false positives, which can lead to
>rather invasive investigations.
>
Don't think it's policy at all, since most of the medical voices I've
heard reject these findings out of hand.
From what I've gathered, it's just plain stupid.
Almost like saying get rid of airbags because so few people are saved
by them.
Or don't change the Pinto gas tank bracket because settling with the
number of people killed by a punctured gas tank will cost less than
the brackets.
What I haven't seen is any numbers on how many cases of breast cancer
are caused by the accumulated radiation exposure of mammographies.
They could make a case with that. They probably don't have the
numbers.
But the whole thing sounds real half-assed, and plays right into the
hands of those who have been screaming "Rationing is coming!"
Sure makes it look like they might have a case for that.
--Vic
nom=de=plume
news:tft8g59ofi2taig0f...@4ax.com...
I was thinking it actually makes more of a case for the ins. companies to
deny more coverage.
--
Nom=de=Plume
jps
Don't understand their advice. My partner's wife was just diagnosed
and went though a mastectomy. She's in her early 40's.
If they've got a case to be made of not subjecting women to
unnecessary radiation, seems like they'd have been smart to put the
data together in a representative form "before" they made this
announcement?
Cart, horse?
Vic Smith
Diagnosed by a mammography?
The lack of details and focus makes it sound like I said about airbags
and gas tank brackets. Penny pinching pencil pushing bean counters.
>If they've got a case to be made of not subjecting women to
>unnecessary radiation, seems like they'd have been smart to put the
>data together in a representative form "before" they made this
>announcement?
>
Didn't mean to even suggest they could make that case, but I have
heard scattered talk about the mam radiation sometimes causing cancer.
>Cart, horse?
Rickshaw.
--Vic
BAR
thismaila...@comcast.net says...
>
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:21:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >It's a matter of policy vs. specific women's health. Most places are
> >ignoring the recommendations, basically saying that it should be up to the
> >woman to decide if it's worth the risk of false positives, which can lead to
> >rather invasive investigations.
> >
> Don't think it's policy at all, since most of the medical voices I've
> heard reject these findings out of hand.
The "Public Option" will not allow you to get a mammogram more than the
government study recommends in order to save money. In the mean time
more women will die unnecessarily.
> From what I've gathered, it's just plain stupid.
Policy makes precedent.
> Almost like saying get rid of airbags because so few people are saved
> by them.
Removing airbags would increase the number of deaths in automobile
crashes which would reduce the costs of saving their lives.
Airbags increase automobile insurance costs.
> Or don't change the Pinto gas tank bracket because settling with the
> number of people killed by a punctured gas tank will cost less than
> the brackets.
Lassie Fare at its best.
> What I haven't seen is any numbers on how many cases of breast cancer
> are caused by the accumulated radiation exposure of mammographies.
Radiating my balls by walking front of a focused beam of a TPS-32 and
TPS-63 didn't affect my ability to fertilize eggs and produce
intelligent offspring.
> They could make a case with that. They probably don't have the
> numbers.
Bingo.
> But the whole thing sounds real half-assed, and plays right into the
> hands of those who have been screaming "Rationing is coming!"
> Sure makes it look like they might have a case for that.
Just like this whole Swine Flu epidemic and the government's inability
to contract the production of the Swine Flu vaccine. People are being
refused the vaccine because they don't fit the profile set forth by the
government for those who should get the vaccine.
Vic Smith
>In article <tft8g59ofi2taig0f...@4ax.com>,
>thismaila...@comcast.net says...
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:21:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
>> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >It's a matter of policy vs. specific women's health. Most places are
>> >ignoring the recommendations, basically saying that it should be up to the
>> >woman to decide if it's worth the risk of false positives, which can lead to
>> >rather invasive investigations.
>> >
>> Don't think it's policy at all, since most of the medical voices I've
>> heard reject these findings out of hand.
>
>The "Public Option" will not allow you to get a mammogram more than the
>government study recommends in order to save money. In the mean time
>more women will die unnecessarily.
>
There is no evidence of that. In fact, if there is a public option
the Dems will put in mandatory mammograms to prove you are lying.
>> From what I've gathered, it's just plain stupid.
>
>Policy makes precedent.
>
>> Almost like saying get rid of airbags because so few people are saved
>> by them.
>
>Removing airbags would increase the number of deaths in automobile
>crashes which would reduce the costs of saving their lives.
>
Nope. Airbags usually break noses instead of necks.
Rhinoplasty is cheaper to the public than life-long care of
quadraplegics
But I'm just guessing.
.
>Airbags increase automobile insurance costs.
>
Doubt that. Probably the opposite.
>> Or don't change the Pinto gas tank bracket because settling with the
>> number of people killed by a punctured gas tank will cost less than
>> the brackets.
>
>Lassie Fare at its best.
>
Didn't work. Cost Ford big time.
>> What I haven't seen is any numbers on how many cases of breast cancer
>> are caused by the accumulated radiation exposure of mammographies.
>
>Radiating my balls by walking front of a focused beam of a TPS-32 and
>TPS-63 didn't affect my ability to fertilize eggs and produce
>intelligent offspring.
>
We all know radiation is harmless. Just had 4 dental x-rays today and
I'm not a bit worried.
>> They could make a case with that. They probably don't have the
>> numbers.
>
>Bingo.
>
>> But the whole thing sounds real half-assed, and plays right into the
>> hands of those who have been screaming "Rationing is coming!"
>> Sure makes it look like they might have a case for that.
>
>Just like this whole Swine Flu epidemic and the government's inability
>to contract the production of the Swine Flu vaccine. People are being
>refused the vaccine because they don't fit the profile set forth by the
>government for those who should get the vaccine.
Goldman-Sachs got their quota, so all is well.
--Vic
nom=de=plume
news:MPG.256e5e68d...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <tft8g59ofi2taig0f...@4ax.com>,
> thismaila...@comcast.net says...
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:21:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
>> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >It's a matter of policy vs. specific women's health. Most places are
>> >ignoring the recommendations, basically saying that it should be up to
>> >the
>> >woman to decide if it's worth the risk of false positives, which can
>> >lead to
>> >rather invasive investigations.
>> >
>> Don't think it's policy at all, since most of the medical voices I've
>> heard reject these findings out of hand.
>
> The "Public Option" will not allow you to get a mammogram more than the
> government study recommends in order to save money. In the mean time
> more women will die unnecessarily.
You have no basis for this statement. For one thing, no such public option
language exists, and the public option has not been passed by Congress nor
signed by the President.
Please don't start claiming you're interested in women not dying
unnecessarily. Your previous comments indicate a lack of interest in that
situation.
>
>> From what I've gathered, it's just plain stupid.
>
> Policy makes precedent.
>
>> Almost like saying get rid of airbags because so few people are saved
>> by them.
>
> Removing airbags would increase the number of deaths in automobile
> crashes which would reduce the costs of saving their lives.
>
> Airbags increase automobile insurance costs.
?? Huh?? Try insuring a car that doesn't have airbags. Your rates will be
higher not lower.
>
>> Or don't change the Pinto gas tank bracket because settling with the
>> number of people killed by a punctured gas tank will cost less than
>> the brackets.
>
> Lassie Fare at its best.
At best? That's what you want... the individual being totally responsible.
What are you trying to say? English please.
>
>> What I haven't seen is any numbers on how many cases of breast cancer
>> are caused by the accumulated radiation exposure of mammographies.
>
> Radiating my balls by walking front of a focused beam of a TPS-32 and
> TPS-63 didn't affect my ability to fertilize eggs and produce
> intelligent offspring.
Thus, anecdotal evidence is the definitive statement in science. NOT
>> They could make a case with that. They probably don't have the
>> numbers.
>
> Bingo.
>
>> But the whole thing sounds real half-assed, and plays right into the
>> hands of those who have been screaming "Rationing is coming!"
>> Sure makes it look like they might have a case for that.
>
> Just like this whole Swine Flu epidemic and the government's inability
> to contract the production of the Swine Flu vaccine. People are being
> refused the vaccine because they don't fit the profile set forth by the
> government for those who should get the vaccine.
But, according to you, the individual should create their own vaccine. So,
which is it... the gov't doing it or individuals?
--
Nom=de=Plume
BAR
thismaila...@comcast.net says...
The Public Option will be left up to a federal agency to administer.
There will be intent, however, there will be no mandates.
A death from an auto accident often does not cost the insurance company
as much as a mangled body sitting in the hospital.
The money Ford payed out on the Pinto was inflated dollars.
The radiation that most general dentists used in taking x-rays is less
than what you get from being in the Sun for a couple of hours. Ask my
endodontist, he's always taking x-rays so that he can actually see what
is going on in the tooth.
Geithner is in bed with Big Wall Street. Of course he got Goldman Sachs
their Swine Flu vaccines first.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/post_155.asp
jps
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
Yes. Got it early but still required choosing between two pretty
traumatic courses of treatment. She's doing very well, mostly through
reconstruction at this point and lots of support from friends,
colleagues.
>The lack of details and focus makes it sound like I said about airbags
>and gas tank brackets. Penny pinching pencil pushing bean counters.
Indeed. We can spend infiintely if our "freedom" is at state but God
forbid we spend anything on ourselves. A country with low self
esteem. Biden has it right. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for
the poor.
>>If they've got a case to be made of not subjecting women to
>>unnecessary radiation, seems like they'd have been smart to put the
>>data together in a representative form "before" they made this
>>announcement?
>Didn't mean to even suggest they could make that case, but I have
>heard scattered talk about the mam radiation sometimes causing cancer.
Well, seems stupid that they went to press with this with little
background to support it. Either that or our fantastic 4th estate got
bored halfway through the material and didn't think it was worth
repeating.
>>Cart, horse?
>
>Rickshaw.
Yes.
>--Vic
jps
>Radiating my balls by walking front of a focused beam of a TPS-32 and
>TPS-63 didn't affect my ability to fertilize eggs and produce
>intelligent offspring.
Mind if we arrange for a third party opinion?
I am Tosk
pleasremov...@gmail.dotcom says...
>
>
> My daughter would probably be dead.
>
>
But no rationing at all.. Quick, look over here...;)
CalifBill
"jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
news:2i29g5he47ftb6mme...@4ax.com...
Nope, because then they can state the women is too old for surgery. Save
lots of money we do not have.
jps
Who is they?
The boogie man? The government? Insurance companies? HMOs?
CalifBill
The people who say that mammograms should not start until 50. Remember that
was a government pronouncement. They realize there is not enough money to
pay for the House bill.
jps
<bmcke...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
That's a connection you've made in your fantasy world of blaming Obama
for everything.
I don't agree with their supposition based on my limited personal
experience but I don't immediately suspect a government plot.
achmed
>>> If they've got a case to be made of not subjecting women to
>>> unnecessary radiation, seems like they'd have been smart to put the
>>> data together in a representative form "before" they made this
>>> announcement?
>>>
>>> Cart, horse?
>> Nope, because then they can state the women is too old for surgery. Save
>> lots of money we do not have.
>
> Who is they?
>
> The boogie man? The government? Insurance companies? HMOs?
YES.
nom=de=plume
news:bZudnXORKoQPepnW...@earthlink.com...
The House and Senate bills save billions over the long-term according the
CBO. The latter over a trillion.
I don't believe the mammogram announcement is political at all. The people
who did it are way too professional, but if nothing else the announcement
was badly timed and poorly executed.
--
Nom=de=Plume
Jim
Unfortunately this whole discussion is based on misinformation, but
misinformation is how arguments are won.
What is it with our conservative friends, who disbelieve everything
Obama does but was fine with Bush?
By the way, Obama didn't have anything to do with this decision, but
that would require reading and understanding.
The AMA recommends colonoscopys for those over 50, but they are still
obtainable for anyone who has a concern, at any age. Ask your doctor.
There was no "Government pronouncement" about the age for a mammogram.
The AMA isn't the government, it's the American Medical Association.
But that is more misinformation, isn't it?
Interesting that the people who fear the government the most have no
problem with government run warfare and government run military.
jps
Good points.
Everything is a government plot and Obama's fault.
He's black you know.
NowNow
j...@hotmail.com says...
Yep, that's how it's done, ala Rush and Hannity.
--
WAFA the newsgroup liar free!
Jim
I had thought it was the AMA, but it was U.S. Preventive Services Task
Force that made the recommendation.
I read up on them:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
According to the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, US Preventive
Services Task Force is "an independent panel of experts in primary care
and prevention that systematically reviews the evidence of effectiveness
and develops recommendations for clinical preventive services."[1] The
task force, a panel of experts, is funded and appointed by the
government of the United States.
So the people who yell the loudest about the government plot have a slim
point.
Unfortunately this is how it works, you take a sliver of truth then drag
it out to the most extreme possible conclusion.
If they just didn't throw the deliberate misspelling of our president's
name they would have more credibility with me.
I'm glad people who are supposed to be an "independent panel of experts"
make recommendations, GUIDELINES so the rest of us have an idea of what
to do.
To make the leap that have evil intentions is a big leap. Is there any
possible system that would live up to their world view?
Jim
Association, the American Cancer Society, and many others.
For those who complain the most to not recognize that they are the ones
that actually make the choices is hard to let pass.
No, the big bad government will never take away your choice IF you can
afford to pay for it.
I ask, what do you guys want? The system we have now costs more than
anyone else's and does not provide us with ANY MEASURE of better care.
No, we don't have the longest life expectancy. Look it up.
achmed
>>
>> What is it with our conservative friends, who disbelieve everything
>> Obama does but was fine with Bush?
>>
>> By the way, Obama didn't have anything to do with this decision, but
>> that would require reading and understanding.
>>
>> The AMA recommends colonoscopys for those over 50, but they are still
>> obtainable for anyone who has a concern, at any age. Ask your doctor.
>>
>> There was no "Government pronouncement" about the age for a mammogram.
>> The AMA isn't the government, it's the American Medical Association.
>> But that is more misinformation, isn't it?
>>
>> Interesting that the people who fear the government the most have no
>> problem with government run warfare and government run military.
>
> Good points.
>
> Everything is a government plot and Obama's fault.
>
> He's black you know.
recipe for Mulatto. You need to start calling a spade a spade. (POW)
JustJohnH
Apparently it wasn't disinformation. Today the Obama administration
withdrew the policy.
Wake up Jim.
--
John H
JustJohnH
Go read today's paper and learn something.
--
John H
JustJohnH
How many oncologists were on the government, i.e., Obama's, panel?
--
John H
jps
He already corrected himself, asswipe. Uh oh, did I call you a name?
Plonk! Again!
I am Tosk
pleesrmove...@gmail.dotcom says...
Not one doctor at all. In fact about 2/3rds of the panel was put in
during the Bush Admin. Of course the dem pundit last night said "all of
them" were.. But what do you expect, I am sure the lie will go the
gambit and everyone will think "all of them" were put in by Bush.
H the K
Asswipe would be a step up in stature for herring. It implies he has a
purpose.
--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet, or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.
Jim
> How many oncologists were on the government, i.e., Obama's, panel?
You still here?
It's NOT Obama's panel.
I found an article in an edition of the American Family Physician dated
April 15, 2003.
Don't know how long they have been around, but Bush was president in
2003, so STOP BLAMING EVERYTHING ON OBAMA.
Geez, you really are ignorant. And seemly proud of it.
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20030415/us.html
Can't you see that you make your side look foolish? You have no ability
to check facts, you just blame Obama.
Filter or no filter, I'm through with you.
Jim
Not even pretending mot to be a racist, are you.
You again prove your side to be a little bit behind the curve.
Why don't you and JohnH talk to each other and leave the rest of us out
of it.
jps
He's another who subscribes to the racist agenda. At least Herring
does it under his own name. This dildo is a coward.
CalifBill
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
news:he43sf$lhd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Where does the bill save money? And from what I here, the CBO says the
costs are very high.
nom=de=plume
Then you're not reading the whole report. It's projected to save $125B over
the short term and near $1T over a longer term.
--
Nom=de=Plume
NowNow
pleesrmove...@gmail.dotcom says...
Just like Harry, you need to change your handle because you have a need
to be noticed. Once again, plonk.
CalifBill
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
I read the report. Says there will be a reduction in the deficit because of
the healthcare bill. Why? Because there will be more revenue coming in
from the payees than is going to be spent. Does not say healthcare is going
to cost less, just says the government will be getting more money.
nom=de=plume
Thus, a savings and deficit reduction. Well, ok. Unless you'd prefer the
status quo...
--
Nom=de=Plume
achmed
>> Then you're not reading the whole report. It's projected to save $125B
>> over the short term and near $1T over a longer term.
>>
>> --
>> Nom=de=Plume
>>
>
> I read the report. Says there will be a reduction in the deficit because of
> the healthcare bill. Why? Because there will be more revenue coming in
> from the payees than is going to be spent. Does not say healthcare is going
> to cost less, just says the government will be getting more money.
>
>
numb skull should be able to figure that out.
achmed
>>> Then you're not reading the whole report. It's projected to save $125B
>>> over the short term and near $1T over a longer term.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Nom=de=Plume
>>>
>> I read the report. Says there will be a reduction in the deficit because
>> of the healthcare bill. Why? Because there will be more revenue coming
>> in from the payees than is going to be spent. Does not say healthcare is
>> going to cost less, just says the government will be getting more money.
>
> Thus, a savings and deficit reduction. Well, ok. Unless you'd prefer the
> status quo...
Even better. The government collects money and doesn't pay any out to
healthcare. That would really tickle your little fancy, wouldn't it.
CalifBill
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
Take in more money than paid out. Works well for a while, until the people
providing medical care decide they need to be paid.
nom=de=plume
huh?? Not sure where you're getting this. So, you're ok with the status quo?
Is that what you're saying?
--
Nom=de=Plume
achmed
>>>>>>>> The people who say that mammograms should not start until 50.
>>>>>>>> Remember that was a government pronouncement. They realize there is
>>>>>>>> not enough money to pay for the House bill.
>>>>>>> The House and Senate bills save billions over the long-term according
>>>>>>> the CBO. The latter over a trillion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe the mammogram announcement is political at all. The
>>>>>>> people who did it are way too professional, but if nothing else the
>>>>>>> announcement was badly timed and poorly executed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Nom=de=Plume
-
>>>>> Nom=de=Plume
>>>>>
>>>> I read the report. Says there will be a reduction in the deficit
>>>> because of the healthcare bill. Why? Because there will be more
>>>> revenue coming in from the payees than is going to be spent. Does not
>>>> say healthcare is going to cost less, just says the government will be
>>>> getting more money.
>>> Thus, a savings and deficit reduction. Well, ok. Unless you'd prefer the
>>> status quo...
>>> --
>>> Nom=de=Plume
>>>
I should think that doing nothing is better than adopting any plan that
has been put forth so far. That is not to say that doing nothing is
acceptable. You seem to think doing anything is better than doing
nothing. Funny, that is exactly what Mr Obama says. You are a lemming
that is being led to the sea to be drowned by your beloved pied piper.
Break ranks and do some independent thinking for a change.