Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 50...

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

Since when do you have to agree with 100% of a person's positions to generally agree with their viewpoint?

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

It's a device made of paper that contains text to educate, entertain, or brainwash. They're strictly restricted to strike the awestruck reader in these specific categories.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

tits.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

First of all, how often do insurance companies actually get sued? Seems to me that would involve a lot of effort and money from the wronged individual, something that the majority are unlikely to be able to afford.

Secondly, the government would be "obligated" to avoid any such shenanigans because they are democratically elected. As soon as someone is wronged, they just have to go to the media who would love to run that sort of story. Any politician could easily gain positive PR by campaigning for someone in a case like this.

That's also ignoring the possibility that this task force is correct about mammograms and that they aren't cost effective. What's to say that other forms of cancer prevention (say, promoting healthier eating) wouldn't be more effective? Also, the American Cancer Society's position is by now well institutionalized. They're hardly going to say: "you know that thing we've been telling you to do for years? yeah, our bad." It's only natural that they resist any change. Note - I have absolutely no idea who's right or wrong, but considering the hypothetical case where the American Cancer Society is wrong, how would you expect them to react?

I concur.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

How do I feel about it? I don't know, I'd have to read the whole thing.

Having worked in health research it's an interesting field, there are lots of variables. I'd need to sit down and see what it says before I (over-) reacted.

I think what's being missed here is it possible that it's a waste of time in SOME instances. Notice I said possible. The same thing happened a year or so ago ? with men and prostate exams. They determined that the indicator of potential prostate cancer was so screwy and misleading and that many, many people were getting unnecessary treatment. In fact, they went so far as to say that some prostate cancers should just be left alone and observed every so often. If you'd have asked me which was more unbelievable or screwy five years ago - that some women may not need mammograms every year or that some cancers shouldn't be treated, just observed I'd easily choose the latter.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

1) Sure, there's lots of attorneys who specialize in "health insurance bad faith." That doesn't mean most people have the money and energy to follow through on it.

2) They don't have to lose their jobs, they just need to push for justice so they can brag about it during the next election. The fear of appearing responsible for denying a woman coverage for her breast cancer makes someone every bit as accountable as the fear of being sued.

3) Of course, private, unregulated institutions just fucked up the entire world economy. Your statement could easily apply to the private sector as well. Simply put, poor management leads to screw ups, private or public.

In any case, I suspect we have fundamental disagreements regarding the role of government regulations and continuing to debate this will pretty much boil down to an argument over these differences. Agree to disagree? (BTW, thanks for the boards )

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

Once again everyone is missing the real issue. Poor black and latino women won't get these tests but middle class white women will.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

Cut out that nonsense. Let's start copy-pasting articles and complaining.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

I have an interesting perspective on this in that in this past year I had one of those tests you normally don't get until you are 50... and I am 43. There was a reason I did... family history of cancer was a big part... but also certain symptoms. If I was single I would have never even gone to the Dr... but with wife and family and one year old girl I'd like to see grow up... I did.

My Dr was very indecisive on whether to send me for the test... but decided to do so anyway. Thank God. I might not have made it to 50 and if I did the treatment options would be much more drastic.

As long as DRs have the freedom to order the tests they believe are necessary... I am fine with it. I worry though with the government getting involved. I have been through VA and military hospitals and know what a zoo that is. I also realize you can't just throw an infinate amount of money at healthcare... give everyone every test etc... you have to be smart about it... use the money wisely... pay for the tests that make the most sense and help the most people.

It bothers me a bit that there was such a debate over a $1000 test and yet we will spend millions keeping someone brain dead breathing. As someone who works in IT I know there is diminishing returns for things like uptime and availability where getting from 99% to 99.9% can cost 100 times more... and at some point you do have to decide what is worth it.

It is a very ethical question. We like to believe that every one is worth an infinate amount of money to treat... but the reality is that we may have treatments that are just too costly to be available to everyone on a health care plan.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

Ridiculous conclusion.

In fact, "alternative" type foks, often those most opposed to government overreach, have for YEARS, critisized the test, test, test, test philosphy of BIG MEDICINE - of which the big Cancer charities are a huge, intertwined part.

Of course they have sold this as an issue of saving lives. Interestingly convenient that all this testing, biopsies, chemo "just in cast" early, agressive treatment and so forth, is making this industry BILLIONS. But, they only do it to save lives.

The number one issue is one of a perception fallacy.

If you test, test, test, test you will (assuming the test is valid, which is a whole nuther issue) find early disease and save people. This is the known benefit.

What are the costs?

Very seldom is this mentioned, if only to denigrate those who complain about the financial costs - which are huge.

But, you will also find false positives, and early disease that was fated to naturally resolve without intervention.

The amount of false positives is critical. How many. Most average folks would think one or two false for every one one accurate test.

Wrong. Try ten or more.

Thus false perception that test, test, test, test on a large population including healthy individuals "saves lives". There is in fact no hard data that the death rate is lower for younger women tested vs not tested.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

Just for general information purposes...

Here is a link to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm

Doctors from Johns Hopkins, Cedars-Sinai, Dartmouth, and University of Washington?!?!? Who let UW in there?

Also, apparently they are nominated to the positions by non-political associations. For example, Dr. LeFevre was nominated to the committee by the American Academy of Family Physicians, and she's been there for five years, so she's not an Obama appointee.

I'm not saying this to validate their belief about mammograms, just that this isn't just a political rubber stamp committee that is marching in goose-step with, according to some of you, our apparently totalitarian masters.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

My concern isn't the recommendation, but when that recommendation becomes policy. If my wife wishes to get a mammogram, she should be free to get one. Choice is all I ask. With a single-payer system, choice is eliminated. Instead, the government is given quite literally the power of life and death over the populace. That idea runs counter to the principles upon which this country was founded.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

So you would be against your own family and loved ones getting annual mammograms?

I sure as hell wouldn't. The problem here is that as the government takes on more of a role into what kind of tests people will have access to and when you can have it, they are going to have some "collateral losses" in the interest of saving money. That is what is happening here.

A cost/benefit analysis, much like how the Pinto was known to be deadly but Ford figured that it would be cheaper just to settle every death instead of redesigning the entire line over again. This is indeed the "Road to Serfdom" as citizens just become pawns and services are provided meagerly in light of cost/benefit.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

Whaaaaaat???

You can CHOOSE to buy your own damn test.

THAT is the American way.

If the collective decides that paying for tests on all otherwise healthy people is a waste of money, how the hell does that impinge on your "Freedom". You "freedom" to demand any test you want ENDS at the point you demand someone else's money is taken to pay for it.

I better look up the defintion quick.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

But shoehorning is integral to hating everything that I've only just decided I was against. Hrm.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

Yes, its a government advisory panel. Ultimately what this "advise" will be used for is to shape "policy". Lets face it, putting a government option in healthcare will increase the costs for all since millions of people will start flooding the system...what better way to slow that all down than to provide less services, less testing and allow more people to die?

This is only the first step. As the government gets more and more involved, they will continue to use outcome based data over common sense to continue to strip away medical care. Computer models, statistics will determine the standard of care. Many will die as being standard deviations.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

You mean like all insurance companies?

Shucks' darn, Mr. Insurance executive, but it's only common sense here in the South to apply some balm of possum dung onto your burn wound! I didn't think it would get infected. You need to pay for the possum trap, the gloves for dung removal, and the antibiotics now that I've screwed up my wound. I was just applying a common sense approach!

There is a reason you run tests. Without all that silly outcome based data we'd still be treating people by bleeding them with leeches..for everything.

 

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5

What you fear may happen. If fact, it SHOULD happen in the U.S. where we spend vastly more on healthcare than any other country and get (overall for the population) inferior results. There is tremendous wrong-care and overcare imbedded in our system.

However, in the mamagram instance, the board didn't even consider the atronomical costs involved in mass testing. They only looked at lives saved, the problems of false positive results, early treatment for "disease" that really isn't, etc. So, ignoring the money costs, testing 40 something healthy women without family history - did not look sensible.

How hard is this for folks to grasp?

The difficulty that some on this board have in understanding why "doing something" isn't not always better than "doing nothing" is a main cause in the health care crisis in America. Americans are overeager to take out the shotgun and start firing. "Just keep shooting, ask questions later".