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

[Buzz Killington]

contradicting the American Cancer Society....

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-mammograms,0,948673.story

Most women don't need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task force said Monday.

It's a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position.

Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.

But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of survival.

"The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s," said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.

The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies.

and so it continues....the road to serfdom....

 

[Denny Crane]

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

Prelude to the death squads that are in the health care bill.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

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

contradicting the American Cancer Society....

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-mammograms,0,948673.story



and so it continues....the road to serfdom....

you're insane.

Prelude to the death squads that are in the health care bill.

wait, there's SQUADS now? Shit, they went from panels to squads and next they'll be battalions, marching up and down the streets of middle America, killing grandmothers and charging the family for the bullet

 

[Denny Crane]

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

You know what I posted was mostly tongue in cheek?

But I do think it should give us pause to consider that the govt. WILL have the incentive to encourage people to take more risk so some % won't be a huge expense to the system.

 

[MARIS61]

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

Prelude to the death squads that are in the health care bill.

You crack me up.

 

[Buzz Killington]

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

you're insane.

The government is insane.

 

[Denny Crane]

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

I happen to favor laws like the one in Oregon for assisted suicide. I don't like the idea of doctors killing people, since it's the antithesis of what they're supposed to do (first do no harm). But there could be specialists who don't practice medicine to handle those situations.

If the whole country ends up permitting assisted suicide, it does raise serious ethical issues for govt. run health care. The govt. does have the right to take lives - no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. It's questionable that if the govt. performs assisted suicide that it's not akin to an execution and certainly without due process (trial by jury of one's peers).

 

[maxiep]

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

I wonder how Debbie Wasserman-Schultz feels about this recommendation? Something tells me she'll get all the mammograms she wants. After all, all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

 

[BrianFromWA]

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

you're insane.




wait, there's SQUADS now? Shit, they went from panels to squads and next they'll be battalions, marching up and down the streets of middle America, killing grandmothers and charging the family for the bullet

Read up on 1930's Germany sometime.

 

[yakbladder]

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

Read up on 1930's Germany sometime.

Are you seriously equating the health care bill with a run up to Nazi Germany??!?!??!

Read up on the history of the war sometime. Then read up on what those people stood for and what they did. Perhaps you'll be enlightened as to the huge differences.

 

[PapaG]

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

I told my wife about this tonight. I also printed out the quote from the study stating that "some" people will think this a way for the Obama administration to cut costs on their healthcare turd.

She's not happy about it.

 

[PapaG]

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

Are you seriously equating the health care bill with a run up to Nazi Germany??!?!??!

Read up on the history of the war sometime. Then read up on what those people stood for and what they did. Perhaps you'll be enlightened as to the huge differences.

How do you feel about a fed funded study recommending less screening for breast cancer? That's the real story here.

 

[number 10]

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

But I do think it should give us pause to consider that the govt. WILL have the incentive to encourage people to take more risk so some % won't be a huge expense to the system.

how is this different from privatized health care?

 

[PapaG]

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

how is this different from privatized health care?

Because you can shop for a different plan in the private industry within your state (federal regulations included). I encourage you to read the actual bill that Pelosi passed, and then tell me what it says about switching private plans once the bill becomes law.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

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

The government is insane.

Yep. And you've bought into it. You're right there with them.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

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

Read up on 1930's Germany sometime.

Why, was Obama the president?

 

[Buzz Killington]

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

Yep. And you've bought into it. You're right there with them.

 

[Stepping Razor]

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

and so it continues....the road to serfdom....

you know what's incredibly hilarious about this?

hayek, in the actual book 'the road to serfdom,' argued IN FAVOR of government-run "socialized" health insurance.

read 'em and weep, glibertarians:

Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong… there is no incompatibility in principle between the state providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.... Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.

 

[Buzz Killington]

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

book?

 

[Denny Crane]

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

how is this different from privatized health care?

The private companies have incentive to not pay out the costs of cancer treatment, and they are contractually obligated to do so. If they refuse, they get sued.

There is no such contractual obligation with government.

So if a company thinks its cheaper to catch cancer early, they'll pay that cost to try to avoid the bigger cost.

 

[maxiep]

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

you know what's incredibly hilarious about this?

hayek, in the actual book 'the road to serfdom,' argued IN FAVOR of government-run "socialized" health insurance.

read 'em and weep, glibertarians:

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

 

[Colonel Ronan]

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

book?

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.

 

[Buzz Killington]

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

tits.

 

[number 10]

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

The private companies have incentive to not pay out the costs of cancer treatment, and they are contractually obligated to do so. If they refuse, they get sued.

There is no such contractual obligation with government.

So if a company thinks its cheaper to catch cancer early, they'll pay that cost to try to avoid the bigger cost.

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?

tits.

I concur.

 

[yakbladder]

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

How do you feel about a fed funded study recommending less screening for breast cancer? That's the real story here.

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.

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

1st Google "health insurance bad faith"

2nd Nonsense. Things have to really get bad in general before incumbents lose their jobs.

3rd Govt. screws up most everything it gets involved in, why would anyone expect better from this? And really, is it good for the govt. to make blanket health care policy decisions vs. having a choice of companies in some sort of managed market? (The govt. screws up the managed market, too, FWIW).

 

[number 10]

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

1st Google "health insurance bad faith"

2nd Nonsense. Things have to really get bad in general before incumbents lose their jobs.

3rd Govt. screws up most everything it gets involved in, why would anyone expect better from this? And really, is it good for the govt. to make blanket health care policy decisions vs. having a choice of companies in some sort of managed market? (The govt. screws up the managed market, too, FWIW).

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 )

 

[bodyman5001]

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.

 

[boatsandstars]

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.

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

 

[Paxil]

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.