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

[Masbee]

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....

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.

 

[yakbladder]

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.

 

[maxiep]

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.

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.

 

[Buzz Killington]

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.

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.

 

[barfo]

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

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.

That is not what is happening here. This committee is advisory, they are (as they have for many years) issuing advice on preventative medicine. There's nothing new here, no conspiracy.

Shoehorning every piece of medical news into your fantasy of ultimate government control might be amusing, but it certainly isn't in any sense factual.

barfo

 

[Masbee]

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.

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.

 

[boatsandstars]

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

That is not what is happening here. This committee is advisory, they are (as they have for many years) issuing advice on preventative medicine. There's nothing new here, no conspiracy.

Shoehorning every piece of medical news into your fantasy of ultimate government control might be amusing, but it certainly isn't in any sense factual.

barfo

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

 

[Buzz Killington]

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

That is not what is happening here. This committee is advisory, they are (as they have for many years) issuing advice on preventative medicine. There's nothing new here, no conspiracy.

Shoehorning every piece of medical news into your fantasy of ultimate government control might be amusing, but it certainly isn't in any sense factual.

barfo

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.

 

[yakbladder]

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.

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.

 

[Masbee]

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.

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".

 

[Buzz Killington]

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.

Yes, but when we flood the system with the Government its only going to get worse. Patients start turning into numbers now and deaths are nothing more than statistical losses. And we're talking about some pretty basic tests like annual mammograms that have been known to save lives. What happens to those people? They just die and become an "oh well"? Kind of sucks if you are them or know someone who did not get their cancer caught early.

 

[Buzz Killington]

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".

The end result of your position is that more people die in the interest to save money.

 

[yakbladder]

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

Yes, but when we flood the system with the Government its only going to get worse. Patients start turning into numbers now and deaths are nothing more than statistical losses.

Really? So all of the countries in the socialized world have for some inexplicable reason continued with their system despite, apparently, their masses dying left and right and being ignored as just statistical losses. Interesting..better tell the people in Switzerland. They're happy with their system but apparently ignorant to the fact that they've all turned into numbers. Same with the French, Argentinians, Belgians, Canadians, Chileans, Fins, Greeks, Italians, Japanese, Dutch, Portuguese, Swedes, South Koreans, and the British. Even the Germans, for God's sake, have figured out that companies handling health care should be non-profit and that their should be health care for everyone, not just emergency care. The Germans, I mean...come on!

And we're talking about some pretty basic tests like annual mammograms that have been known to save lives. What happens to those people? They just die and become an "oh well"? Kind of sucks if you are them or know someone who did not get their cancer caught early.

What's funny about this in the sort of tragic, people bleeding partisan until they their eyes turn red or blue is the fact that you seem to want to read into this as the government is the exception to everything.

This panel, made up of experts from many different respected medical institutions, comes out with a recommendation on many things. Those recommendations are adopted by most of the medical community. And you can bet your ass that if there is some statistical relevance to payment on a treatment or cure that the insurance companies are going to have a team of actuaries who will analyze that and reflect rates accordingly, or even decide to cover. But somehow, somewhere, you've managed to make it out as the government, and only the government, will be the sole leader going out into the field and cutting off all mammograms. You've extrapolated an entire policy set around this one recommendation that leads to people dying left and right.

My first question is, did you even read the task force's report?

 

[Buzz Killington]

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

Really? So all of the countries in the socialized world have for some inexplicable reason continued with their system despite, apparently, their masses dying left and right and being ignored as just statistical losses. Interesting..better tell the people in Switzerland. They're happy with their system but apparently ignorant to the fact that they've all turned into numbers. Same with the French, Argentinians, Belgians, Canadians, Chileans, Fins, Greeks, Italians, Japanese, Dutch, Portuguese, Swedes, South Koreans, and the British. Even the Germans, for God's sake, have figured out that companies handling health care should be non-profit and that their should be health care for everyone, not just emergency care. The Germans, I mean...come on!

Those countries are no where the size and scope of the United States. What we are talking about here is an increase in deaths and increase in cancer rates in the interest of saving money, not whether or not country "X" has a good healthcare system or not.

I'm sure if you take a limited sample of wealthy countries like Switzerland, sure its going to be fantastic. Its like asking people in Beverly Hills if they like how their city maintains their streets, then using that to make an argument for the entire city of Los Angeles.

 

[Buzz Killington]

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

What's funny about this in the sort of tragic, people bleeding partisan until they their eyes turn red or blue is the fact that you seem to want to read into this as the government is the exception to everything.

This panel, made up of experts from many different respected medical institutions, comes out with a recommendation on many things. Those recommendations are adopted by most of the medical community. And you can bet your ass that if there is some statistical relevance to payment on a treatment or cure that the insurance companies are going to have a team of actuaries who will analyze that and reflect rates accordingly, or even decide to cover. But somehow, somewhere, you've managed to make it out as the government, and only the government, will be the sole leader going out into the field and cutting off all mammograms. You've extrapolated an entire policy set around this one recommendation that leads to people dying left and right.

My first question is, did you even read the task force's report?

I read the summary of the subject of this thread. I've been generally adverse to outcome-based epidemiology as I feel it takes a human element out of medicine and has computer models tell us what the best treatment would be. The thing about computers is that they will let someone die, even if preventable, if it does not fit their model.

 

[maxiep]

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.

How long do you think that's going to last? If you think that this health care bill is just some benign piece of legislation that will go no farther, than all I can say is it must be nice living in Candyland. If you offer coverage to everyone, restrict what physicians can be paid and try to rein in costs, then what do you think is going to be constrained? Services. Health care will have to be rationed. Under our current system, you can get a mammogram whenever you please. Under a future system with rationing, you can get a mammogram when the government lets you have one. There isn't a socialized health care system on the planet where health care isn't rationed. We'll be no different.

It's not that I won't have the freedom to pay for one on my own, it's that I won't have the freedom to obtain this test at all.

 

[Buzz Killington]

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

Don't Canadians come over the border to get some healthcare here in the US if the line is "too long" in Canadia?

 

[maxiep]

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.

Hmm, which "insurance" company rejects a higher percentage of claims than any other major insurer? Why, it's Medicare! http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf (page 5, Metric 12). I thought the Government was the only one that cared? Not like those greedy insurance companies. The funny thing is, even rejecting 6.85% of all claims, it's still $66B in the hole and on the verge of bankruptcy. And yet, you and your ilk's answer is to expand Medicare and like programs for everyone. Bizarre.

 

[yakbladder]

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

Hmm, which "insurance" company rejects a higher percentage of claims than any other major insurer? Why, it's Medicare! http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf (page 5, Metric 12). I thought the Government was the only one that cared? Not like those greedy insurance companies. The funny thing is, even rejecting 6.85% of all claims, it's still $66B in the hole and on the verge of bankruptcy. And yet, you and your ilk's answer is to expand Medicare and like programs for everyone. Bizarre.

My ilk?

You seem to have this hangup on assigning me a viewpoint in every thread you discuss something. I'm flattered by your attention, but really, you know nothing about me. Let's keep it that way.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

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

I gave HCP's wife a breast exam last weekend.

 

[yakbladder]

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

I gave HCP's wife a breast exam last weekend.

Yes, but she paid for it, so that really doesn't count. And I don't think the recommendations call for a 45 minute exam. Or was that 4.5 minutes?

 

[maxiep]

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

My ilk?

You seem to have this hangup on assigning me a viewpoint in every thread you discuss something. I'm flattered by your attention, but really, you know nothing about me. Let's keep it that way.

Are you in favor or against universal government sponsored health care?

BTW, I notice you couldn't respond to what I presented.

 

[yakbladder]

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

Are you in favor or against universal government sponsored health care?

BTW, I notice you couldn't respond to what I presented.

No, it's just that I don't really care what you have to say..

 

[maxiep]

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

No, it's just that I don't really care what you have to say..

Yet you responded to me rather than my ideas. You care greatly.

 

[maxiep]

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.

We pay the most, because we receive the best care in the world. When you look at what our health care system can do once you get into it, read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Business-Health-Robert-Ohsfeldt/dp/0844742406

It was a study that if you had the same injury in every country in the world, regardless of insurance coverage, you stand the best likelihood of survival and recovery in this country.

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?

Tell that to the women whose lives were saved by catching the disease early. The "hassle cost" of false positives, early treatment that proved to be unneccesary, etc. doesn't outweigh the lives saved.

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".

That's because being proactive is almost always better when it comes to health care. There is no reputable physician who would argue the opposite. Besides, it should be the patient's choice whether or not they receive this care, shouldn't it? That's why I oppose government health care so much. My body isn't controlled by the government.

 

[Masbee]

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

How long do you think that's going to last? If you think that this health care bill is just some benign piece of legislation that will go no farther, than all I can say is it must be nice living in Candyland. If you offer coverage to everyone, restrict what physicians can be paid and try to rein in costs, then what do you think is going to be constrained? Services. Health care will have to be rationed. Under our current system, you can get a mammogram whenever you please. Under a future system with rationing, you can get a mammogram when the government lets you have one. There isn't a socialized health care system on the planet where health care isn't rationed. We'll be no different.

It's not that I won't have the freedom to pay for one on my own, it's that I won't have the freedom to obtain this test at all.

What the hell are you talking about? Where did you get all that garbage from?

If there is a govt mandated or govt run insurance scheme, and that scheme does not cover a test you want -

then haul your ass to a doctor a pay for the goddamn test yourself. No one is stopping you. Where do get this crap from?

THAT is freedom. Not all this hypothetical nonsense you are making up about stuff that hasn't even happened yet.

 

[Sug]

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.

Do you even understand how this system will work?

This talking point of "contractually obligated" vs the government can do whatever the fuck it wants is just stupid.

 

[Denny Crane]

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 )

1) Attorneys work pro bono some, but most of the time they pay the costs upfront in exchange for a nice chunk (percentage) of the winnings they expect. The companies being sued have a calculus as to whether it's worth fighting a case (it costs them legal fees for lawyers) vs. settling. 95% are settled.

2) If only it worked that way. The way it really works is there are 435 house seats and only 50-75 are real contests. When they count the votes on some bill, the 50-75 are given a pass to vote the "right" vote (not party line) to appease the voters.

3) I do fundamentally disagree that we have any institutions that aren't highly regulated. The banking system, as it is and was, is the product of years of legislation and regulation. The fact there is an FDIC is proof of my statement about regulation.

And of course I agree to disagree. Nobody's being hassled by anyone of official position here for having differing political views.

 

[Denny Crane]

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

Do you even understand how this system will work?

This talking point of "contractually obligated" vs the government can do whatever the fuck it wants is just stupid.

Is the govt. obligated to pay everyone social security payments? There sure has been a lot of talk of things like "means testing." Which proves government can do whatever the fuck it wants when it comes to entitlements.

 

[maxiep]

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

What the hell are you talking about? Where did you get all that garbage from?

Experience living in countries with socialized medicine. What makes you think we're going to stop with this bill? What government program has ever stayed the same size? They grow. They encroach. And there will be rationing.

If there is a govt mandated or govt run insurance scheme, and that scheme does not cover a test you want -

then haul your ass to a doctor a pay for the goddamn test yourself. No one is stopping you. Where do get this crap from?

Because doctors and patients won't have the option to practice medicine as they see fit. How do I know this will occur? Because it's happened in every country that's adopted socialized medicine. All the Democrats care about is getting a foothold. The rest will take care of itself The government will dictate the care given because there won't be enough healthcare to go around. If you wish to practice medicine in the US, you're going to have to be licensed by the government. If you wish to get insured, there won't be insurance companies offering malpractice anymore; that will be taken over by the government.

The willing misunderstanding of those on the Left as to what this healthcare bill will mean for the American people is shocking.

THAT is freedom. Not all this hypothetical nonsense you are making up about stuff that hasn't even happened yet.

Freedom is not having the Federal Government having control over my body and how I choose to treat it. As for what I'm stating as being hypothetical, go ahead and remain ignorant. It's a typical path that other countries have gone down. What makes you think we're any different?