On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:33:13 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:01:53 -0800, jps wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:46:15 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:21:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
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

Don't understand their advice. My partner's wife was just diagnosed
and went though a mastectomy. She's in her early 40's.

Diagnosed by a mammography?

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

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:42:01 -0500, BAR wrote:

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?

In article ,
om says...


My daughter would probably be dead.



But no rationing at all.. Quick, look over here...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:46:15 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:21:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
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

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?

Nope, because then they can state the women is too old for surgery. Save
lots of money we do not have.

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:13:10 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:46:15 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:21:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
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

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?

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?

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:42:48 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:13:10 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:46:15 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:21:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
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

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?

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?

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.

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.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:13:10 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:46:15 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:21:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
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

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?

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?

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.

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.

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:13:10 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:46:15 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:21:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
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

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?

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?

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

jps wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:42:48 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:13:10 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:46:15 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:21:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
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
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?
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?
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.

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.

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.