Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:45:02 -0800, Jim wrote:

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.

Good points.

Everything is a government plot and Obama's fault.

He's black you know.

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

In article ,
says...

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.

Yep, that's how it's done, ala Rush and Hannity.

--
WAFA the newsgroup liar free!

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

jps wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:45:02 -0800, Jim wrote:

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.

Good points.

Everything is a government plot and Obama's fault.

He's black you know.

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?

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

A lot of groups make recommendations, by the way., the American Medical
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.

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

jps wrote:

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.
As the young woman pointed out he is 1/2 black 1/2 white. That is the
recipe for Mulatto. You need to start calling a spade a spade. (POW)

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:45:02 -0800, Jim wrote:

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.

Apparently it wasn't disinformation. Today the Obama administration
withdrew the policy.

Wake up Jim.
--

John H

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:03:54 -0500, NowNow wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

Yep, that's how it's done, ala Rush and Hannity.

Go read today's paper and learn something.
--

John H

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:16:02 -0800, Jim wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:45:02 -0800, Jim wrote:

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.

Good points.

Everything is a government plot and Obama's fault.

He's black you know.

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?

How many oncologists were on the government, i.e., Obama's, panel?
--

John H

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:50:16 -0500, JustJohnH
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:45:02 -0800, Jim wrote:

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.

Apparently it wasn't disinformation. Today the Obama administration
withdrew the policy.

Wake up Jim.

He already corrected himself, asswipe. Uh oh, did I call you a name?

Plonk! Again!

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

In article ,
om says...

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:16:02 -0800, Jim wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:45:02 -0800, Jim wrote:

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.

Good points.

Everything is a government plot and Obama's fault.

He's black you know.

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?

How many oncologists were on the government, i.e., Obama's, panel?

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.