Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

On 11/19/09 8:57 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:50:16 -0500, JustJohnH
wrote:

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

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

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

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!


Asswipe would be a step up in stature for herring. It implies he has a
purpose.

--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet, or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

JustJohnH wrote:

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

You still here?

It's NOT Obama's panel.

I found an article in an edition of the American Family Physician dated
April 15, 2003.

Don't know how long they have been around, but Bush was president in
2003, so STOP BLAMING EVERYTHING ON OBAMA.

Geez, you really are ignorant. And seemly proud of it.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20030415/us.html


Can't you see that you make your side look foolish? You have no ability
to check facts, you just blame Obama.

Filter or no filter, I'm through with you.

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

achmed wrote:
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)

Not even pretending mot to be a racist, are you.

You again prove your side to be a little bit behind the curve.

Why don't you and JohnH talk to each other and leave the rest of us out
of it.

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:12:18 -0800, Jim wrote:

achmed wrote:
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)

Not even pretending mot to be a racist, are you.

You again prove your side to be a little bit behind the curve.

Why don't you and JohnH talk to each other and leave the rest of us out
of it.

He's another who subscribes to the racist agenda. At least Herring
does it under his own name. This dildo is a coward.

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

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


"jps" wrote in message
m...
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


Where does the bill save money? And from what I here, the CBO says the
costs are very high.

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

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


"jps" wrote in message
om...
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


Where does the bill save money? And from what I here, the CBO says the
costs are very high.

Then you're not reading the whole report. It's projected to save $125B over
the short term and near $1T over a longer term.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

In article ,
om says...

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.

Just like Harry, you need to change your handle because you have a need
to be noticed. Once again, plonk.

--
WAFA the newsgroup liar free!

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

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


"jps" wrote in message
news:2i29g5he47ftb6mmem3i45qfsuf7ci5nsk@4ax. com...
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


Where does the bill save money? And from what I here, the CBO says the
costs are very high.

Then you're not reading the whole report. It's projected to save $125B
over the short term and near $1T over a longer term.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I read the report. Says there will be a reduction in the deficit because of
the healthcare bill. Why? Because there will be more revenue coming in
from the payees than is going to be spent. Does not say healthcare is going
to cost less, just says the government will be getting more money.

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

Then you're not reading the whole report. It's projected to save $125B
over the short term and near $1T over a longer term.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I read the report. Says there will be a reduction in the deficit because of
the healthcare bill. Why? Because there will be more revenue coming in
from the payees than is going to be spent. Does not say healthcare is going
to cost less, just says the government will be getting more money.


Yes of course. Denial of service will save the government money. Any
numb skull should be able to figure that out.

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

Then you're not reading the whole report. It's projected to save $125B
over the short term and near $1T over a longer term.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I read the report. Says there will be a reduction in the deficit because
of the healthcare bill. Why? Because there will be more revenue coming
in from the payees than is going to be spent. Does not say healthcare is
going to cost less, just says the government will be getting more money.

Thus, a savings and deficit reduction. Well, ok. Unless you'd prefer the
status quo...

Even better. The government collects money and doesn't pay any out to
healthcare. That would really tickle your little fancy, wouldn't it.