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

In article ,
says...

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.

The "Public Option" will not allow you to get a mammogram more than the
government study recommends in order to save money. In the mean time
more women will die unnecessarily.

There is no evidence of that. In fact, if there is a public option
the Dems will put in mandatory mammograms to prove you are lying.

From what I've gathered, it's just plain stupid.

Policy makes precedent.

Almost like saying get rid of airbags because so few people are saved
by them.

Removing airbags would increase the number of deaths in automobile
crashes which would reduce the costs of saving their lives.

Nope. Airbags usually break noses instead of necks.
Rhinoplasty is cheaper to the public than life-long care of
quadraplegics
But I'm just guessing.
..
Airbags increase automobile insurance costs.

Doubt that. Probably the opposite.

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.

Lassie Fare at its best.

Didn't work. Cost Ford big time.

What I haven't seen is any numbers on how many cases of breast cancer
are caused by the accumulated radiation exposure of mammographies.

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.

We all know radiation is harmless. Just had 4 dental x-rays today and
I'm not a bit worried.

They could make a case with that. They probably don't have the
numbers.

Bingo.

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.

Just like this whole Swine Flu epidemic and the government's inability
to contract the production of the Swine Flu vaccine. People are being
refused the vaccine because they don't fit the profile set forth by the
government for those who should get the vaccine.

Goldman-Sachs got their quota, so all is well.

--Vic