| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. 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. You have no basis for this statement. For one thing, no such public option language exists, and the public option has not been passed by Congress nor signed by the President. Please don't start claiming you're interested in women not dying unnecessarily. Your previous comments indicate a lack of interest in that situation. 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. Airbags increase automobile insurance costs. ?? Huh?? Try insuring a car that doesn't have airbags. Your rates will be higher not lower. 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. At best? That's what you want... the individual being totally responsible. What are you trying to say? English please. 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. Thus, anecdotal evidence is the definitive statement in science. NOT 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. But, according to you, the individual should create their own vaccine. So, which is it... the gov't doing it or individuals? -- Nom=de=Plume |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The kudus I've given 'Bama for saved jobs.... | General | |||
| 'Bama does good - more new jobs... | General | |||
| Psalm 109:8 A prayer for 'Bama | General | |||
| The Story of O (bama) | General | |||
| Bam! Boats to be banned in 'Bama? | General | |||
Threaded Mode
