"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.

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.