Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

I'm sure glad my daughter got her mammogram, which discovered the
cancerous tumor in her breast, at age 37.

Looks like the 'Bama folks would have everyone wait 'til age 50.

My daughter would probably be dead.

Thanks, Mr. President.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/16...ges/index.html

or: http://tinyurl.com/yzqlt67

"The task force is composed of 16 health care experts, none of whom
are oncologists."

Pretty smart people though....
--

John H

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

"Just John H" wrote in message
...
I'm sure glad my daughter got her mammogram, which discovered the
cancerous tumor in her breast, at age 37.

Looks like the 'Bama folks would have everyone wait 'til age 50.

My daughter would probably be dead.

Thanks, Mr. President.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/16...ges/index.html

or: http://tinyurl.com/yzqlt67

"The task force is composed of 16 health care experts, none of whom
are oncologists."

Pretty smart people though....


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.

I can certainly understand your concern about your daughter, but even under
the previous guidelines, the exam that discovered her problem wouldn't have
been a consideration unless she was in a higher risk category or something
was found with a regular exam.

You can make it as political as you want, but that isn't based in reality.
They are totally independent.

Secondarily, or perhaps primarily, this is a woman's decision in
consultation with her doctor, and so is choosing to or choosing not to
continue a pregancy. From your previous comments, there's a stench of
hypocrisy.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

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

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
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.


I was thinking it actually makes more of a case for the ins. companies to
deny more coverage.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

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?

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:01:53 -0800, jps wrote:

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.

Diagnosed by a mammography?
The lack of details and focus makes it sound like I said about airbags
and gas tank brackets. Penny pinching pencil pushing bean counters.

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?

Didn't mean to even suggest they could make that case, but I have
heard scattered talk about the mam radiation sometimes causing cancer.

Cart, horse?

Rickshaw.

--Vic

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

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

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

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

In article ,
says...


The Public Option will be left up to a federal agency to administer.
There will be intent, however, there will be no mandates.

A death from an auto accident often does not cost the insurance company
as much as a mangled body sitting in the hospital.

The money Ford payed out on the Pinto was inflated dollars.

The radiation that most general dentists used in taking x-rays is less
than what you get from being in the Sun for a couple of hours. Ask my
endodontist, he's always taking x-rays so that he can actually see what
is going on in the tooth.

Geithner is in bed with Big Wall Street. Of course he got Goldman Sachs
their Swine Flu vaccines first.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...1/post_155.asp

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:33:13 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:01:53 -0800, jps wrote:

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.

Diagnosed by a mammography?

Yes. Got it early but still required choosing between two pretty
traumatic courses of treatment. She's doing very well, mostly through
reconstruction at this point and lots of support from friends,
colleagues.

The lack of details and focus makes it sound like I said about airbags
and gas tank brackets. Penny pinching pencil pushing bean counters.

Indeed. We can spend infiintely if our "freedom" is at state but God
forbid we spend anything on ourselves. A country with low self
esteem. Biden has it right. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for
the poor.

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?

Didn't mean to even suggest they could make that case, but I have
heard scattered talk about the mam radiation sometimes causing cancer.

Well, seems stupid that they went to press with this with little
background to support it. Either that or our fantastic 4th estate got
bored halfway through the material and didn't think it was worth
repeating.

Cart, horse?

Rickshaw.

Yes.

--Vic

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

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

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.

Mind if we arrange for a third party opinion?

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

In article ,
om says...


My daughter would probably be dead.



But no rationing at all.. Quick, look over here...;)

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

"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.

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

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?

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

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.

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

"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.

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

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?

YES.

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"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.

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

Another 'Bama 'Cost Saving'
 

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.

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.

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.