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

"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

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

"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

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?

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

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

"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.

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?

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.