It begins...

[BaalChatzaf]

It is happening. The latest government recommendations that women in the age 40-49 range should not seek regular yearly mammograms is a first step in rationing of medical services. First it appears as a recommendation (contrary to the advice of medical care providers) and later it becomes a rule or regulation. A day will come when yearly periodic mammograms will be denied to women in the indicated age range and perhaps will be available but will cost them out of pocket. For most women (those of limited means) it will be a service forbidden by the government. The justification on this recommendation is based on a cost-benefit analysis by government bean counters (wearing their green eye-shades, no doubt). The presumption is that regular mammograms will lead to false positives that will lead to "unnecessary" biopsies. The panel making the recommendation further recommends that manual self examination of the breast not be taught to women. All those women feeling lumps and bumps will only make them nervous and cause them to seek mammography to checkout the manual examination. We can't have that. Somehow the true diagnosis in younger women is a "cost" that is more than offset by all those biopsies and further examination. And we must keep costs down, mustn't we? So the occasional women who misses catching her breast cancer before age 49 and finds out she is terminal at age 50 is just one of the "costs" of the system.

I see this as a sign, a foreshadowing and a portent of things to come. Medical services will be restricted until the person is at death's door. Then they will received treatment and most likely die which means they won't get to old-age and be a burden on the system in years to come. There it is, folks. Step 1 of GovCare. One trembles to see what step 2 will be.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Robert Campbell]

Bob K,

I think we know what the ObamaCare minions have in mind.

NICE.

Aka the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the rationing board that's a mainstay of the National Health scheme in Britain.

No thank you.

Robert C

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob K,

I think we know what the ObamaCare minions have in mind.

NICE.

If the Obama program is allowed to burrow under the flesh of the body politic like some poisonous tic, we are in for very hard times. We have seen the future. Beware!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

My God, to hear you people talk you'd think that managing healthcare was the end of the world! It's absolutely hilarious.

[tjohnson]

It is happening. The latest government recommendations that women in the age 40-49 range should not seek regular yearly mammograms is a first step in rationing of medical services. First it appears as a recommendation (contrary to the advice of medical care providers) and later it becomes a rule or regulation.

You seem to be ignorant of some very different views about mammograms.

Mammography is a striking paradigm of the capture of unsuspecting women by run-away powerful technological and pharmaceutical global industries, with the complicity of the cancer establishment, particularly the ACS, and the rollover mainstream media. Promotion of the multibillion dollar mammography screening industry has also become a diversionary flag around which legislators and women's product corporations can rally, protesting how much they care about women, while studiously avoiding any reference to avoidable risk factors of breast cancer, let alone other cancers.

[BaalChatzaf]

You seem to be ignorant of some very different views about mammograms.

Mammography is a striking paradigm of the capture of unsuspecting women by run-away powerful technological and pharmaceutical global industries, with the complicity of the cancer establishment, particularly the ACS, and the rollover mainstream media. Promotion of the multibillion dollar mammography screening industry has also become a diversionary flag around which legislators and women's product corporations can rally, protesting how much they care about women, while studiously avoiding any reference to avoidable risk factors of breast cancer, let alone other cancers.

I know two women whose breast cancers were detected early by mammogram and who were treated successfully. Other methods of examination did not reveal their condition, but the mammograms did. Until we get something more effective and accurate than mammography, it should be used by women to protect their lives and health.

The results speak for themselves. Perhaps there are cases where mammography did not help but I see no harm to it other than the expenses incurred with false positives.

What I found appalling was the recommendation that manual self examination no longer be taught. That is horrible. GovCo is out to get us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

It is happening. The latest government recommendations that women in the age 40-49 range should not seek regular yearly mammograms is a first step in rationing of medical services. First it appears as a recommendation (contrary to the advice of medical care providers) and later it becomes a rule or regulation.

You seem to be ignorant of some very different views about mammograms.

Mammography is a striking paradigm of the capture of unsuspecting women by run-away powerful technological and pharmaceutical global industries, with the complicity of the cancer establishment, particularly the ACS, and the rollover mainstream media. Promotion of the multibillion dollar mammography screening industry has also become a diversionary flag around which legislators and women's product corporations can rally, protesting how much they care about women, while studiously avoiding any reference to avoidable risk factors of breast cancer, let alone other cancers.

GS:

Dr. Sammy Epstein has a political agenda that you are not aware of that mitigates the article you cited. Additionally, the supportive studies at the end of the article stop at 2001.

Adam

[tjohnson]

Until we get something more effective and accurate than mammography, it should be used by women to protect their lives and health.

Check out thermography.

Most physicians recommend them for fear of being sued by a woman who develops breast cancer after which he did not advise her to get one. Now natural medicine physicians can rest comfortably and encourage women to get a thorough breast examination for abnormalities, as well as perform frequent self-examinations.

Thermography, along with regular breast self-exams, does seem to be a reasonable alternative to screen for this prevalent form of cancer among women.

[tjohnson]

Dr. Sammy Epstein has a political agenda that you are not aware of that mitigates the article you cited. Additionally, the supportive studies at the end of the article stop at 2001.

OMG, who doesn't have a political agenda these days?? It is something to take into consideration for sure but does not necessarily lessen the validity of the proposition.

[Selene]

Until we get something more effective and accurate than mammography, it should be used by women to protect their lives and health.

Check out thermography.

Most physicians recommend them for fear of being sued by a woman who develops breast cancer after which he did not advise her to get one. Now natural medicine physicians can rest comfortably and encourage women to get a thorough breast examination for abnormalities, as well as perform frequent self-examinations.

Thermography, along with regular breast self-exams, does seem to be a reasonable alternative to screen for this prevalent form of cancer among women.

GS:

Hmm, so they are telling women not to examine themselves as part of this new protocol ...why?

Seems to contradict your source's recommendation.

Adam

[Selene]

Dr. Sammy Epstein has a political agenda that you are not aware of that mitigates the article you cited. Additionally, the supportive studies at the end of the article stop at 2001.

OMG, who doesn't have a political agenda these days?? It is something to take into consideration for sure but does not necessarily lessen the validity of the proposition.

GS:

http://www.preventcancer.com/documents/Statement_SenCommHealthEduc_vwithComm_june89.pdf

You support this agenda?

Adam

[tjohnson]

GS:

http://www.preventca...Comm_june89.pdf

You support this agenda?

Adam

I think it has a great deal of merit.

[tjohnson]

GS:

Hmm, so they are telling women not to examine themselves as part of this new protocol ...why?

Seems to contradict your source's recommendation.

Adam

Could you repeat the question, I don't understand.

[shadesofgrey]

You seem to be ignorant of some very different views about mammograms.

Mammography is a striking paradigm of the capture of unsuspecting women by run-away powerful technological and pharmaceutical global industries, with the complicity of the cancer establishment, particularly the ACS, and the rollover mainstream media. Promotion of the multibillion dollar mammography screening industry has also become a diversionary flag around which legislators and women's product corporations can rally, protesting how much they care about women, while studiously avoiding any reference to avoidable risk factors of breast cancer, let alone other cancers.

I know two women whose breast cancers were detected early by mammogram and who were treated successfully. Other methods of examination did not reveal their condition, but the mammograms did. Until we get something more effective and accurate than mammography, it should be used by women to protect their lives and health.

The results speak for themselves. Perhaps there are cases where mammography did not help but I see no harm to it other than the expenses incurred with false positives.

What I found appalling was the recommendation that manual self examination no longer be taught. That is horrible. GovCo is out to get us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The recommendation against manual self-examination (MSE) was based on using that as a primary screening method. Since it was determined that imaging and other studies were more sensitive and specific, the number of false positives produced by MSE resulted in its use being determined unnecessary. There's no recommendation AGAINST it per se, just a recommendation not to use it as a primary screening method.

Regarding what you said about the expenses incurred with false positives on mammograms, that's pretty much the sole reason that the recommendations were changed recently. As with MSE, mammograms were found to have a sufficient amount of false positives to change the recommendation for the age at which women should get them regularly. The extra radiation exposure is negligable.

There will always been women who find cancer early as a result of mammograms started at some particular age. If you lowered the age or recommended yearly mammograms to 18, you'd still find a couple women with breast cancer and their lives would be saved as a result of it. The issue is that these recommendations are made for an entire nation and the cost/benefit ratio is very much at the center of the argument. If cost were not an issue, you would have a point. However, it's a big issue. It's the only issue, actually, that led to the recommendations changing. It was found that the cost of mammograms and false positives when women start at age 40 was higher than the cost in terms of treated cancers. Like I said, no matter how low you go on the age scale, there will ALWAYS be people with cancer that you detect with a mammogram. In order to justify the treatment cost, the age of recommended YEARLY mammograms was adjusted upwards because women younger than that simply didn't have a high enough cancer occurence to validate the tests for EVERY woman.

This would bypass the two women you know, yes, and the loved ones of every person lost to breast cancer would have a perfectly valid argument for lowering the recommended age, but the fact of the matter is that when you extrapolate the data out to include every woman in America, the cost is not supported by the benefit. It's a simple matter of economics, not some liberal national conspiracy (if anything liberals would want MORE mammograms done).

If you really want to blame someone, blame insurance companies because their existence is why cost is an issue and these recommendations are made in the first place.

[Selene]

Shades:

Resolved that: The United States of America shall adopt a universal national health program operated by the federal government.

Where might you stand on that issue?

Adam

[shadesofgrey]

Shades:

Resolved that: The United States of America shall adopt a universal national health program operated by the federal government.

Where might you stand on that issue?

Adam

I'm opposed to a federally-funded healthcare program chiefly because I work in healthcare and I know firsthand that the standard of care at private hospitals exceeds that of the VA (for instance) in general. If for no other reason than the amount of beauracracy is high within government institutions.

That doesn't really have anything to do with my mammogram point though. That wasn't related to federal funding; it's private insurance that sets the cost of mammograms.

[Selene]

Shades:

Resolved that: The United States of America shall adopt a universal national health program operated by the federal government.

Where might you stand on that issue?

Adam

I'm opposed to a federally-funded healthcare program chiefly because I work in healthcare and I know firsthand that the standard of care at private hospitals exceeds that of the VA (for instance) in general. If for no other reason than the amount of beauracracy is high within government institutions.

That doesn't really have anything to do with my mammogram point though. That wasn't related to federal funding; it's private insurance that sets the cost of mammograms.

Shades:

Totally agree. I just wanted to get an idea of where you are in terms of issues.

No harm, no foul as we say in NY City basketball which basically means, if you are not bleeding from an artery or a compound fracture...play ball.

Adam

[Christopher]

The recommendation against manual self-examination (MSE) was based on using that as a primary screening method. Since it was determined that imaging and other studies were more sensitive and specific, the number of false positives produced by MSE resulted in its use being determined unnecessary. There's no recommendation AGAINST it per se, just a recommendation not to use it as a primary screening method.

Regarding what you said about the expenses incurred with false positives on mammograms, that's pretty much the sole reason that the recommendations were changed recently. As with MSE, mammograms were found to have a sufficient amount of false positives to change the recommendation for the age at which women should get them regularly. The extra radiation exposure is negligable.

There will always been women who find cancer early as a result of mammograms started at some particular age. If you lowered the age or recommended yearly mammograms to 18, you'd still find a couple women with breast cancer and their lives would be saved as a result of it. The issue is that these recommendations are made for an entire nation and the cost/benefit ratio is very much at the center of the argument. If cost were not an issue, you would have a point. However, it's a big issue. It's the only issue, actually, that led to the recommendations changing. It was found that the cost of mammograms and false positives when women start at age 40 was higher than the cost in terms of treated cancers. Like I said, no matter how low you go on the age scale, there will ALWAYS be people with cancer that you detect with a mammogram. In order to justify the treatment cost, the age of recommended YEARLY mammograms was adjusted upwards because women younger than that simply didn't have a high enough cancer occurence to validate the tests for EVERY woman.

This is actually an astute point. Healthcare providers are generally interested in preventative care more than corrective care since the costs of pc are far far less than cc. Given that costs of pc<<cc, the bias will always be conservative towards pc, meaning a high concentration of preventative care will continue to be offered. In this case using the money lens, the reduced mammogram recommendation continues to highly favor women and prevention.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Christopher

[Barbara Branden]

Ba'al, the rationing of medical care will not wait until the present administration takes over the health industry. It has long been the policy of Medicare. For instance, I have recently required physical therapy, and Medicare, at my doctor's request, sanctioned a twice-weekly session with a therapist -- for seven weeks. As the remaining time grew short, I asked my therapist if there was a way to extend it. He said there was; that my doctor should send Medicare a prescription for further therapy. I consulted my doctor, and he sent in a prescription. Today, I asked my therapist if I now had another seven weeks. No, he said. It hasn't yet been approved by Medicare. Whether or not I get the therapy I need is not up to my doctor; Medicare bureaucrats must approve his prescription, and they have the totally arbitrary power to refuse it for reasons they do not have to specify.

What Obamacare will achieve will be to make a bad situation infinitely worse.

Barbara

[BaalChatzaf]

What Obamacare will achieve will be to make a bad situation infinitely worse.

Barbara

I want to paraphrase Charlton Heston's best line in -Planet of the Apes-: Get your greasy paws off, you damned government!

Here is a riddle for you: What is a camel? Answer: A horse designed by the government.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

I want to paraphrase Charlton Heston's best line in -Planet of the Apes-: Get your greasy paws off, you damned government!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Close enough.

Here's one of my own, adapted from a comment Thomas Sowell made in one of his columns: Blaming society's ills on government corruption is like blaming a plane crash on gravity.

With Medicare, sometimes you can go outside the system, with your own money of course, sometimes you can't. It's illegal. Except by leaving the country.