View Full Version : So for women and breat cancer, 50 is the new 40
GoOwls
11-18-2009, 04:58 PM
OK, here goes.....I warned you guys about where this health plan will take us with rationed care....
So as the health plan begins to unfold, is it mere coincidence that this report, by people who are independent doctors, would suggest that the women from 40-49 are idiots for getting a mamogram.....I know they didn't call then idiots, directly, but they insinuated that it was a waste of money to do so....if a person wastes money, they are idiots, right...hence my conclusion of their statement.
I bet the women who got detected by mamogram in their 40's and their lives saved aren't idiots.....they are pretty happy right now.
This is the precursor...the opening volley....if the Feds are to run the thing, they must trim it to be viable and make the whole populace happy with the money outlay.
One way to trim is to back off on age groups and raise test ages......it will sacrifice a few people....sure....but the greater good must be served....right....those 40+ year olds who won't be covered if this is adoped, will be the sacrificial lambs that will allow some 50+ to get the test and some under 40's to get the surgery...it's just a measured way to thin the herd of diseased poeople and lower the costs of a controversial program.
Soon, will they have a study that says Alzheimer's patients over 60 aren't viable for meds......will they say that if you are over 70 you can't get stints or a by-pass.....maybe 65 would be a nice number....heck, 60 would save billions......
Friggin sheep.....led to slaughter and too stupid to see it.
You'll get what you deserve for your ignorance.
Two titty threads in 10 mins.....gonna be a good night!:D
OK, here goes.....I warned you guys about where this health plan will take us with rationed care....
So as the health plan begins to unfold, is it mere coincidence that this report, by people who are independent doctors, would suggest that the women from 40-49 are idiots for getting a mamogram.....I know they didn't call then idiots, directly, but they insinuated that it was a waste of money to do so....if a person wastes money, they are idiots, right...hence my conclusion of their statement.
I bet the women who got detected by mamogram in their 40's and their lives saved aren't idiots.....they are pretty happy right now.
This is the precursor...the opening volley....if the Feds are to run the thing, they must trim it to be viable and make the whole populace happy with the money outlay.
One way to trim is to back off on age groups and raise test ages......it will sacrifice a few people....sure....but the greater good must be served....right....those 40+ year olds who won't be covered if this is adoped, will be the sacrificial lambs that will allow some 50+ to get the test and some under 40's to get the surgery...it's just a measured way to thin the herd of diseased poeople and lower the costs of a controversial program.
Soon, will they have a study that says Alzheimer's patients over 60 aren't viable for meds......will they say that if you are over 70 you can't get stints or a by-pass.....maybe 65 would be a nice number....heck, 60 would save billions......
Friggin sheep.....led to slaughter and too stupid to see it.
You'll get what you deserve for your ignorance.
ummmm
U.S. health chief: No change on mammogram policy
Washington (CNN) -- A federal advisory board's recommendation that women in their 40s should avoid routine mammograms is not government policy and has caused "a great deal of confusion," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday.
"My message to women is simple. Mammograms have always been an important life-saving tool in the fight against breast cancer, and they still are today," Sebelius said in a statement.
"Keep doing what you have been doing for years: talk to your doctor about your individual history, ask questions and make the decision that is right for you."
With her statement, Sebelius waded into the controversy over Monday's announcement by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that women in their 40s should not get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer.
Sebelius' statement is aimed at "making it clear these recommendations are not ours," a White House source said.
Sebelius said the doctors and scientists on the task force "do not set federal policy, and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government."
"The task force has presented some new evidence for consideration, but our policies remain unchanged," she said. "Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/18/mammogram.guidelines/index.html
JagFan
11-18-2009, 05:15 PM
U.S. health chief: No change on mammogram policy
Washington (CNN) -- A federal advisory board's recommendation that women in their 40s should avoid routine mammograms is not government policy and has caused "a great deal of confusion," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday.
"My message to women is simple. Mammograms have always been an important life-saving tool in the fight against breast cancer, and they still are today," Sebelius said in a statement.
"Keep doing what you have been doing for years: talk to your doctor about your individual history, ask questions and make the decision that is right for you."
With her statement, Sebelius waded into the controversy over Monday's announcement by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that women in their 40s should not get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer.
Sebelius' statement is aimed at "making it clear these recommendations are not ours," a White House source said.
Sebelius said the doctors and scientists on the task force "do not set federal policy, and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government."
"The task force has presented some new evidence for consideration, but our policies remain unchanged," she said. "Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action."
Wanna make a bet? I call BS. I should trust her why?
GoOwls
11-18-2009, 05:17 PM
ummmm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/18/mammogram.guidelines/index.html
It's just a love tap....the bad man is kicking your door a bit to see if it is loose at the hinges or if the deadbolt is set or not.....it's just a flier......more to come, I guarantee.
Wanna make a bet? I call BS. I should trust her why?
Good point, assume everyone saying things we agree with are lying.
JagFan
11-18-2009, 05:31 PM
Good point, assume everyone saying things we agree with are lying.
I don't agree with her. I don't think the insurance companies will not look at this farce of a study and I don't think that Health and Human services will not change their view. I think it was a trial balloon and really hope it explodes very loudly.
I don't agree with her. I don't think the insurance companies will not look at this farce of a study and I don't think that Health and Human services will not change their view. I think it was a trial balloon and really hope it explodes very loudly.
So you think the government should change their stance, because she stated clearly they have not.
JagFan
11-18-2009, 05:39 PM
So you think the government should change their stance, because she stated clearly they have not.
Please don't play dumb. I don't trust that the their policy will not change. I don't trust the insurance companies will not use this to say they will not pay for this until you are 50. It really is pretty simple. Just as they are ready to overhaul our healthcare system a "study" comes out with this crap.
So no I don't believe a word she said. Why should I?
SWMHebron
11-18-2009, 05:47 PM
Please don't play dumb. I don't trust that the their policy will not change. I don't trust the insurance companies will not use this to say they will not pay for this until you are 50. It really is pretty simple. Just as they are ready to overhaul our healthcare system a "study" comes out with this crap.
So no I don't believe a word she said. Why should I?
But if I don't stop self exams Joe Biden's motorcade might crash into my house.:eek:
Really this is just a start. If the government says it then you can bet their insurance(s) won't pay for it. If theirs don't then the privates won't. I don't have insurance right now and can get one for about $175 cash.
My mother found her breast cancer on self exam about 5 months after a clear mammogram. My cousin found hers on self exam -- both times.
My big question is whether or not a mammogram would have been ordered in either case since they had both had one less than 2 years before.
Please don't play dumb. I don't trust that the their policy will not change. I don't trust the insurance companies will not use this to say they will not pay for this until you are 50. It really is pretty simple. Just as they are ready to overhaul our healthcare system a "study" comes out with this crap.
So no I don't believe a word she said. Why should I?
None at all, best asume they are all lying. Then again, listening to the people who profit from having more people tested doesn't sound that rational either.
Everyone has a motive, so we shouldn't believe anything anyone says.
JagFan
11-18-2009, 05:52 PM
But if I don't stop self exams Joe Biden's motorcade might crash into my house.:eek:
Really this is just a start. If the government says it then you can bet their insurance(s) won't pay for it. If theirs don't then the privates won't. I don't have insurance right now and can get one for about $175 cash.
My mother found her breast cancer on self exam about 5 months after a clear mammogram. My cousin found hers on self exam -- both times.
My big question is whether or not a mammogram would have been ordered in either case since they had both had one less than 2 years before.
That is a very good question. In fact the life or death question.
JagFan
11-18-2009, 05:56 PM
None at all, best asume they are all lying. Then again, listening to the people who profit from having more people tested doesn't sound that rational either.
Everyone has a motive, so we shouldn't believe anything anyone says.
If it was not going to change their policy why release their task forces stupid study? Why not release it with her remarks? Why only make the remarks after everyone is raising heck about it. Did she honestly think people would not get upset?
And of course we are the ones confused her department had nothing to do with that. That's it blame the little people. ;)
GoOwls
11-18-2009, 06:05 PM
Please don't play dumb. I don't trust that the their policy will not change. I don't trust the insurance companies will not use this to say they will not pay for this until you are 50. It really is pretty simple. Just as they are ready to overhaul our healthcare system a "study" comes out with this crap.
So no I don't believe a word she said. Why should I?
I'm beginning to think he's not playing.....I know he his, he's just being a smarta**, but he's so good he can even fool me at times.
GoOwls
11-18-2009, 06:08 PM
None at all, best asume they are all lying. Then again, listening to the people who profit from having more people tested doesn't sound that rational either.
Everyone has a motive, so we shouldn't believe anything anyone says.
Tell ya what...tell the wife to lay off the self-check and the mamograms because it is funding the big boys.....I hope it doesn't bite you.....or really her, right....it's her life you would be playing with....;)
Tell ya what...tell the wife to lay off the self-check and the mamograms because it is funding the big boys.....I hope it doesn't bite you.....or really her, right....it's her life you would be playing with....;)
Why would I advise her to not follow the Health and Human Services Secretary advised?
"My message to women is simple. Mammograms have always been an important life-saving tool in the fight against breast cancer, and they still are today," Sebelius said in a statement.
"Keep doing what you have been doing for years: talk to your doctor about your individual history, ask questions and make the decision that is right for you."
JagFan
11-18-2009, 06:14 PM
Why would I advise her to not follow the Health and Human Services Secretary advised?
For now;) Yes I am cynical of anything coming out of Washington and have been for awhile now. Notice I have not put a D or an R on anything. This study should never have been released and it is causing a lot of panic with the women I know. Right or wrong her words coming late into this are not comforting.
For now;) Yes I am cynical of anything coming out of Washington and have been for awhile now. Notice I have not put a D or an R on anything. This study should never have been released and it is causing a lot of panic with the women I know. Right or wrong her words coming late into this are not comforting.
Confused....
I tell her not to get a mammogram even if her doctor reccomends it, because the HHS Secretary told her to listen to her doctor and she is lying.
Is that it?
JagFan
11-18-2009, 06:19 PM
Confused....
I tell her not to get a mammogram even if her doctor reccomends it, because the HHS Secretary told her to listen to her doctor and she is lying.
Is that it?
No that is what the HHR is saying now. You have tried to twist a very serious concern into a pissing contest. Have at it. Pied you win.
No that is what the HHR is saying now. You have tried to twist a very serious concern into a pissing contest. Have at it. Pied you win.
nope, that's my point. I simply do't choose to believe everyone is lying all the time. If I did that, I woudl never believe anyone.
JagFan
11-18-2009, 06:31 PM
nope, that's my point. I simply do't choose to believe everyone is lying all the time. If I did that, I woudl never believe anyone.
I will ask questions about a stupid study. She never said she did not believe the study and she also said this study should not be dismissed. So excuse the hell out of me for being concerned that this study could have an impact on my health in the future. Read you own stories that you post.
And after all that sha said to talk to your Dr.
smw358
11-18-2009, 07:18 PM
OK, here goes.....I warned you guys about where this health plan will take us with rationed care....
So as the health plan begins to unfold, is it mere coincidence that this report, by people who are independent doctors, would suggest that the women from 40-49 are idiots for getting a mamogram.....I know they didn't call then idiots, directly, but they insinuated that it was a waste of money to do so....if a person wastes money, they are idiots, right...hence my conclusion of their statement.
I bet the women who got detected by mamogram in their 40's and their lives saved aren't idiots.....they are pretty happy right now.
This is the precursor...the opening volley....if the Feds are to run the thing, they must trim it to be viable and make the whole populace happy with the money outlay.
One way to trim is to back off on age groups and raise test ages......it will sacrifice a few people....sure....but the greater good must be served....right....those 40+ year olds who won't be covered if this is adoped, will be the sacrificial lambs that will allow some 50+ to get the test and some under 40's to get the surgery...it's just a measured way to thin the herd of diseased poeople and lower the costs of a controversial program.
Soon, will they have a study that says Alzheimer's patients over 60 aren't viable for meds......will they say that if you are over 70 you can't get stints or a by-pass.....maybe 65 would be a nice number....heck, 60 would save billions......
Friggin sheep.....led to slaughter and too stupid to see it.
You'll get what you deserve for your ignorance.
Reminds me of a joke I received:
It's late fall and the Indians on a remote reservation in South Dakota asked their new chief if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild.
Since he was a chief in a modern society, he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky, he couldn't tell what the winter was going to be like.
Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect firewood to be prepared..
But, being a practical leader, after several days, he got an idea. He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked, 'Is the coming winter going to be cold?'
'It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold,' the meteorologist at the weather service responded.
So the chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order to be prepared.
A week later, he called the National Weather Service again. 'Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?'
'Yes,' the man at National Weather Service again replied, 'it's going to be a very cold winter.'
The chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find.
Two weeks later, the chief called the National Weather Service again. 'Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?'
'Absolutely,' the man replied. 'It's looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters we've ever seen.'
'How can you be so sure?' the chief asked.
The weatherman replied, 'The Indians are collecting firewood like crazy.'
Remember this whenever you get advice from a government official!
JagFan
11-18-2009, 07:57 PM
And after all that sha said to talk to your Dr.
You believe one side of her mouth I believe the other.
Mong Hu
11-18-2009, 11:14 PM
ummmm
U.S. health chief: No change on mammogram policy
Washington (CNN) -- A federal advisory board's recommendation that women in their 40s should avoid routine mammograms is not government policy and has caused "a great deal of confusion," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday.
"My message to women is simple. Mammograms have always been an important life-saving tool in the fight against breast cancer, and they still are today," Sebelius said in a statement.
"Keep doing what you have been doing for years: talk to your doctor about your individual history, ask questions and make the decision that is right for you."
With her statement, Sebelius waded into the controversy over Monday's announcement by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that women in their 40s should not get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer.
Sebelius' statement is aimed at "making it clear these recommendations are not ours," a White House source said.
Sebelius said the doctors and scientists on the task force "do not set federal policy, and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government."
"The task force has presented some new evidence for consideration, but our policies remain unchanged," she said. "Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/18/mammogram.guidelines/index.html
Pied,
Am I just missing something I have read the article you linked twice through now and can not find the last two lines that you quoted any where in the article. I did however find the following:
Though the Preventive Services Task Force is independent, the Department of Health and Human Services' Web site calls the panel's recommendations the "gold standard," and insurance companies look to the panel for guidance on which preventive care practices they should cover
Sounds to me like the government, and private insurers for that matter, would seriously consider any recommedation made by this "Task Force" when it comes to preventive care practices. It sounds like if they recommend it then it will not be too far into the future before you see a change in coverages.
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t040921.html
GoOwls
11-19-2009, 12:13 AM
Reminds me of a joke I received:
It's late fall and the Indians on a remote reservation in South Dakota asked their new chief if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild.
Since he was a chief in a modern society, he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky, he couldn't tell what the winter was going to be like.
Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect firewood to be prepared..
But, being a practical leader, after several days, he got an idea. He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked, 'Is the coming winter going to be cold?'
'It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold,' the meteorologist at the weather service responded.
So the chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order to be prepared.
A week later, he called the National Weather Service again. 'Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?'
'Yes,' the man at National Weather Service again replied, 'it's going to be a very cold winter.'
The chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find.
Two weeks later, the chief called the National Weather Service again. 'Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?'
'Absolutely,' the man replied. 'It's looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters we've ever seen.'
'How can you be so sure?' the chief asked.
The weatherman replied, 'The Indians are collecting firewood like crazy.'
Remember this whenever you get advice from a government official!
This is one of my favorite jokes...I tell it a whole bunch....it's so "2000's America".
GoOwls
11-19-2009, 12:16 AM
Pied,
Am I just missing something I have read the article you linked twice through now and can not find the last two lines that you quoted any where in the article. I did however find the following:
Sounds to me like the government, and private insurers for that matter, would seriously consider any recommedation made by this "Task Force" when it comes to preventive care practices. It sounds like if they recommend it then it will not be too far into the future before you see a change in coverages.
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t040921.html
Pied always asks me for links, but he is pretty regular about only posting the parts of his links that he can use to troll us with......has lost all credibility....he just wants to have pissing contests with conservatives...shallow stuff.
GoOwls
11-19-2009, 12:18 AM
nope, that's my point. I simply do't choose to believe everyone is lying all the time. If I did that, I woudl never believe anyone.
The probelm is that there are so many people lying, and the ones who are doing it are getting so good at it, that it really makes it difficult to know who you can trust....caution is the safest course.
Pied always asks me for links, but he is pretty regular about only posting the parts of his links that he can use to troll us with......has lost all credibility....he just wants to have pissing contests with conservatives...shallow stuff.
Oh, that is too funny, coming from you.
Oh, that is too funny, coming from you.
......well.... he doesn't send links at all...so technically it is different.
GoOwls
11-19-2009, 12:35 AM
Oh, that is too funny, coming from you.
Never said I wasn't.....just ratting out the pretenders.
GoOwls
11-19-2009, 12:36 AM
......well.... he doesn't send links at all...so technically it is different.
Thanks for differentiating....:notworthy
Pied,
Am I just missing something I have read the article you linked twice through now and can not find the last two lines that you quoted any where in the article. I did however find the following:
Sounds to me like the government, and private insurers for that matter, would seriously consider any recommedation made by this "Task Force" when it comes to preventive care practices. It sounds like if they recommend it then it will not be too far into the future before you see a change in coverages.
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t040921.html
No I don't think you are missing anything, that part is no longer part of the link. It's odd, but it appears the link was updated. If you check the time at the link it shows:
November 18, 2009 7:02 p.m. EST
My post was from an hour earlier, 5:04PM CST or 6:04PM EST.
Not certain why it was changed. It appears a video link was added as well.
JagFan
11-19-2009, 08:14 AM
No I don't think you are missing anything, that part is no longer part of the link. It's odd, but it appears the link was updated. If you check the time at the link it shows:
November 18, 2009 7:02 p.m. EST
My post was from an hour earlier, 5:04PM CST or 6:04PM EST.
Not certain why it was changed. It appears a video link was added as well.
Just shocking they would change it:eek:
Pied always asks me for links, but he is pretty regular about only posting the parts of his links that he can use to troll us with......has lost all credibility....he just wants to have pissing contests with conservatives...shallow stuff.
Ummm I post part of the story, and link to it so the reader can read for themselves. Personally I typically find posting entire news articles to clutter up the board.
If you don't see the difference between that and posting chain emails that have already been posted on the board, I guess we do see that differently.
Just shocking they would change it:eek:
It appears the first story is here:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/18/u-s-health-chief-no-change-on-mammogram-policy/
time was 4:09 EST, but when you click for the full story, it takes you to the updated one.
A Reuters article with te same quotes:
In a move likely to reassure American women, U.S. House and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that issued the guidelines on Monday does not set federal policy and does not affect what services the government will pay for.
Critics of the new guidelines said they would lead to more cancer deaths and expressed fear insurance companies would use them to justify denying coverage for mammograms to women in their 40s.
"The Task Force has presented some new evidence for consideration but our policies remain unchanged," Sebelius said in a statement.
"Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action," she said.
The proposed changes address healthy women with an average risk of breast cancer, not women who have a family history of breast cancer or some other special risk.
http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN1852070820091118
Interesting that the study does not say that women shouldn't get them until 50, but that different risk segments may be important in that decision.
Dr. Freya Schnabel, director of breast surgery at NYU Langone Medical Center, fielded questions about new mammography guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
...
What should women ages 40 and 49 do with the various competing guidelines that are now out there?
One of the big things that this new information should be pushing us toward is better breast cancer risk assessment. Physicians should be asking women whether they have a family history of breast cancer or other factors that would put them in a high risk category, and making sure if those things are present that they are screened in an appropriate manner. Those are the people we should be directing screening resources toward.
For women who have none of the high-risk conditions we know about, they should discuss the frequency of mammograms with their doctor. If they are comfortable with screening every other year and not starting until age 50, this data definitely gives them support.
The USPSTF guideline authors have stressed that their recommendations don't change the necessity of screening, but rather call into question its frequency. How well, in your experience, do patients pick up those distinctions?
First, we are at risk here for making people even more distressed by giving them mixed messages on breast cancer screening. [Editor's note: Some groups such as the American Cancer Society still recommend that mammograms start at age 40]. One of the real negatives, potentially, is that women will feel like they don't know what they should do and it will lead to a real decrease in screening. Also, it will be hard for some women to track which year they had mammograms in order to adhere to the every-other-year recommendation. If this happens [and they miss mammograms], we'll go to an unscreened situation.
According to the USPSTF, screening women ages 40 to 49 led to considerable risk of harm from false positive results that can lead to unnecessary biopsies. Why should patients worry about this? Isn't it better to be safe than sorry?
False positives are a big concern. Patients have to recognize the fact that a mammography may identify an abnormality that will turn out to be nothing. In the course of identifying that, there are some steps people have to go through and it's not fun. In the old days, people were subject to open surgical biopsy. Nowadays we have needle biopsies and don't have to resort to an actual surgical procedure. That [possibility] is part of what goes along with being screened for breast cancer.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/17/mammography-breast-cancer-lifestyle-health-study-detection-doctor.html
JagFan
11-19-2009, 08:59 AM
Interesting that the study does not say that women shouldn't get them until 50, but that different risk segments may be important in that decision.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/17/mammography-breast-cancer-lifestyle-health-study-detection-doctor.html
Pied I am sure you are the expert on women screenings and what should be done but give me a break. My mammogram two years ago should something. They sent me over to get an ultrasound and paged my doctor. She did a biopsy and I had the results in two days. It was nothing, just a cyst common in women who had breast fed. I was very relieved and also very impressed with the quickness and care I received. My doctor also told me she was sure it was a cyst but wanted to make sure. She was very reassuring. What if I had waited until I was 50 and it was something.
I am not buying these guidelines will reduce stress of false positives. It all sounds very double talk to me.
I will listen to my doctor and go by her guidelines even if I must pay for it myself which is what they want. But what about the women that can't afford that? Isn't that who we are wanting to pass this health care overhaul for?
Pied I am sure you are the expert on women screenings and what should be done but give me a break. My mammogram two years ago should something. They sent me over to get an ultrasound and paged my doctor. She did a biopsy and I had the results in two days. It was nothing, just a cyst common in women who had breast fed. I was very relieved and also very impressed with the quickness and care I received. My doctor also told me she was sure it was a cyst but wanted to make sure. She was very reassuring. What if I had waited until I was 50 and it was something.
I am not buying these guidelines will reduce stress of false positives. It all sounds very double talk to me.
I will listen to my doctor and go by her guidelines even if I must pay for it myself which is what they want. But what about the women that can't afford that? Isn't that who we are wanting to pass this health care overhaul for?
Not my point. My point was that the way I understood the study, and the way it was presented here, was that there was a blanket reccomendation that the date women are checked be pushed back. Apparently that's not the case. I was not aware of that.
As a husband of a quasi-hypochondriac, I can assure you that the time waiting for any results are very stressful around the pied household, but that's not really my point here.
JagFan
11-19-2009, 09:16 AM
Not my point. My point was that the way I understood the study, and the way it was presented here, was that there was a blanket reccomendation that the date women are checked be pushed back. Apparently that's not the case. I was not aware of that.
As a husband of a quasi-hypochondriac, I can assure you that the time waiting for any results are very stressful around the pied household, but that's not really my point here.
No it is just put out by a government group that insurance companies listen to. So ok the insurance company says we won't pay for screening until you are 50, but if you find a lump then we will pay for it. Then you have the stress of convincing the insurance company you need it.
I'm sorry I am sure you can find good in this "study" I cannot and don't find the HHR Secratary words reassuring at all. In fact it is causing me more stress than waiting for lab work to come back. So we will just have to agree to disagree.
No it is just put out by a government group that insurance companies listen to. So ok the insurance company says we won't pay for screening until you are 50, but if you find a lump then we will pay for it. Then you have the stress of convincing the insurance company you need it.
I'm sorry I am sure you can find good in this "study" I cannot and don't find the HHR Secratary words reassuring at all. In fact it is causing me more stress than waiting for lab work to come back. So we will just have to agree to disagree.
That was my understanding of the study, but it does not appear to be the case, right? If so, I missed that part.
JagFan
11-19-2009, 10:10 AM
That was my understanding of the study, but it does not appear to be the case, right? If so, I missed that part.
As of now the insurance companies have not said anything that I am aware of. However it was reported that this and several other panels do make recommendations to the insurance companies. So I guess we will just have to wait and see what they do.
As of now the insurance companies have not said anything that I am aware of. However it was reported that this and several other panels do make recommendations to the insurance companies. So I guess we will just have to wait and see what they do.
Did the study reccomend that no one get tests unless they are 50?
JagFan
11-19-2009, 10:49 AM
Did the study reccomend that no one get tests unless they are 50?
Healthy women that don't have a history wait until they are 50. That means if they move the age to 50 then insurance will only pay if you are a certain group. That means proving to the insurance company you need this.
Just went through that with my husband and colon screening. His dad was 50 when he was diagnosed with colon cancer and it had already spread. My husband's doctor wanted him to be checked at age 45 because of the family history. After many phone calls by me and the doctor they finally agreed to pay for it. We had to prove he was in a higher risk group. Talk about a pain.
We should not have to prove this.
svhorns
11-19-2009, 11:03 AM
OK, here goes.....I warned you guys about where this health plan will take us with rationed care....
So as the health plan begins to unfold, is it mere coincidence that this report, by people who are independent doctors, would suggest that the women from 40-49 are idiots for getting a mamogram.....I know they didn't call then idiots, directly, but they insinuated that it was a waste of money to do so....if a person wastes money, they are idiots, right...hence my conclusion of their statement.
I bet the women who got detected by mamogram in their 40's and their lives saved aren't idiots.....they are pretty happy right now.
This is the precursor...the opening volley....if the Feds are to run the thing, they must trim it to be viable and make the whole populace happy with the money outlay.
One way to trim is to back off on age groups and raise test ages......it will sacrifice a few people....sure....but the greater good must be served....right....those 40+ year olds who won't be covered if this is adoped, will be the sacrificial lambs that will allow some 50+ to get the test and some under 40's to get the surgery...it's just a measured way to thin the herd of diseased poeople and lower the costs of a controversial program.
Soon, will they have a study that says Alzheimer's patients over 60 aren't viable for meds......will they say that if you are over 70 you can't get stints or a by-pass.....maybe 65 would be a nice number....heck, 60 would save billions......
Friggin sheep.....led to slaughter and too stupid to see it.
You'll get what you deserve for your ignorance.
I'm pretty sure we're all sheep. Calling someone a sheep when you're a sheep yourself probably has some biblical term for it I just don't know it.
15Adragon
11-19-2009, 12:30 PM
I'm pretty sure we're all sheep. Calling someone a sheep when you're a sheep yourself probably has some biblical term for it I just don't know it.
Isaiah 53:6
GoOwls
11-20-2009, 01:38 AM
I'm pretty sure we're all sheep. Calling someone a sheep when you're a sheep yourself probably has some biblical term for it I just don't know it.
You know....I may just be a sheep....but I'm not trying to be one....there is a difference.
svhorns
11-21-2009, 03:54 AM
You know....I may just be a sheep....but I'm not trying to be one....there is a difference.
There is no may... you are. You can try to convince yourself all you want. ... but we all live and we all die. We are all sheep.
I just watched 2012.
GoOwls
11-22-2009, 08:34 PM
There is no may... you are. You can try to convince yourself all you want. ... but we all live and we all die. We are all sheep.
I just watched 2012.
better a sheep than a lemming.....have a nice day....;)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.