Breast Cancer Diagnostic Rationing

[TheFranklinParty]

Re: Breast Cancer Disagnostic Rationing

why 30'? why not 28? you do notice that not once have you actuly pointed out anything wrong the the stats and resons why they came out with this "Recomendation" have you? I am sure you have actuly read the report to knoww how they made this bases correct? the hole point behind all this, is the small amount of cases it was effective vs a very large amount of times in was not able to be diagnosed correctly and the large amount of stress and work put into each case ...and in the end they felt the ends large amount of false positives due to the womans breast tissue being more dense and harded to make good readings ...was not worth the cost and what it puts people threw.....unless of chorse you have a family history or other issues that would cause to to be more likey, then they still recomend the normal checking at 30. fact is the panal made a judgement call based on the numbers....just like how you must have made one if you say 30...but not 29 28 or 27....why no 16? I have not even said I agree with there choice...but fact is they did not just say it to say it, and there is no Rationing ...none. my freind, a nurse who had this issue in her own life well called me asking about it last night...even she agress that there is some logic to what they said, though based on what she knows so far about what they said she does not agree ...but she at least did say there is reason for it.

When you take something away and don't offer an alternative, that is rationing. When you choose who gets it and who doesn't, that is rationing. That is what this panel is doing. The first response by the White House was to support the findings. They then revised themselves after the mainstream media went crazy.

The whole point is that they didn't suggest an alternative. They just suggested it was unnecessary. They are a government appointed panel. This is exactly the type of panel referenced throughout the House bill that will be deciding care standards and practices. Can you see where my concern comes from.

Should we have more statistically effective diagnostics, YES! Until they are offered, this is what we've got and if it only saves one life out of one million then so be it. You want the job of telling a 42 year mother of 3 that she can't have a mammogram because she's on a government plan and the panel doesn't think she deserves a 1 in a million chance?

 

[LooseChange]

Has politics already gotten in the way of good healthcare? On Monday, a government task force said that most women don't need mammograms in their 40’s and should get one every two years starting at 50. This is a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position. What's more, the panel said breast self-exams do no good, and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

At a time when more and more women are finding early diagnosis of breast cancer the difference between life and death, this government task force’s findings seem insane. Is the plan to let women in their 30’s and 40’s go virtually unchecked, potentially missing any chance of early detection? If mammograms are not an effective tool, then where is the prescription of another diagnostic method? There is no mention of other scans or DNA/RNA cataloging.

False positives, and cost per life, are not a good enough reason for sticking our heads in the sand. This is politics at its worst. If this diagnostic technology doesn’t work, then why keep it for women in their 50’s? Once again, this is about conservation and reduced consumption, but this time it isn’t about light bulbs or gasoline. It’s about the lives of our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters. Washington, spend more time funding and approving better diagnostic technology and less time on rationing.

You know maybe if they found a cure for Cancer none of us would have to worry about it anymore but since there is no money to be made in curing a disease like cancer.....You get the picture

 

[top gun]

Re: Breast Cancer Disagnostic Rationing

When you take something away and don't offer an alternative, that is rationing. When you choose who gets it and who doesn't, that is rationing. That is what this panel is doing. The first response by the White House was to support the findings. They then revised themselves after the mainstream media went crazy.

The whole point is that they didn't suggest an alternative. They just suggested it was unnecessary. They are a government appointed panel. This is exactly the type of panel referenced throughout the House bill that will be deciding care standards and practices. Can you see where my concern comes from.

Should we have more statistically effective diagnostics, YES! Until they are offered, this is what we've got and if it only saves one life out of one million then so be it. You want the job of telling a 42 year mother of 3 that she can't have a mammogram because she's on a government plan and the panel doesn't think she deserves a 1 in a million chance?

What are you talking about???

They gave a statistical evaluation. That WAS the alturnative from their study. If an insurance company says statistically you are more likely to die in a roll over crash in an SUV than a passenger car does that mean no one should ever buy an SUV? Of course not. It's what the NUMBERS said that they are simply reporting.

I guess it could be that lying has become so embedded in the Right that they would have suppressed these findings... maybe that's it. But I'd rather have ALL the information, compare studies and let women & their doctors decide on their own. Personal family history is often a major subcategory that gets deserved special attention.

Don't you guys ever take a day off from just trying to scare the American public... seriously?

 

[top gun]

You know maybe if they found a cure for Cancer none of us would have to worry about it anymore but since there is no money to be made in curing a disease like cancer.....You get the picture

Now you're just talking CRAZY TALK!

You mean spend government money to find a cure? That's not want the Right wants. They want to take AWAY medical research money and force private industry to plug along at about one tenth of it's current pace.

Republicants spending to find a cure... you're killin' me!

Most of the time they don't even know what the job is let alone cure anything.

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: Breast Cancer Disagnostic Rationing

The administration has already come forward and said that is not the case.

Just heard our Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius talk about it a few minutes ago on the news. It's just one study and one recommendation.

Y'all can turn the fear super soakers off now. JEZZ!

What is the purpose of a government panel recommendations if not to make policy?

 

[Dr.Who]

While Republicans just want 36 million Americans to have NO... ZERO Healthcare at all.

Are you really the same person who has been complaining about fearmongering?

The republicans do not want 36 million americans to have no health care. They don't want anyone not to have health care.

The false counts of the people without health care have always been wrong. The numbers of people without insurance have ranged from 10 - 45 but the real amount of people without insurance should be about 13 million. The important number, the count of people without access to health care is already zero.

Not a single US citizen does not have access to health care in this country. The 13 million without insurance have health care.

The gov wants to spend almost 900 billion (plus the billions that are hidden) to provide health care to 13 million people who already have it.


How much does that come to per person?

And part of that plan is to cut medicare by 400 billion which they either can never do or which would be a catastrophe for those on medicare.

 

[top gun]

Re: Breast Cancer Disagnostic Rationing

What is the purpose of a government panel recommendations if not to make policy?

I can tell you this.

The EXACT same recommendation was made to the Clinton administration & the Bush administration. They just did a complete history & breakdown of it on the ED Show 11/19/09 at about 6:35 pm.

So if this is the policy maker would you not grant me that it is the slowest mover of policy of all time!

It's just a statistical analysis. And it must be dead on correct because through now 3 administrations Democrat & Republican it's been exactly the same

 

[asur]

It appears the public outcry has gotten the Obama admin spooked.

Now Kathleen Sebelius is saying she doesn't agree with the recommendation.
A couple days ago she did, go figure!

Talking out of both sides of their mouths, the Obama administration.

 

[top gun]

Are you really the same person who has been complaining about fearmongering?

The republicans do not want 36 million americans to have no health care. They don't want anyone not to have health care.

The false counts of the people without health care have always been wrong. The numbers of people without insurance have ranged from 10 - 45 but the real amount of people without insurance should be about 13 million. The important number, the count of people without access to health care is already zero.

Not a single US citizen does not have access to health care in this country. The 13 million without insurance have health care.

The gov wants to spend almost 900 billion (plus the billions that are hidden) to provide health care to 13 million people who already have it.


How much does that come to per person?

And part of that plan is to cut medicare by 400 billion which they either can never do or which would be a catastrophe for those on medicare.

I have to say it. You are just not being honest and that's not fearmongering.

You play with the numbers trying to break up the uninsured into all kinds of subgroups trying to say "they could" get coverage from somewhere and then lop the rest into the Emergency Room and say... See everyone has quality healthcare.

That's simply a lie. There are and estimated 36 million American citizens that right now as we speak for whatever reason DO NOT HAVE HEATHCARE INSURANCE.

If they don't want it then they're just dropping their eventual debt on me and everyone else WITH insurance.

If it isn't offered to them at work that's self explanatory.

If they can't afford it they still don't have it.

This ain't Vegas and you ain't no David Copperfield. Your Republicant smoke & mirrors tricks will not work this time. There will be Health Insurance Reform for the benefit of the American people.

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: Breast Cancer Disagnostic Rationing

I can tell you this.

The EXACT same recommendation was made to the Clinton administration & the Bush administration. They just did a complete history & breakdown of it on the ED Show 11/19/09 at about 6:35 pm.

So if this is the policy maker would you not grant me that it is the slowest mover of policy of all time!

It's just a statistical analysis. And it must be dead on correct because through now 3 administrations Democrat & Republican it's been exactly the same

OK, so you have not said that the purpose of it is not to make policy.

Just that is might be real slow - is that a surprise that a gov beuracracy would be slow?

 

[Dr.Who]

It appears the public outcry has gotten the Obama admin spooked.

Now Kathleen Sebelius is saying she doesn't agree with the recommendation.
A couple days ago she did, go figure!

Talking out of both sides of their mouths, the Obama administration.

The same thing is going to happen with the alleged 400 billion in medicare cuts. They may happen stealthily but in public they will never see the light of day.

 

[Dr.Who]

I have to say it. You are just not being honest and that's not fearmongering.

You play with the numbers trying to break up the uninsured into all kinds of subgroups trying to say "they could" get coverage from somewhere and then lop the rest into the Emergency Room and say... See everyone has quality healthcare.

That's simply a lie.

I never said that there are not people who lack quality in their healtcare - many of the people on public aid and medicare lack quality.

There are and estimated 36 million American citizens that right now as we speak for whatever reason DO NOT HAVE HEATHCARE INSURANCE.

Do you obfuscate the difference between insurance and health care on purpose?

All; everyone; every single American has access to health care weather they have insurance or not!! I have no doubt that millions don't have insurance. But they have health care. And walking into an ER is not the only means they have so don't just spit that out as a talking point.

If they don't want it then they're just dropping their eventual debt on me and everyone else WITH insurance.

Not everyone without insurance is going to incur large debts that get passed on to the rest of us. And of those that do incur debt many of them will actually pay it.

If it isn't offered to them at work that's self explanatory.

If insurance is not offered to them at work then they would not have employer offered insurance. But they might be on their spouses policy, they might buy it themselves, they might just pay out of pocket for their health care, they might have medicare or medicaid, and lastly a small percentage of them might just refuse to pay their bills forcing the hospitals to pass the costs on to others - but they all have care.

If they can't afford it they still don't have it

.

If they can't afford insurance then they don't have it? OK, but they still have health care.

This ain't Vegas and you ain't no David Copperfield. Your Republicant smoke & mirrors tricks will not work this time. There will be Health Insurance Reform for the benefit of the American people.

If so it will be the single worst piece of legislation to occur in the history of our nation so far. Then after the dems get swept out of office there will be an uphill battle to repeal it.

(Dont you all just love how the blue and the black font get all messed up whenever one responds to TOP's posts?)

 

[top gun]

Re: Breast Cancer Disagnostic Rationing

OK, so you have not said that the purpose of it is not to make policy.

Just that is might be real slow - is that a surprise that a gov beuracracy would be slow?

A study is a study. A combination of many things of which including various studies is only a part, help form a policy.

Is that not exactly as it should be? You'd rather not scientifically study it? Just guess or do what seems most popular. That's kinda crazy.

The very fact that these numbers were presented to both the Clinton & Bush and now the Obama administration shows clearly there is no rush to judgment.

There are women in their teens that get breast cancer, men that get breast cancer... should we have the policy cover them for testing even though the numbers are minuscule? The fact is there will always be someone outside the normal testing group. All studies do is try and hone in on what is best and most productive.

You guys do our county a disservice when you intentionally build mole hills into mountains trying to achieve nothing more than undeserved political points.

 

[Dr.Who]

I never watch the videos you post because I don't feel like wasting minutes of my life but since I have repeatedly stated that no one can give an example of any one who does not have health care I wanted to watch a video that was labeled " Real People Denied Health Care"

That video is the story of Cynthia Cambell. In her own words she says that she has health insurance and that they are paying her bills. Her husband says that they are having to fight with the insurance company because they bought what is called a short term policy and it is due to run out. Imagine that a policy with a deadline is going to expire. They also mention that their bills have been paid for at least 8 months - what we don't know is whether or not the deadline already passed and they were lucky enough to get an extension because that is what it sounds like.

In short, one more example of a person without health care held up and shown to be a fabrication.

I would add that in 2 months when her insurance company stops paying for her care that she and her husband will still have care because it appears that they both are employed or were employed so they have assets to draw on. If for some reason they run out of assets then she will be able to apply for public aid and she will not be without health care yet again.

At the opening of the video Cynthia says it is like going into a restaurant paying for your meal and if you ever dare expect them to serve it you won't be allowed in the restaurant again. The reality is that she paid for her meal and ate it, now she wants a free meal.

 

[Dr.Who]

Hey, now a panel has decided that cervical cancer screenings don't need to be done either.

So just who is trying not to serve meals?