Posted on Tuesday, 11/17/2009 - 8:57 a.m. PST — by mac35
This information is from a government task force. They are just trying to cut costs. My twin sister and I were adopted so we don't know our family history. I had a baseline mammogram at 35 at the recommendation of my doctor with annual mammograms since I turned 40. The reality of this is that a woman's health and her healthcare should be between her and her doctor.
Joined: May 2007
Current Posts: 504
The first step in Obma Care rationing.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 2284
think this is coming at a time when: The first step in Obma Care rationing
Joined: Apr 2008
Current Posts: 314
Smokey,
I think that this is the first step in rationing. The thought of the government getting involved to this degree in a person's health care is very frightening to me. Obama Care should be tried on the executive and legislative branch of government first before they inflict it on the rest of us.
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1476
socialized medicine...and that is just the beginning.
on tv the gov justified the recommendation with...: "they find only 1 in 1900 has breast cancer"
i am also all for it to try that new system on all democrats first.
I will keep my GUNS, my FREEDOM, my MONEY, you can keep the CHANGE
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 771
502PIR, you should have bothered to actually read the article before commenting on it. It has nothing to do with rationing, and your lame 'opinion' is nothing more than propagandistic rubbish. Hardly surprising, though, coming from a right wing shill like yourself.
Joined: Apr 2008
Current Posts: 314
You might have some valid points but they are lost in the noise of your completely predictable rhetoric. May we ask you once again, please, less ad hominem attacks and more courteous and civil discussion.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 2215
If he/she is not they should be because they always take that side no matter what. As far as screening for breast cancer goes it may indeed be valid to screen at 50 without family history instead of 40 but certainly some have been saved as a result of earlier screening without any family history. I would have to look at more than one study to comment on that.
The timing of this announcement is should be looked at. I am not saying anything is wrong with it but this is a hot topic right now and we should at least look at the timing and possible motivations.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 771
Tinroof:
"The first step in Obma Care rationing."
And that is not an attack? Not "completely predictable rhetoric"? Please, give me a break. If the right wingers have a need to persist in posting such unmitigated nonsense, someone needs to respond with the truth.
This is a serious subject, and its unfortunate that the reporting done yesterday regarding this recommendation and the reasons behind it did a poor job of communicating the facts of the issue and the basis for the commission's recommendation. But using the topic to launch yet another predictable and petty partisan political attack merely cheapens the debate and obscures the real issues that deserve serious discussion on forums such as these. Your criticism is therefore misdirected, and might even be viewed as an attempt to gloss over the obviously misguided content of the post to which I was responding.
And by the way- my comments apply equally to Berlin and his "socialized medicine" attack.
Joined: Apr 2008
Current Posts: 314
ScreenName,
502PIR and berlin47112 did not personally attack anyone. They merely questioned ideas. Now as to my comment I was referring to your tendency to personally attack people who disagree with your opinions, (e.g: right wing shill’). People who feel that name calling is not conducive to civil discussions agree with me.
Just because the article does not specifically use the word rationing, does not mean that it isn’t. Some of the posters here are able to think critically and connect more than two dots.
Yes, this is a very important issue and is probably even more important to those of us whom denying a mammogram may directly affect. It is not a Democrat or Republican issue, although I suspect that you see it that way.
So, if you can be civil, explain to me how denying a woman a covered mammogram at age 40 is not rationed care, please do so.
Joined: May 2007
Current Posts: 504
Well, lets see, Add ten years before you might be eligible to get tested, and then two years instead of the current one year between tests pray tell what word or words would you use to describe that, if that isn't rationing I don't know what is. and for your information not that it matters my Wife is an R.N. with over 25 Years in this field, she has seen and treated many Women in their 20's and 30's that had been cursed with breast cancer, true the percentage in those age groups is a lot lower than a woman who is older but if it was you, your daughter or mother or anothe close friend or relative what would you think then.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 31
It seems reasonable to me. The statement is a general recommendation for women. If a woman has had breast cancer in her family then she should begin earlier and her doctor should know that. For women with no breast cancer in her family this is quite reasonable.
Joined: Jun 2009
Current Posts: 3
So according to the government, women in their 40"s are not worth saving. I would rather have 10 false alarms then miss one positive one. I have been getting mammograms since I was 40, and in my first one, a lump was found. It turned out to be nothing, but despite the stress it caused me, I was still relieved that it was found - and diagnosed.