Mammograms increase breast cancer risk due to the cumulative radiation. Women should be made aware of the very safe and, in fact, more accurate screening methods of thermography and/or MRI. Mammograms are big business and no one wants to admit this - they are advertised and promoted with free "giveaways" to entice women to have them. The advice to have mammograms later and less often is good advice, but better advice would be to utilize the other options.
If you care to educate yourself, you could go to the websites of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the National Women's Health Network or Breast Cancer Action. They are all strong advocates for women's health and they all agree with these findings.
And you don't think that private insurance companies aren't rationing care and denying coverage right now? This panel didn't say anything about not covering the procedure. If anyone stops coverage, it will be the insurance cos.
I guess you think this is a big gotcha. These people, who know a hell of a lot more than either of us about the subject, think our health care system is flawed so they supported the candidate who would try to do something about it.
Again, since I can't use big pictures with duckies and horsies: They were appointed by the Bush administration. Before Obama was president. Whatever they did had nothing to do with Obama even if (dramatic organ music) they supported Obama for president.
this is just plain incoherent. if the 16 people who wrote this finding were all appointed before obama was president, how is this obama's fault again? or are they all secret muslims born in kenya?
Gee I scanned my post many times looking for the phrase "technology doesn't make a difference." Nope, not there. I said being the leader in technology doesn't make you the leader in health care.
Wow, I didn't realize I was arguing with John Jay. Quite an honor. First, of all, I didn't bring up the Constitution, I just pointed out that defense isn't the only power given the government.
As for your poorly reasoned second point, many people go through their whole lives without needing a lawyer. Very few make it far without medical care. Plus, an individual's health has a far greater impact on the health of others than does his legal status.
Ah, the old love it or leave it argument. Well played, my backward friend.
Coming up with new technology doesn't make you the leader in health care when your people are dying for lack of health care. And if you think it's only "them" who are vulnerable, you live in a world that is long gone by.
Again, I say, try going to England or France or Japan or Germany or the dozens of other countries and run for office on a platform of switching to the American system. I'm not talking about limited private plans for optional procedures or nice hospital rooms. I'm talking the wonderful American plan where you pay your insurance company for decades and are still ruined if you have a major medical condition.
And I realize you get confused when your own muddled thinking is thrown back at you.
Thanks for the festival of stereotypes. I thought Archie Bunker was dead. If you think it's only the homeless poor who are uninsured or underinsured, you are deluded. Again, many of the people on this line HAD insurance.
The group running this clinics started as a service in third-world countries. Which, in regards to health care, we now are.
So, let me get this straight. In England, as well as the dozens of other sane countries that have universal health care, they have to line up at 4 am and they are dying left and right while they wait for services. But if you were there, you wouldn't want to switch.
Nobody is dying from lack of insurance? You may actually be the only person on earth who truly believes that. By the way, the sun actually rises in the East.
As for people in the US doing that, it happened in Los Angeles in the parking lot of the Forum when a group dispensing free health care hit here on its national tour. Any many of the people on line said they HAD insurance but couldn't afford the out-of-pockets.
OK, I will try to speak slowly and clearly, as if to a child. I wasn't speaking of the nomination process, which frankly, I don't care about. They are ultimately appointed by the administration.
The larger point on this inane debate is that you tried to tie these people to Obama, which clearly is absurd. They have nothing to do with Obama. The fact that you can't acknowledge your error tells us plenty about you, does it not?
First of all, the government doesn't have to RUN healthcare. We can fund it through the government and get rid of the greedy, inefficient middleman.
The military is the government. The police and fire are the government. You for privatizing those? Sorry, we're not going to respond to your emergency call. Your bad neighborhood is a pre-existing condition.
You may have mentioned the only things the government does that are constitional, providng for the common defense. I'm not sure how insurance companies are "middlemen". Wouldn't eliminating insurance companies leave only providers and patients? How would that work?
You must have skipped the part of the Constitution (right after defense) of promoting the general welfare.
True health care reform could work in a number of ways, as it does around the world. Some countries still have insurance companies, but they can't be for profit. Or the govt. sets all the prices. A few have the govt actually run the system. Some have the govt pay for it, but all hospitals are still privately run.
Health care for profit makes no more sense than firefighting for profit.
"Promote" the general welfare, does not mean PROVIDE it. But, let's not stop there. Perhaps we should "provide" errr.. I mean promote mandatory car insurance, life insurance (all non-profit of course). Let's also buy everyone a new car while we're at it. In fact, if I can't afford one, you should give me yours if you have more than one. Car companies should be non-profit too. Let's just go ahead and remove all incentives and competition, I'm sure that will improve products and services..
Promote the general welfare means the government can act for far more than simply defense, as you originally stated.
The rest of the industrialized world has concluded that health should be viewed as a public service, like police, fire etc. Health for profit is unworkable because covering the sick, the old and the poor will never make sense from a market standpoint. They will ALWAYS cost more than they put in. I just don't buy your answer to that, which appears to be "tough shit."
The rest of the "industrialized" World are not beholden to the US Constitution. Again, promote does not mean provide. I can provide for my own coverage for sickness and old age. Keep the government out of my health care--I don't want their help!!! As far as the poor are concerned, don't we already have Medicaid for them? The military is "provided" (vice "promoted") under the Constitution. Words mean things under the law otherwise they would have used "provide" in all cases. They didn't!
If you are trying to argue that all govt aid programs, including subsidies for businesses and tax credits for homeowners and the GI Bill of Rights are unconstiutional, go for it. Don't think you'll get too far.
As for you, I assume you will be declining your Medicare. By the way, imagine what shape seniors would be in today if Medicare hadn't passed. If they were in the marketplace, trying to buy coverage with no job and, in most cases, pre-existing conditions. Not pretty.
I didn't argue for that at all. I said that "promote" is not a mandate to "provide" entitlements under the Constitution. I also said I could provide for my own needs with the money the government takes from me. I am not counting on Medicare doing anything for me since it may not be there when I need it.
Business tax credits and the GI bill are not government aid. The former is money the company already made that the government is simply not taking. The latter is an employment benefit.
Your distinction between promoting and providing is moot. If the government determines that promoting the general welfare involves providing benefits, it is well within its rights.
I'm curious. Have you or anyone under your coverage had a major medical condition, the kind that involves over $100,000 costs. If you were facing bankruptcy, even with coverage, would you have the same attitude? Because that's the reality for many.
Individual rights are protected under the Constitution. There are no "group" rights and certainly not any "government rights", especially if their actions infringe upon individual liberty or overstep into areas under the purview of the States. My feelings are not material in the debate nor do they change the law.
Ah, it's the old canard about how bad things are in England. Just go over there and try to run for Parliament on a platform of switching to the American health care system. Good luck with that.
There is no crisis. Well, I suppose that ends the debate. If you can't see the problem, you are beyond help. If you're willing to see your fellow citizens die for lack of coverage and be financially ruined even when they do have coverage, well, I'm thankful I have a little more humanity than that.
For mt humanity? Do that every day. For health care? We're paying for it now. We're going to pay either way. We can pay dumb like we do now, lining the pockets of insurance companies and getting lousy results, or we can wise up like the rest of the industrialized world.
OK, at first your misinformation was mildly amusing. Now, it's getting annoying. They are appointed through the HHS, which is part of the administration. All 16 were appointed by the Bush administration. Not by George personally. They couldn't pull him away from his video games.
If you don't understand that the US pays grotesquely more for its health care than every industrialized nation, you are, in a word, delusional. Beyond the reach of rational thought. And if you think the best that this country, the most powerful on earth, can do is a society where people WITH health coverage line up at 4 a.m for a free clinic because they can't afford the out-of-pocket costs, that is beyond sad. You take a very dim view of this country if you think that's the best we can do.
You should read the assessment of this study from Susan Love in today's LA Times. She is the founder of a research foundation dedicated solely to the elimination of breast cancer. She doesn't endorse or reject the final conclusion of the panel, but she explains that there is a strong medical rationale for it. But of course I'm sure you know more about the subject than a medical professional who has spent her career focusing on the disease.
Your mind appears muddled. You act like rationing is the bogeyman, then acknowledge that rationing is fine as long your coveted "private enterprise" is doing it. Free enterprise is clearly not more efficient than the govt. The US pays far, far more than countries with govt. funded/ controlled healthcare and we have worse outcomes. You may kneel before the altar of insurance companies. Rational people don't.
I see. So since you think that it's a terrible idea not to cover mammograms and since you say the private insurers can stop covering them whenever their accountants tell them it's not proftable, I can only conclude you favor single-payer universal coverage. Congratulations! You have seen the light!
Certainly, you would have to favor the bill by leftys Nadler and Wasserman-Schultz that would mandate insurance companies coverage of routine mammograms.
Again, I don't know if I agree with the final conclusion. But this is a panel consisting largely of doctors, half of whom are women. Their explanation was based on medicine, that there are negative impacts associated with the test that should be considered. Something tells me that if the insurance industry had announced they were dropping coverage based on the same reasons, you wouldn't have a problem with it.
And MY point wasn't that these were all bad guys (and girls) because they were appointed by Bush. It was that you began this whole thread by tying the conclusion of the panel to Obama. And NONE of these people were appointed by Obama.
I'm not here to agree or disagree with the findings but it is based on fact. Women of that age are far more likely to get false positives and than to be saved. Does that mean it shouldn't be covered? No, but they didn't just pull this out of their asses.
Government shouldn't fabricate data to get out of paying for diseases? They're not paying for it, except for Medicare. As you point out, if mammogram coverage is dropped, it will be by insurance companies, not the government.
Not sure what your point was here. They are ultimately appointed through HHS. And none of these people have anything to do with Obama or the health reform bill.
First, of all, every memnber of this panel was appointed by Bush, NONE by Obama. Second, this recommendation was made, right or wrong, for medical reasons. Third, you don't think care isn't being rationed every day right now by insurance companies? And they are NOT doing it for medical reasons. Fourth, in the extremely unlikely event mammograms stop being covered, the cost is under $200. That's not nothing, but it's hardly catastrophic.
Mammograms (using X-rays) aren't healthy and there is no solid evidence that they save lives. According to Dr Mercola, thermography or thermal imaging is a much safer option. I wonder how many women have actually developed breast cancer because of routine mammograms...
Mammograms increase breast cancer risk due to the cumulative radiation. Women should be made aware of the very safe and, in fact, more accurate screening methods of thermography and/or MRI. Mammograms are big business and no one wants to admit this - they are advertised and promoted with free "giveaways" to entice women to have them. The advice to have mammograms later and less often is good advice, but better advice would be to utilize the other options.
wendyhum 1 year ago
mammograms dont worry bout em.cancer take some vitamin e.heart condition eat garlic. thats your new healthcare buddy get use to it.
boopster1000 2 years ago
If you care to educate yourself, you could go to the websites of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the National Women's Health Network or Breast Cancer Action. They are all strong advocates for women's health and they all agree with these findings.
And you don't think that private insurance companies aren't rationing care and denying coverage right now? This panel didn't say anything about not covering the procedure. If anyone stops coverage, it will be the insurance cos.
tishhead 2 years ago
Yeah, gee, I hate people who do that.
tishhead 2 years ago
I would think that being as unburdened by serious thought as you are, you would be more at peace. But you are just plain cranky.
tishhead 2 years ago
I guess you think this is a big gotcha. These people, who know a hell of a lot more than either of us about the subject, think our health care system is flawed so they supported the candidate who would try to do something about it.
Again, since I can't use big pictures with duckies and horsies: They were appointed by the Bush administration. Before Obama was president. Whatever they did had nothing to do with Obama even if (dramatic organ music) they supported Obama for president.
Geez.
tishhead 2 years ago
this is just plain incoherent. if the 16 people who wrote this finding were all appointed before obama was president, how is this obama's fault again? or are they all secret muslims born in kenya?
tishhead 2 years ago
Gee I scanned my post many times looking for the phrase "technology doesn't make a difference." Nope, not there. I said being the leader in technology doesn't make you the leader in health care.
tishhead 2 years ago
Wow, I didn't realize I was arguing with John Jay. Quite an honor. First, of all, I didn't bring up the Constitution, I just pointed out that defense isn't the only power given the government.
As for your poorly reasoned second point, many people go through their whole lives without needing a lawyer. Very few make it far without medical care. Plus, an individual's health has a far greater impact on the health of others than does his legal status.
tishhead 2 years ago
Ah, the old love it or leave it argument. Well played, my backward friend.
Coming up with new technology doesn't make you the leader in health care when your people are dying for lack of health care. And if you think it's only "them" who are vulnerable, you live in a world that is long gone by.
tishhead 2 years ago
Again, I say, try going to England or France or Japan or Germany or the dozens of other countries and run for office on a platform of switching to the American system. I'm not talking about limited private plans for optional procedures or nice hospital rooms. I'm talking the wonderful American plan where you pay your insurance company for decades and are still ruined if you have a major medical condition.
And I realize you get confused when your own muddled thinking is thrown back at you.
tishhead 2 years ago
Thanks for the festival of stereotypes. I thought Archie Bunker was dead. If you think it's only the homeless poor who are uninsured or underinsured, you are deluded. Again, many of the people on this line HAD insurance.
The group running this clinics started as a service in third-world countries. Which, in regards to health care, we now are.
tishhead 2 years ago
So, let me get this straight. In England, as well as the dozens of other sane countries that have universal health care, they have to line up at 4 am and they are dying left and right while they wait for services. But if you were there, you wouldn't want to switch.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
tishhead 2 years ago
Nobody is dying from lack of insurance? You may actually be the only person on earth who truly believes that. By the way, the sun actually rises in the East.
As for people in the US doing that, it happened in Los Angeles in the parking lot of the Forum when a group dispensing free health care hit here on its national tour. Any many of the people on line said they HAD insurance but couldn't afford the out-of-pockets.
tishhead 2 years ago
Medicaid
Mikevdog 2 years ago
OK, I will try to speak slowly and clearly, as if to a child. I wasn't speaking of the nomination process, which frankly, I don't care about. They are ultimately appointed by the administration.
The larger point on this inane debate is that you tried to tie these people to Obama, which clearly is absurd. They have nothing to do with Obama. The fact that you can't acknowledge your error tells us plenty about you, does it not?
tishhead 2 years ago
The government can't run anything without messing it up
Mikevdog 2 years ago
First of all, the government doesn't have to RUN healthcare. We can fund it through the government and get rid of the greedy, inefficient middleman.
The military is the government. The police and fire are the government. You for privatizing those? Sorry, we're not going to respond to your emergency call. Your bad neighborhood is a pre-existing condition.
tishhead 2 years ago
You may have mentioned the only things the government does that are constitional, providng for the common defense. I'm not sure how insurance companies are "middlemen". Wouldn't eliminating insurance companies leave only providers and patients? How would that work?
Mikevdog 2 years ago
You must have skipped the part of the Constitution (right after defense) of promoting the general welfare.
True health care reform could work in a number of ways, as it does around the world. Some countries still have insurance companies, but they can't be for profit. Or the govt. sets all the prices. A few have the govt actually run the system. Some have the govt pay for it, but all hospitals are still privately run.
Health care for profit makes no more sense than firefighting for profit.
tishhead 2 years ago
"Promote" the general welfare, does not mean PROVIDE it. But, let's not stop there. Perhaps we should "provide" errr.. I mean promote mandatory car insurance, life insurance (all non-profit of course). Let's also buy everyone a new car while we're at it. In fact, if I can't afford one, you should give me yours if you have more than one. Car companies should be non-profit too. Let's just go ahead and remove all incentives and competition, I'm sure that will improve products and services..
Mikevdog 2 years ago
Promote the general welfare means the government can act for far more than simply defense, as you originally stated.
The rest of the industrialized world has concluded that health should be viewed as a public service, like police, fire etc. Health for profit is unworkable because covering the sick, the old and the poor will never make sense from a market standpoint. They will ALWAYS cost more than they put in. I just don't buy your answer to that, which appears to be "tough shit."
tishhead 2 years ago
The rest of the "industrialized" World are not beholden to the US Constitution. Again, promote does not mean provide. I can provide for my own coverage for sickness and old age. Keep the government out of my health care--I don't want their help!!! As far as the poor are concerned, don't we already have Medicaid for them? The military is "provided" (vice "promoted") under the Constitution. Words mean things under the law otherwise they would have used "provide" in all cases. They didn't!
Mikevdog 2 years ago
If you are trying to argue that all govt aid programs, including subsidies for businesses and tax credits for homeowners and the GI Bill of Rights are unconstiutional, go for it. Don't think you'll get too far.
As for you, I assume you will be declining your Medicare. By the way, imagine what shape seniors would be in today if Medicare hadn't passed. If they were in the marketplace, trying to buy coverage with no job and, in most cases, pre-existing conditions. Not pretty.
tishhead 2 years ago
Actually, my bad (and your worse). Article 1, Sect. 8 actually uses the word provide, not promote, in relation to the general welfare of the country.
tishhead 2 years ago
I didn't argue for that at all. I said that "promote" is not a mandate to "provide" entitlements under the Constitution. I also said I could provide for my own needs with the money the government takes from me. I am not counting on Medicare doing anything for me since it may not be there when I need it.
Business tax credits and the GI bill are not government aid. The former is money the company already made that the government is simply not taking. The latter is an employment benefit.
Mikevdog 2 years ago
Your distinction between promoting and providing is moot. If the government determines that promoting the general welfare involves providing benefits, it is well within its rights.
I'm curious. Have you or anyone under your coverage had a major medical condition, the kind that involves over $100,000 costs. If you were facing bankruptcy, even with coverage, would you have the same attitude? Because that's the reality for many.
tishhead 2 years ago
Individual rights are protected under the Constitution. There are no "group" rights and certainly not any "government rights", especially if their actions infringe upon individual liberty or overstep into areas under the purview of the States. My feelings are not material in the debate nor do they change the law.
Mikevdog 2 years ago
Ah, it's the old canard about how bad things are in England. Just go over there and try to run for Parliament on a platform of switching to the American health care system. Good luck with that.
There is no crisis. Well, I suppose that ends the debate. If you can't see the problem, you are beyond help. If you're willing to see your fellow citizens die for lack of coverage and be financially ruined even when they do have coverage, well, I'm thankful I have a little more humanity than that.
tishhead 2 years ago
Good. Are you willing to pay for it?
Mikevdog 2 years ago
For mt humanity? Do that every day. For health care? We're paying for it now. We're going to pay either way. We can pay dumb like we do now, lining the pockets of insurance companies and getting lousy results, or we can wise up like the rest of the industrialized world.
tishhead 2 years ago
OK, at first your misinformation was mildly amusing. Now, it's getting annoying. They are appointed through the HHS, which is part of the administration. All 16 were appointed by the Bush administration. Not by George personally. They couldn't pull him away from his video games.
tishhead 2 years ago
If you don't understand that the US pays grotesquely more for its health care than every industrialized nation, you are, in a word, delusional. Beyond the reach of rational thought. And if you think the best that this country, the most powerful on earth, can do is a society where people WITH health coverage line up at 4 a.m for a free clinic because they can't afford the out-of-pocket costs, that is beyond sad. You take a very dim view of this country if you think that's the best we can do.
tishhead 2 years ago
You should read the assessment of this study from Susan Love in today's LA Times. She is the founder of a research foundation dedicated solely to the elimination of breast cancer. She doesn't endorse or reject the final conclusion of the panel, but she explains that there is a strong medical rationale for it. But of course I'm sure you know more about the subject than a medical professional who has spent her career focusing on the disease.
tishhead 2 years ago
Your mind appears muddled. You act like rationing is the bogeyman, then acknowledge that rationing is fine as long your coveted "private enterprise" is doing it. Free enterprise is clearly not more efficient than the govt. The US pays far, far more than countries with govt. funded/ controlled healthcare and we have worse outcomes. You may kneel before the altar of insurance companies. Rational people don't.
tishhead 2 years ago
I see. So since you think that it's a terrible idea not to cover mammograms and since you say the private insurers can stop covering them whenever their accountants tell them it's not proftable, I can only conclude you favor single-payer universal coverage. Congratulations! You have seen the light!
Certainly, you would have to favor the bill by leftys Nadler and Wasserman-Schultz that would mandate insurance companies coverage of routine mammograms.
tishhead 2 years ago
Again, I don't know if I agree with the final conclusion. But this is a panel consisting largely of doctors, half of whom are women. Their explanation was based on medicine, that there are negative impacts associated with the test that should be considered. Something tells me that if the insurance industry had announced they were dropping coverage based on the same reasons, you wouldn't have a problem with it.
tishhead 2 years ago
And MY point wasn't that these were all bad guys (and girls) because they were appointed by Bush. It was that you began this whole thread by tying the conclusion of the panel to Obama. And NONE of these people were appointed by Obama.
tishhead 2 years ago
Obama is in charge now. Let's see what he does.
Mikevdog 2 years ago
I'm not here to agree or disagree with the findings but it is based on fact. Women of that age are far more likely to get false positives and than to be saved. Does that mean it shouldn't be covered? No, but they didn't just pull this out of their asses.
Government shouldn't fabricate data to get out of paying for diseases? They're not paying for it, except for Medicare. As you point out, if mammogram coverage is dropped, it will be by insurance companies, not the government.
tishhead 2 years ago
Not sure what your point was here. They are ultimately appointed through HHS. And none of these people have anything to do with Obama or the health reform bill.
tishhead 2 years ago
First, of all, every memnber of this panel was appointed by Bush, NONE by Obama. Second, this recommendation was made, right or wrong, for medical reasons. Third, you don't think care isn't being rationed every day right now by insurance companies? And they are NOT doing it for medical reasons. Fourth, in the extremely unlikely event mammograms stop being covered, the cost is under $200. That's not nothing, but it's hardly catastrophic.
tishhead 2 years ago
$200 here $200 there, pretty soon we're talking real money.
Mikevdog 2 years ago
Mammograms (using X-rays) aren't healthy and there is no solid evidence that they save lives. According to Dr Mercola, thermography or thermal imaging is a much safer option. I wonder how many women have actually developed breast cancer because of routine mammograms...
behlec 2 years ago
My Aunt was 41yo and had Breast Cancer and Died.
Wake Uo America.
ryen1992 2 years ago
Well, this should give all American's FOR Healthcare reform a good idea about what happens when the gov't sticks it's nose where it doesn't belong!
pathu32 2 years ago
I've been debating this a lot with women lately. I keep telling them they need more breast exams and they keep telling me I'm not qualified.
BinkieMcFartnuggets 2 years ago