Obama Hellcare Begins: Fewer Mammograms

[Old Rocks]

Yup, a taste of what is coming .
vaccine shortages and now shifting policies that hurt the poor.

Vaccine shortages caused by the fact that we have no vaccine producing facilities in the US operating at present. We are dependent on Canada and France.

 

[Emma]

I watched a doctor explain this on TV.

If there is no genetic disposition towards cancer, meaining no one in your family has ever had cancer, then wait until 50. It was just that simple.

The reason is because mamograms expose breasts to high levels of radiation, which in turn, get this, could cause cancer.

What I found concerning is that half are false positives, meaning women are being exposed to further completely unnecessary diagnostics and treatments (not to mention the emotional hell they go through during this time). As I mentioned above, that happened with my own mother.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I watched a doctor explain this on TV.

If there is no genetic disposition towards cancer, meaining no one in your family has ever had cancer, then wait until 50. It was just that simple.

The reason is because mamograms expose breasts to high levels of radiation, which in turn, get this, could cause cancer.

What I found concerning is that half are false positives, meaning women are being exposed to further completely unnecessary diagnostics and treatments (not to mention the emotional hell they go through during this time). As I mentioned above, that happened with my own mother.

So it's better to have undiagnosed and untreated cancer than a false positive?

 

[Care4all]

I think the gvt agency is wrong on this....wrong and right to some degree....

true there are many false positives, and true 10 years of your annual radiation dose for the mammogram could cause other adverse effects...and true the false positives make other test be done with more radiation....

HOWEVER, I believe that having the mammograms for women over the age of 40 still saves more lives than not having it done yearly.....

Regardless, this is NOT so the government can save tax payer's money....Medicare is for those over 65 years old and our government would not be saving on this for them, because they are not affected by this gvt agencies recommendation for 40 and 50 yr olds.

 

[Polk]

it doesn't save the gvt any money on medicare.... medicare is for seniors, not 40 or 50 year olds...

insurance companies changed their routine screening to 50 years old already....i noticed it on last year's insurance.

this has NOTHING to do with obama.... you guys are getting to the point of not being listened to anymore with all of your whining and FALSE claims of blame....why not save it, for when honestly deserved? too easy to blame all or your worries on to one person, eh?

Why let that get in the way of a good OUTRAGE! session?

 

[American Horse]

I think the gvt agency is wrong on this....wrong and right to some degree....

true there are many false positives, and true 10 years of your annual radiation dose for the mammogram could cause other adverse effects...and true the false positives make other test be done with more radiation....

HOWEVER, I believe that having the mammograms for women over the age of 40 still saves more lives than not having it done yearly.....

Regardless, this is NOT so the government can save tax payer's money....Medicare is for those over 65 years old and our government would not be saving on this for them, because they are not affected by this gvt agencies recommendation for 40 and 50 yr olds.

Every Democratic version of ObamaCare makes this task force an arbiter of the benefits that private insurers will be required to cover as they are converted into government contractors.

Not applicable to Medicare? Medicare generally adopts this panel's recommendations when it makes coverage decisions for seniors, and its judgments also play a large role in the private insurance markets. Yes, people could pay for mammography out of pocket. but will they be able to pay out of pocket if they are part of ObamaCare?

And how about their recommendation to cut off screening of women 75 and older? This has all the signs of an economic decision: The committee notes that the benefits of screening "occur only several years after the actual screening test, whereas the percentage of women who survive long enough to benefit decreases with age." It adds that "women of this age are at much greater risk for dying of other conditions that would not be affected by breast cancer screening."

We already know that these kinds of cost analyses will inevitably become more common as government decides where a limited number of tax dollars are allowed to go.

 

[Emma]

I watched a doctor explain this on TV.

If there is no genetic disposition towards cancer, meaining no one in your family has ever had cancer, then wait until 50. It was just that simple.

The reason is because mamograms expose breasts to high levels of radiation, which in turn, get this, could cause cancer.

What I found concerning is that half are false positives, meaning women are being exposed to further completely unnecessary diagnostics and treatments (not to mention the emotional hell they go through during this time). As I mentioned above, that happened with my own mother.

So it's better to have undiagnosed and untreated cancer than a false positive?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[HUGGY]

I think the gvt agency is wrong on this....wrong and right to some degree....

true there are many false positives, and true 10 years of your annual radiation dose for the mammogram could cause other adverse effects...and true the false positives make other test be done with more radiation....

HOWEVER, I believe that having the mammograms for women over the age of 40 still saves more lives than not having it done yearly.....

Regardless, this is NOT so the government can save tax payer's money....Medicare is for those over 65 years old and our government would not be saving on this for them, because they are not affected by this gvt agencies recommendation for 40 and 50 yr olds.

It was not a government agency.

 

[oreo]

They want to cut down on prostrate cancer screening as well.

They figure screening won't stop you from getting it.

That's the rationale to everything.

Your gonna die anyway.

Who was it who wanted the sick to "die fast"? Wasn't that supposed to be the Republicans? Don't tell me we finally have bipartisan support for something!!!

Women under 50 get no mammograms--I don't think Republcans ever recommended that-- This comes from the people YOU VOTED FOR--Da duh! It's only to control cost.

Being a breast cancer survivor myself mine was caught off of a routine mammogram--(very early when I was 45 years old.) If not I would have not have made it until I was 50 years old for discovery. I would have been DEAD.

At 45 I was extremely healthy--an avid excerciser & ate healthy. This disease has absolutely no discrimination for age. We are even finding more & more cases in women in their 30's.

Yearly mammograms starting at 39 years old, & younger if you have a family history of this disease & monthly breast self-exams are why this disease is currently 99% completely curable. Because we currently catch it in it's early stages.

These FREAKIN MORONS.

 

[oreo]

I watched a doctor explain this on TV.

If there is no genetic disposition towards cancer, meaining no one in your family has ever had cancer, then wait until 50. It was just that simple.

The reason is because mamograms expose breasts to high levels of radiation, which in turn, get this, could cause cancer.

80% of the women diagnosed with BREAST CANCER in this country HAVE NO FAMILY HISTORY OF IT.

THAT IS A FACT!

I know--I am one of them. Mine was caught on a mammogram when I was 45 years old, as millions of other women under 50 who got this disease.

The doctor you heard is full of s...!