27 replies to this topic

[asbestoshills]

Who made this study, the insurance companies, drug companies, or our gov't before they implement a national health plan....You can bet if men had the percentages of death from breast cancer as women do that they would not only have annual exams, they would have ultrasounds and mri tests included......
How irresponsible to publish this study when there are so many other studies that contradict this one.....
That's why healthcare shouldn't be motivated by profit......

[Barb J]

Who made this study, the insurance companies, drug companies, or our gov't before they implement a national health plan....You can bet if men had the percentages of death from breast cancer as women do that they would not only have annual exams, they would have ultrasounds and mri tests included......
How irresponsible to publish this study when there are so many other studies that contradict this one.....
That's why healthcare shouldn't be motivated by profit......

No, that's why healthcare shouldn't be run by the government!

[john]

yeah, I gotta say, this study seems fishy to me. There's no way in the world I can believe this is going to give a lot of women some piece of mind. I think if anything they should make the testing earlier. After all, early detection is the best prevention, is it not?

I'm concerned there's more to this...

[asbestoshills]

You NEVER hear of ANY studies that SUGGEST that men not get screened for something related to only men, such as a prostate exam........WHat's up with the studies anyways, who finances them and I don't have a very good feeling about scientists of this generation...They haven't cured shiz in the last 50 years and these pseudo studies and others like them are a waste of space...

[bordercolliefan]

The conclusion of the study was something like: for every 100 mammograms, they only catch 1 or 2 additional cancers, but something like 20 women get sent for follow-up tests, biopsies, etc. (which turn out to be unnecessary, stressful and/or painful, and expensive). [My numbers may not be exact, but that's the idea.]

Since I do believe health care needs to be rationed, I guess I should be on board with this... but personally, since my mom died of breast cancer, I'd like to be able to make my own decision about whether to get the test and risk possibly unnecessary follow-up.

It will be interesting to see if my dr. allows me to get a mammo next year (I'll be 45, and have gotten them since age 40).

[ducky]

I find this study very fishy. Moving the age up 50 years and then only recommending them every two years after that? This group also claims that breast self-exams don't save more lives either.

This study was supposedly by an independent group, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality which if you go their home page (http://www.ahrq.gov/) is under the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

I know that getting regular mammograms is one of the few things I actually like about Kaiser. They make it easy with yearly reminders and no appointment necessary.
The peace of mind for another year is priceless. Well, I guess they just put a price on it. Better get used to paying a higher price for less healthcare.

[Darth Lefty]

You NEVER hear of ANY studies that SUGGEST that men not get screened for something related to only men, such as a prostate exam...

The debate has been ongoing about prostate screening for about a year now. It's in the news all the time. Although I can see how a cultured lady might shy away from a news article whose headline contains the word "prostate".

Here, an earlier study... august 08.

The original study in the New England Journal of Medicine (Mar. 09) that kicked off the big controversy. In turn this made the front page of the New York Times, so you can't claim it's obscure or suppressed.

As this proliferates the pundits and lobbyists and advocacy groups weigh in

[asbestoshills]

I would just love to say something mean to u, and it ryhmes with rick, but I decline b/c I'm so classy....
U keep checkin' your pecker and I'll keep checkn' my ta tas!
BTW, perhaps what this group should have researched is what all rich women who have medical healtcare dollars to throw around is that ultrasound and mri's can actually prevent even more cancer, but regular middle class women will rarely see these tests given unless they are first diagnosed with a mammogram which can only diagnose some breast cancers....It's really a shame that there is the technology to save most women, but ultrasound and mri's aren't used except by the wealthy.
Even if mammograms aren't the best tech out there to diagnose early stage breast cancer, it's not like the research offered an improved way to test...Basically, the study implies that women should just basically give up on early detection....I wonder how much the lobbyist at hire got paid to try to gatekeep women's health? Americans are fat, dumb and lazy, but really are they blind too? (SARCASM)!

[ducky]

I don't think darthlefty deserves to be called anything that rhymes with anything. He posted three articles that dealt specifically with the topic you brought up about men's health.

[Dave Burrell]

I would just love to say something mean to u, and it ryhmes with rick, but I decline b/c I'm so classy....
U keep checkin' your pecker and I'll keep checkn' my ta tas!

Whoa there girlie, go easy on ol' Darth Lefty, he was just trying to help by pointing out articles that pertained to the discussion you brought up regarding men's health.

[ducky]

Hasn't the argument for government health care always been if people can see the doctor more then we can prevent illnesses from getting worse so the cost is less. Doesn't this go against that?

That's what is confusing to me. This is directly from the Organizing for America Web site.

"Eliminates extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money. "

Well, if regular preventive screenings like mammograms are dropped I guess there will be no extra charges and there's some savings right there.

My sister-in-law passed away last October after a long battle with breast cancer. She wasn't in a high-risk group, and I'm confident her early detection and treatment allowed her to live long enough to see grandchildren she wouldn't have seen otherwise. If the choice is to maybe have to undergo a biopsy that shows nothing or risk missing that extra time with a loved ones, which one would all of us choose?

[ducky]

Am I reading this wrong.......eliminating extra charges for preventive care improves health and saves money?

Nope, your reading skills are fine.

Here's where I got it.

http://www.barackoba...ues/healthcare/

[Darth Lefty]

It doesn't say "no screening," it says "no extra charge for screening." So the cost of those tests would be included in the cost of the insurance, rather than passed along only to the people getting the tests & shots. Any intepretation beyond that is conspiracy theory.