What's next? Renaming "death with dignity" to "Preventive Termination"?

I heard this on the news this morning and thought it was ridiculous! The article says:

"While it's clear that mammography screening saves lives, it also triggers many false alarms and unnecessary biopsies." AND "If 2,000 women are screened regularly for 10 years, one will avoid dying from breast cancer but 10 healthy women will be treated unnecessarily."

If you are that one in 2000 who dies, I would says that is much worse than being one of the 10 with a false positive. There are so many non-invasive means of confirming a positive result, such as MRI or Gamma Radiation Studies, I think this is a risk most women would be willing to take.

I have an aunt who died of breast cancer at age 49, and have known other women in their 40's with this terrible disease. I am appalled that this "government task force" is suggesting that possible early detection is too risky. At the risk of starting an argument on a whole other subject, I have to ask: is this the road government run health care is destined to take us down?

Insurance companies do not want to pay for mammograms! They mostly will not cover other preventative procedures, such as sonograms either. BTW men get breast cancer too.
And IF you happen to have cancer then you have a "pre-exixting condition" and they drop your coverage and you cannot get new coverage. ALL other western countries with government insurance programs take care of their patients.
Were a member of my family were to get really sick I would take my money and move to Canada. At least we wouldn't end up sick AND broke.

Portland native, I believe you misread this. This is not insurance companies, but Uncle Sam making this decision.

This is not insurance companies, but Uncle Sam making this decision.

Try to think of a decision our government would make in the health care domain that is not effectively controlled by the insurers or the pharmaceutical companies. Believe me, if the mammogram were patented, we'd be lowering the screening age to near zero.

Hey PJ, these days where's the seperation between the government (Uncle Sam) and the corporations? Legislation is literally written by the lobbyists then handed to the politicians for massaging and eventual introduction into the approval process...

Many of the people placed in oversight agencies that come up with these kinds of policy changes, have ties to the very corporations they are supposed to be monitoring..Does it make you wonder if through the eyes of the insurance companies, treating full blown cancer is more profitable than catching it in its earliest stages...

Being a staff person for a politician is a coveted position as the next place for really gainful employment is within one of the lobbying organizations they worked with as aids to their congressional or senate bosses...

This isn't about insurance, it is about healthcare costs and the US appetite for healthcare. Anyone wonder why you don't hear the healthcare providers screaming about the "reform" taking place right now? Right, because their pocket books are not on the block.

Nobody wants to ration healthcare (i.e., address our appetite for care) because it just sounds evil. But this is what needs to happen. Where do we draw the line on the best use of scarce resources? Is 1 death per 1000 the threshold? 1 per 10,000? 1 per 100,000?

There is no question that early detection is a good thing, but can we afford it? Why don't we start at 30, or 20? I'm sure there has been a 25 year old who has died from breast cancer.

Here's an idea. Cancel your insurance and start paying for your own preventative care. Maybe your view of the problem will change once your bank account is empty.

And IF you happen to have cancer then you have a "pre-existing condition" and they drop your coverage and you cannot get new coverage.

I thought this new legislation would not let that happen? However, I bet we pay a mint for it.

Anyone wonder why you don't hear the healthcare providers screaming about the "reform" taking place right now

No, because under this new deal they are going to make billions from the taxpayers. You think your insurance bills are high now? Wait until your next office visit comes to $1000. Oh, you will only pay $20 up front, but the rest is "covered" by the taxpayers...so its all good right?

And people think military contracts are lucrative. The healthcare industry after this legislation will make the "military industrial complex" look like a lemonade stand.

The statistical analysis provided by the Preventive Services Task Force is good information to have. On the other hand, breast cancer is often described as an epidemic. The incidence has increased substantially in just a couple of decades, just as many of us who grew up in the era of better living through chemistry in the '50s and '60s are now hitting our own 50s and 60s.

I've been through treatment for stage II breast cancer twice, at ages 46 and 57, in both cases diagnosed about 18 months after a previous mammogram, so while I get that I'm influenced by my own statistical sampling of one, I don't think this statistical analysis translates well into new protocols.

Sorry for interrupting with an on-topic comment. Commenters can now return to ranting against the gummint.

No matter who is paying, I would think it would be cheaper to pay for a mammogram (or 5 years' worth of mammograms)and catch the cancer earlier than to pay to treat advanced cancer.

I wonder who paid for the study. Insurance companies?

Michelle, maybe its not about saving lives as much as it is about capitalizing on the treatment of advanced stages of disease?

Those dollars represent higher revenue streams to companies providing end of life care procedures... Im not saying I approve of this way of looking at business decisions, but that's the way its looked at often times.. unfortunately...

I wonder how many woman were involved in composing this study?

Something else woman (and everbody who doesnt want to see America become a theocracy) might want to pay attention to is the rise of Christian Dominionism within the halls of our congress.. This mindset has its roots in the supremacy of Mankind and in particular, the role of male superiority... Don't think for a moment that this doctrine isn't influencing our domestic and foreign policies... Many influential politicians belong this group, also known as C Street...

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/21/c_street/

PS - those concerned about healthcare reform may want to pay attention to a recent comment from Orrin Hatch, referring to the healthcare debate as it's going to be a holy war...

and don't forget these guys and woman in congress have a pretty nice healthcare plan provided to them at our expense...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-health-senate19-2009nov19,0,7126306,full.story

The rest of the story?
HHS Task Force Mammogram Recommendations Slammed