Great news ladies! Women under 50 not at risk anymore! - Page 3

TheMercenary · 11-18-2009, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster

Some tumors grow so slowly they have no effect on their host. So yes, some cancer tumors are irrelevant.

Esp if you are 75 years or older, or so the government wants you to think. Because you know after the age of 75....

monster · 11-18-2009, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Esp if you are 75 years or older, or so the government wants you to think. Because you know after the age of 75....

If I'm 75 and have a tumor that won't kill me in the next 25 years, I'll take the no treatment route. It has nothing to do with the government.

TheMercenary · 11-18-2009, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster

If I'm 75 and have a tumor that won't kill me in the next 25 years, I'll take the no treatment route. It has nothing to do with the government.

And if you think that the government should be telling you to ignore it and it kills you in 2 years and you never see you great grand children because you ignored it how do you justify it to your family?

To bad so sad?

TheMercenary · 11-18-2009, 08:24 PM

Just think how much the government will save under the new Obamanation healthcare plan!

monster · 11-18-2009, 09:17 PM

Chemo and mastectomy are horrible things, with many permanent nasty side effects. if you have a tumor that is growing so slowly that it most likely won't cause you health problems until you're 200 and is not metastasizing, why in the hell would you undergo these procedures?

monster · 11-18-2009, 09:30 PM

This recent "recommendation" is just the other shoe dropping IMO.

There has been plenty of research around for plenty of time suggesting that some cancer tumors are fine just left alone. And many are not. And the methods of telling which are which are improving all the time. But the current mindset is "kill all" just to be sure. Which would be fine if the killing of all was risk-free. It's the same mindset that wants antibiotics for everything, wants everyone to hand sanitize all the time, wants everyone to get a shot for the latest strain of flu, wants all men circumcised to prevent cancer.....

In some cases doing nothing is just fine. However this has nothing to do with the diagnostic tests.

It is imperative to know about what's going an and to have the information to decide whether this is a cancer one should do nothing about ....or not. Whether to screen and whether to treat are different arguments, though of course you can't treat if you don't screen...

classicman · 11-19-2009, 10:47 AM

I'm gonna make a guess here that the issue may be who is going to pay for what if you decide to get screened, have a mammo or surgery. I have no idea of the answer at this point, but thats what I was reading into his posts.

monster · 11-19-2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm gonna make a guess here that the issue may be who is going to pay for what if you decide to get screened, have a mammo or surgery. I have no idea of the answer at this point, but thats what I was reading into his posts.

well it certainly isn't the government that pays for it now....

Shawnee123 · 11-19-2009, 11:38 AM

Science? That's what you're calling using insurance actuary tables to determine if we should ignore this woman or that woman's tits?

mmmmmk!

Sundae · 11-19-2009, 01:24 PM

In the UK the standard testing is every 3 years for women over 50.
I would be able to request testing from the age of 40 due to family circumstances (Grandmother died of cancer in her 60s, Mother had breast cancer in her 60s). I probably won't though.

monster · 11-19-2009, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

I would be able to request testing from the age of 40 due to family circumstances ....... I probably won't though.

Why not?

jujuwwhite · 11-19-2009, 01:36 PM

If only 1 life is saved, it is well worth it.

TheMercenary · 11-19-2009, 01:44 PM

Sebelius was interviewed on NPR this morning. They boxed her into the question. Her pregnant pause was palpable. They are covering their ass. IMHO they should have just supported the findings and gone with it. It would have been a more honest approach and set the stage for how they are going to review future recommendations for care using various boards as recomending bodies. If they want to control costs this is a start. But don't backtrack when people jump all over them. ACOG has not supported these recommendations. The majority of OB-GYN organizations have not supported them. The original study was done by a family practice physician.

11-19-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

IMHO they should have just supported the findings and gone with it.

IMO, to suggest that any administration should simply and unquestionably accept any or all scientific research or studies it commissions would constitute a perversion of science.

But we have diverted the discussion on the underlying issue enough.

TheMercenary · 11-19-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Sebelius's statement challenged the recommendations of that influential panel, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, made up of independent experts assembled by her department to address one of the most explosive issues in women's health.

Yet these are the very type of panels that are suppose to help guide health policy in the future.The Medicare commissions are suppose to do just this. Dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for.

11-18-2009, 08:24 PM	#4
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Just think how much the government will save under the new Obamanation healthcare plan! __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

11-18-2009, 09:17 PM	#5
monster I hear them call the tide Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Perpetual Chaos Posts: 30,852	Chemo and mastectomy are horrible things, with many permanent nasty side effects. if you have a tumor that is growing so slowly that it most likely won't cause you health problems until you're 200 and is not metastasizing, why in the hell would you undergo these procedures? __________________ The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity Amelia Earhart

11-18-2009, 09:30 PM	#6
monster I hear them call the tide Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Perpetual Chaos Posts: 30,852	This recent "recommendation" is just the other shoe dropping IMO. There has been plenty of research around for plenty of time suggesting that some cancer tumors are fine just left alone. And many are not. And the methods of telling which are which are improving all the time. But the current mindset is "kill all" just to be sure. Which would be fine if the killing of all was risk-free. It's the same mindset that wants antibiotics for everything, wants everyone to hand sanitize all the time, wants everyone to get a shot for the latest strain of flu, wants all men circumcised to prevent cancer..... In some cases doing nothing is just fine. However this has nothing to do with the diagnostic tests. It is imperative to know about what's going an and to have the information to decide whether this is a cancer one should do nothing about ....or not. Whether to screen and whether to treat are different arguments, though of course you can't treat if you don't screen... __________________ The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity Amelia Earhart

11-19-2009, 10:47 AM	#7
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	I'm gonna make a guess here that the issue may be who is going to pay for what if you decide to get screened, have a mammo or surgery. I have no idea of the answer at this point, but thats what I was reading into his posts. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

11-19-2009, 11:38 AM	#9
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	Science? That's what you're calling using insurance actuary tables to determine if we should ignore this woman or that woman's tits? mmmmmk! __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

11-19-2009, 01:24 PM	#10
Sundae polaroid of perfection Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 24,185	In the UK the standard testing is every 3 years for women over 50. I would be able to request testing from the age of 40 due to family circumstances (Grandmother died of cancer in her 60s, Mother had breast cancer in her 60s). I probably won't though. __________________ Life's hard you know, so strike a pose on a Cadillac

11-19-2009, 01:36 PM	#12
jujuwwhite Capnhowdy's #1 smasher Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Rentz, GA Posts: 339	If only 1 life is saved, it is well worth it. __________________ I don't suffer from insanity...i enjoy every moment of it.

11-19-2009, 01:44 PM	#13
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Sebelius was interviewed on NPR this morning. They boxed her into the question. Her pregnant pause was palpable. They are covering their ass. IMHO they should have just supported the findings and gone with it. It would have been a more honest approach and set the stage for how they are going to review future recommendations for care using various boards as recomending bodies. If they want to control costs this is a start. But don't backtrack when people jump all over them. ACOG has not supported these recommendations. The majority of OB-GYN organizations have not supported them. The original study was done by a family practice physician. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)