New Mammogram Guidelines...a sign of things to come in healthcare?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
lupi

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Deeko said:
From what I read this morning, the amount of positives found in young-aged regular mammograms are dwarfed by the number of false positives, complications, side effects, and costs of the procedures.

However, to make the link to the health care debate, is just stupid.
Click to expand...

and yet when good ole charlie gibson was talking about this story it was directly mentioned that these revised guidelines mimic those in nations with government provided healthcare followed by listing several.
 
sandorski

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,701
6,258
126
lupi said:
and yet when good ole charlie gibson was talking about this story it was directly mentioned that these revised guidelines mimic those in nations with government provided healthcare followed by listing several.
Click to expand...

Does Cancer act differently depending on Country?
 
B

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
sandorski said:
Why not? Seen the Military? NASA?
Click to expand...

Yeah those are fantastic points, way to bring up a great counter argument. The military runs better when you the politicians are kept out of it. NASA has been kind of a joke for awhile.
 
sandorski

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,701
6,258
126
bfdd said:
Yeah those are fantastic points, way to bring up a great counter argument. The military runs better when you the politicians are kept out of it. NASA has been kind of a joke for awhile.
Click to expand...

Better points than a single Website as a counter-point.
 
shira

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
WhipperSnapper said:
The Death Panels are already in business--the CEO-appointed Death Panels at private health insurance companies, I mean. The ones that rescind people's coverages on the day of their cancer surgeries.
Click to expand...

Private insurance companies have been death panels only since 1/20/2009. We know this because it was on that date that Obama became the magic negro.
 
B

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
shira said:
Private insurance companies have been death panels only since 1/20/2009. We know this because it was on that date that Obama became the magic negro.
Click to expand...

so are you going to fix your comment? you're ignoring it. you said getting and the article is talking about deaths. actually coming down with cancer and dying from it are two totally different fucking things. also, i've experienced BOTH sides of breast cancer, my aunt was diagnosed late and died my step mom was diagnosed early and survived. if a woman can increase her chance of not DYING after 40 by breast cancer then she should do it.
 
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
bfdd said:
so are you going to fix your comment? you're ignoring it. you said getting and the article is talking about deaths. actually coming down with cancer and dying from it are two totally different fucking things. also, i've experienced BOTH sides of breast cancer, my aunt was diagnosed late and died my step mom was diagnosed early and survived. if a woman can increase her chance of not DYING after 40 by breast cancer then she should do it.
Click to expand...

That is the flip side of rationing; some people are inevitably going to die because of cost-benefit analyses. That's true of both private or government programs, although I think the inherent inefficiency of government will increase the effect once we go to single-payer.
 
B

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
werepossum said:
That is the flip side of rationing; some people are inevitably going to die because of cost-benefit analyses. That's true of both private or government programs, although I think the inherent inefficiency of government will increase the effect once we go to single-payer.
Click to expand...

That's fine I realize not EVERYONE can get a mammogram, but if someone can and wants it then fuck it.
 
shira

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
bfdd said:
so are you going to fix your comment? you're ignoring it. you said getting and the article is talking about deaths. actually coming down with cancer and dying from it are two totally different fucking things. also, i've experienced BOTH sides of breast cancer, my aunt was diagnosed late and died my step mom was diagnosed early and survived. if a woman can increase her chance of not DYING after 40 by breast cancer then she should do it.
Click to expand...

Corrected (see my edited post).

I'm sorry that women in your family have a high breast-cancer risk, but note that the new recommended guidelines (they're "recommended," as they haven't been adopted yet) wouldn't affect women in your family, as the guidelines refer only to women who don't have elevated risk.

I disagree with your final point. By that reasoning, we should do monthly mammograms, starting at age 12. That would decrease breast-cancer deaths, too.
 
B

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
shira said:
Corrected (see my edited post).

I'm sorry that women in your family have a high breast-cancer risk, but note that the new recommended guidelines (they're "recommended," as they haven't been adopted yet) wouldn't affect women in your family, as the guidelines refer only to women who don't have elevated risk.

I disagree with your final point. By that reasoning, we should do monthly mammograms, starting at age 12. That would decrease breast-cancer deaths, too.
Click to expand...

I said if she can, I didn't say make it mandatory.
 
waggy

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
yeah the changes are bullshit. There have been doctors all over the news saying this is going to lead to the deaths of women.
 
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
heyheybooboo said:
Linkage ??
Click to expand...

Statistically some women have breast cancer between forty and fifty. Statistically some of those women will have aggressive cancers that, if not found very early, will kill them, but which if found very early might not kill them. No one with any sense at all doubts that some women will die if the norm shifts from testing after forty to testing after age fifty. The question is rather, are those extra deaths justified by the reduction in costs, false positives, and unnecessary surgeries caused by the extra ten years of testing? Because it's not just about money, there will always be mistakes in any testing program, and some few of those mistakes will be repeated resulting in the pain and risks of unnecessary surgery. The opinion of the panel is yes, although more women will die from the delayed testing program, the numbers will be small in comparison to the benefits. The opinion of the American Cancer Society is no, the reductions in costs, false positives, and unnecessary surgeries are not worth the lives of those additional women. You should not need links to figure this out. For specific doctors, try any associated with the American Cancer Society for a start.
 
H

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
werepossum said:
Statistically some women have breast cancer between forty and fifty. Statistically some of those women will have aggressive cancers that, if not found very early, will kill them, but which if found very early might not kill them. No one with any sense at all doubts that some women will die if the norm shifts from testing after forty to testing after age fifty. The question is rather, are those extra deaths justified by the reduction in costs, false positives, and unnecessary surgeries caused by the extra ten years of testing? Because it's not just about money, there will always be mistakes in any testing program, and some few of those mistakes will be repeated resulting in the pain and risks of unnecessary surgery. The opinion of the panel is yes, although more women will die from the delayed testing program, the numbers will be small in comparison to the benefits. The opinion of the American Cancer Society is no, the reductions in costs, false positives, and unnecessary surgeries are not worth the lives of those additional women. You should not need links to figure this out. For specific doctors, try any associated with the American Cancer Society for a start.
Click to expand...

So.

You got nothing .... except, ""Women Will Die!""

What I'm seeing as far as 'doctors & hospitals' (and a good many posters to this thread) is a lot of fear-mongering psychobabble and self-serving financial interests.

I also see nothing that 'firewalls' women at high risk from receiving effective screening no matter what the age, genetic markers or family history.

I don't understand why some of you guys can't grasp the poor success rate of mammography for women under the age of 50. This ain't rocket science.

and Dood, the ACS ain't all that on breast cancer. Frankly, ACS has become bloated and bureaucratic. You need to do a little research. Try Susan G. Komen 'for a start'.

-
-
-
 
A

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
rudder said:
Insurance companies can set payments based on these guidelines. At least so far in this case most have said they will still cover the exams.

I would listen to the American Cancer Society though before the U.S. Government.
Click to expand...

The American cancer society made this same recommendation when both Clinton and Reagan was in office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom