Comments (20) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   NoFearPup said, about 20 hours ago

   But Senators and Representatives will still have access to whatever they want; whenever they want.

2. 

   Pacejv said, about 20 hours ago

   Free postage, too!

3. 

   HUMPHRIES said, about 17 hours ago

   I guess Ms Benson , being female, has caught the gravity of the situation.

   Snip and babble all you want puppy ! I do pray you don’t have a family member that you have to watch die because the ten year treshold was just a little too long .

4. 

   tjdestry said, about 16 hours ago

   Lisa Benson speaks out in favor of government waste.

5. 

   olfart said, about 16 hours ago

   Government waste? The government certainly is not paying for my health care. How can I get some of that government waste? Not necesarily a mammogram, though. Olfarts are not a high risk group.

6. 

   Maureen Meany said, about 14 hours ago

   Lisa benson has smarts… the only smart one … do any of you against mammograms want to hear you have cancer because you were denied a test for 10 years? I had cancer, so far free for 6 years…. would not wish this disease on anyone and this is a disease that mammograms can detect!! Ask anyone in the 40-50 group who was diagnosed and now living– anectdotal evidence means a LIFE

7. 

   gbwooden said, about 14 hours ago

   Your money, or your life!! Not a good choice.

8. 

   ANandy said, about 12 hours ago

   The government has no money without first seizing it from someone.

9. 

   striper77 said, about 11 hours ago

   more obamacare obamanation

10. 

    fennec said, about 11 hours ago

    For anyone who cares about facts, here is a short history of breast cancer screening:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/opinion/20aronowitz.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=global&adxnnlx=1258729381-73o7fWvyiTadCmMdQOKbeg
    It is always good to know what is real and what is not before shooting off one’s mouth. BTW, Humph, the recommendation was not against all testing, but just in favor of testing when warranted. For instance, if you had a family history or some other factor such as undue environmental exposure to carcinogens, screening would be advised.

11. 

    harleyquinn said, about 11 hours ago

    Nice bozo the clown hair!

12. 

    Bruce4671 said, about 11 hours ago

    The preamble to the declaration of Independance states that all individuals have a right to life. That a government is instituted “by the consent of the governed” to secure that right and that whenever said government “becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it”.

    One of the deal breakers for our forefathers was the fact that the King imposed “Taxes on us without our consent”.

    This whole health care travesty will impose massive taxes WITHOUT the consent of those taxed. By placing themselves and their buracrates between you and your health service provider the government will be affecting your basic right to life.

    But you see, that’s a problem for this administration those pesky documents the Dec of Ind and the Constitution. There just documents that say what the government CAN”T DO TO YOU not what it CAN. And so those documents must be ignored or destroyed if possible.

    Continue to sit back and argue who’s correct the “right” or the “left” and you will be stripped of all your rights soon…

13. 

    charlie555 said, about 10 hours ago

    How many women actually go in for mammograms now before the age of 50? (Certainly not the “43 million” uninsured?) How many of the insured do? How many of the cancers detected between 40-49 were the result of mammograms as opposed to other detection procedures? How many women die of breast cancer between 40-49? How many false positives in this age bracket lead to unnecessary surgeries? Be nice to know some real answers.

    Also be nice if we stopped playing the illusion game that we can pay for everything. Decisions have to be made where funds are most effective. Science, not politics, should decide. Science is flawed. We should do the best we can for the most citizens and leave people free to spend their own money for tests if they disagree.

14. 

    johndh123 said, about 10 hours ago

    Glad to hear it Maureen. My sister is a breast cancer survivor too. Just a comment about our (individuals) health in general. We must all be advocates for ourselves. No matter what the program is or is not; seek other doctors input if the first gives you a diagnosis that doesn’t seem right (or that symptons persist) An oft repeated summation by a doctor who cannot diagnose a certain affliction is that the person is a hypochondriac, has other issues. My girlfriend had gone through this, until she found a doctor (At Johns Hopkins in Baltimore) who was familiar with her affliction.
    
    He was able to treat her effectively.
    Is there a medical Caveat Emptor term available?

15. 

    michaelwme said, about 8 hours ago

    This argument has been horribly distorted, since most people hate math and statistics.

    Take any medical test that involves some risk, but which can detect and save lives of those who have the disease being tested for. Say one woman in 1,500 dies from the test. If her chance of dying from the disease is less than one in 1,500, she should not have the test; if her chance of dying from the disease is more than one in 1,500, she should have the test.

    Mammograms are estimated to kill about one woman in 1,500 either from the radiation or from the surgery that results from a false positive. Of women 40-50, the estimate is that one woman in 1,900 will die of breast cancer if not screened. So she is slightly better off not getting screened. Of women 50-60, the estimate is that about one woman in 1,300 will die of breast cancer if not screened, so she is slightly better off getting screened.

    Of course, there will still be the one woman in 1,900 who would have been saved by the test vs. the one woman in 1,500 who would have been killed. Only we don’t know a priori which one she is.

    But somehow everyone got the idea it’s all about money rather than statistics, because people can understand money.

16. 

    Roger said, about 6 hours ago

    michaelwme, exactly! I’m in the camp where I believe that through your life it’s best to get as few x-rays as possible. If it’s absolutely needed, fine, but otherwise each one is upping your chances of getting cancer.

    When mammograms end up catching breast cancer, how often is it because of all the mammograms? The woman can be thinking how lucky she is to have been getting the tests for years because “it caught it” but do they consider the possibility that the test is what ends up giving them the cancer?

    In fact, how much of our medical system creates more problems for a person’s health, which in turn means more money for the medical system to make?

    My Grandma took very good care of herself all her life- eating right, staying active, etc. When she was in her early 70s and still in great health, her doctor insisted she needed cholesterol medicine. Very shortly after she started taking it, her health went down hill. Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but they have lots of side effects and she was doing great, in her 70’s, even if her cholesterol was high- and she ate very healthy so I’m sure it was just natural for her body and not a problem.

    But, those pills cost a fortune and the pharmaceutical companies pressure doctors- directly or through those irritating ads that flood the tv trying to get people to go to their doctors and insist they need whatever pill it happens to be.

    It’s good to have a modern health care system to help you when you need it, but how much better off would we be, in health and in money, if that health care was pared down to taking care of real problems and not fulfilling the dreams of a nation of hypochondriacs?

17. 

    believecommonsense said, about 6 hours ago

    fennec, I appreciate the link you provided. For me, I still see this as an open question. If different study groups can examine the same data and reach differing results, it doesn’t seem settled.

    I’m one of those who grew up with the constant warning from medical community that early detection saves lives. The op/ed piece you linked to suggests otherwise. It doesn’t seem settled from what I read.

    All the media accounts I read/hard of the recent findings talked about the downsides of mammograms between the ages of 40 to 50 being increased anxiety from false positives. That seems like a disingenuous argument to me. Is it really about money, i.e., the cost of mammograms?

    Do benign breast tumors sometimes grow into malignant tumors ? do you know?

18. 

    Loco80 said, about 4 hours ago

    Health care rationing starting already, and no bill has even been passed yet. And Mr Obama even has a pink ribbon on the White House. Sorry ladies, you deserve better.

19. 

    citynights said, about 1 hour ago

    say goodbye to preventive care

20. 

    fennec said, 13 minutes ago

    BCS, more links (based for the nonprofessionsl):
    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fibrocystic-breast-changes/AN00715/METHOD=print
    http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6X_Non_Cancerous_Breast_Conditions_59.asp?sitearea=
    For general information, a good reliable starting point:
    http://health.nih.gov/
    One of the things I’m noticing is that the righties seem ready to do a black or white on these questions. Unfortunately nothing is black or white in science. All I can give you is probabilities. I can give no sureties. That is the way we work in science. (BTW, we just got our two papers accepted for publication!! We are celebrating, but we know that our result will be modified as others look at the data and see other ways to approach the problem. Nonetheless we have offered some new concepts to advance the field.)