Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

I'm Disgusted... Anyone have an explaination?

I hear a back and forth this morning about this new recommendation to not get mammograms and once again I heard the "for it" woman saying "there are many cancers treated that would never kill you" Ok I'm not a Dr but I think the woman has to be a nut. ALL Cancers not treated will kill you in time. Did she mean any early cancer found in a 90 yr old would not be the reason that person dies? Certainly a 50 yr old woman who finds early breast cancer, without treatment will die before her time. Even with a slow growing cancer. Anyone see it differently?This is horrendous that they would take the word of this group with no one in the medical field on it.
Anyone see it differently?

Answer Question
 
itsmesteph11

Asked by itsmesteph11 at 10:08 AM on Nov. 19, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (113,405 Credits)
Answers (142)
  • it is all about cost effectiveness. nothing more.
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 10:10 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • I see it just as you do. It's the beginning of what is to come if the gov controls our healthcare.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 10:13 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • What is the life expectancy now?77 for women? and the rate for BC is 1 in 8 now? and who came out with the new recommendations?
    I think when you consider where the report came from, what is going on currently with the issue of govt and healthcare, and then position that with the ever increasing statistics with increased ratios with cancer victims and increased lifespans-you end with the conclusion that medicare will be ultimately paying for more and more and more mammograms and also with more and more related BC payments.
    If the guidelines are changed now, reductions will be made in screenings, treatments, and in longer living women.
    cost effectiveness, nothing more.
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 10:14 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • Clearly rationing...No Oncologists out of this group not a one..

    Anyone who says crap like that is nuts and full of chit..MANY women under 50 end up with breast cancer and those elderly deserve preventive care as well..they arent worthless just because they cant work and pay taxes any longer..

    This is disgusting
    tnmomofive

    Answer by tnmomofive at 10:15 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • Why did they start with women and BC? Why not start with PSA tests and prostate exams? Why not start with angiograms and ASHD screenings? Male related diseases? Is it because women live longer than men? So they targeted the women first to eliminate even a few women from the medicare and SS payrolls?
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 10:15 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • I think the lifespan is 72 for males in the US now, so even if the govt could find a way to somehow bring the average for women in the US also to 72 that is a reduction in 5 years of SS payments and medicare. Look at the geriatric population, that cost savings is huge.
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 10:17 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • Do you people really think that you're smarter/have better ideas than DOCTORS and RESEARCHERS in the field? First of all, some doctors are very, very opposed to the new recommendations. Second of all, the new recommendations mirror those of other countries whose cancer/death rates aren't affected AT ALL by this.

    Christ.
    Yoshi_Yoshi

    Answer by Yoshi_Yoshi at 10:20 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • Well, thats how I see it but I just thought there was something out there I didn't know. My mom had lung cancer. It was just a tumor, radiation to shrink it and surgery to take it out. 3 yrs later it came back, there is no way you can tell if it is totally new or from some left over cells the dr said. Took that tumor and part of the lung out that time. A couple of years later it was back again. Surgery was not an option nor was radiation because they know (duh) to much radiation is deadly in itself. Chemo and experimental drugs didn't cure it and she passed away in Feb 8 yrs after first finding it. Without treatment the first time she would have been incapacitated in 6 months and dead within 8. What the hell are these people saying? I just can't wrap my mind around them getting away with saying many cancers treated won't kill you.
    itsmesteph11

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 10:21 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • If anything, the rates of BC incidences will eventually go up. When I started in medicine in 86 the rate was 1 in10 and now it is 1 in8. so in twenty years it could logically be 1 in 7. Do you think someone hasn't figured that out? That mammogram related costs will skyrocket in the near future. So let's nip it in the bud now? It's like anything else, if you know gas is going up you use less and buy a smaller car. If energy costs go up, you buy energy saver light bulbs. If the rate of breast cancer goes up, so do the costs-so they are starting to reduce their expenditures now.
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 10:22 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • LOLOL You are a joke Yoshi Lets see the proof...... I won't hold my breath
    itsmesteph11

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 10:22 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN