New Mam. Guidelines. What do you think?

Here is a link to the new Mammography guidelines, and I wanted all of you to see it. :eek What are your thoughts? I would like to take this task force out behind the barn myself. :mad :boxing

http://breastcancer.about.com/b/2009/11/16/mammo-guidelines.htm

To me, this seem s to be going backwards, not forward... :mad

 

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!! Not 50, 40! my friend was dead at 45...diagnosed at 42 in regular screening begun at 40. her's was a particularly nasty, aggressive form of breast cancer, but, after a double mastectomy & a boatload of chemo, she got 2 more years than she would have if she had never gotten her initial mammogram at 40. she was happy with that & so was her new husband who was glad he got to spend even that short time with her.

the only people who benefit from raising the age are insurance companies who are thinking maybe we can scam them into thinking it's crap. it's NOT broken; DON'T try fixing something this serious & necessary.

this garbage makes me want to go SERIOUSLY postal all over some moron's hindquarters. i recently chatted with a friend and said i thought a certain individual was the stoopidest person on the planet. i was WRONG! whoever these morons are, not to speak of stopping BSE's, are the hands down winners/losers.

i'd better stop...i am NOT calming myself down. i'll just get more and more irate

 

My step-sister had to have a double mastectomy at 45 because she never got checked.

 

Oh, hrlow2, that is terrible.. I am afraid of these new guidelines, or $$$ savers, (for the ins. co., of course) there will be more cancer, and less saving of lives.. This is very scary....

 

My first wife developed breast cancer at 35. My current wife's mother died of breast cancer before 50.

This did not come from the insurance industry . . . this came from an office of our friendly Federal Government (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) . . . part of the same group of helpful folks that are trying to take over the entire healthcare system. It might, however, have an effect on what an insurance company will pay for under current conditions . . . all while the same Federal Government is trying to change those conditions . . . so why try and limit/change an area of health care now?

This is BS. It seems contrived to me . . . but I don't understand why. They cited the "harm" and the "risks" of testing . . . but how do they in any way outweigh the harm and risk of missing a cancer in its early stages?

Nonsense.

 

Remember that this is only a recommendation.
They are NOT etched in stone.It is still your option to get the tests when you want.

 

It may not be etched in stone, but it is in effect. Also, today, they are talking about Women and pap smears.. Now, it used to be a woman got one every year.. Not now. They are saying every 2 years... Up to a certain age, and then ZIP for any woman over 64. Now, this whole thing is out of control.... I haven't heard a word about men and Prostate screening yet.. I actually wonder if that will be next, as they sure are running out of things to take away from the gals.. Watch it guys, you may be next.. Give them the weekend, and let's see what "new guidelines" they can come up with next week.rolleyes

 

Your right there TimW but do you realize what the cost is if this goes into effect for those who do feel they should have it done at a younger age then 50 and can't afford it? The insurance companies are for sure not going to pay for it until you hit that 50 mark. I personally hate the things but I don't see where the "prevention" is if you're gonna wait until half your life is over with and take a chance of dieing before you hit 50 just because "they "feel it's not needed.
Granted I'm over the 50 mark(58) but my daughter and grand daughters aren't and i don't think I can go through losing a child as my mother did. From the article that TC posted here it did said

I just hope it doesn't go through. JMHO

 

The way I understand it, it won't be after the health care bill passes. This is what rationing looks like. Either get used to it or call the Senate repeatedly tomorrow.

And for everybody that know somebody who found their cancer as a result of early screening, the Dems will trot out the family of somebody who would have been saved if they could have afforded to be screened.

 

5 will get you 10 that if one of them (39-45 years old) feels a suspicious lump, they will go running to get checked, then us (taxpayers) will be paying for it.

 

I'm in a Detroit 'burb. We have tons of free clinics and free screenings for a myriad of problems, but the people don't like waiting in the long lines.

 

We have "A" clinic here, and it is the local Health Dept. They have to go by these guidelines, and unless you actually "feel" a lump, the ins. co. is not going to pay for it... I called mine today, and asked about the Mammogram, and they said they would not pay for it. I already had one LAST year, so I get to wait until November 2010. I am at hi-risk, already had 1 :*** scare, and the ins. co. is already on the bandwagon... Not covered, UNLESS something is felt.. Well, it is what you don't feel that can kill ya... By the time you feel it, it is pretty much too late....

I agree, TimW.,

It SHOULD be that way, but it depends on who is doing the interpretations.. The Ins. companies don't necessarily agree with the Dr's.... rolleyes

Now, they are on Pap smears... All this is going to do, is you will see more Cancer in women... First the Mammograms, now Pap smears.... I am not a happy camper, either... I don't think this needs to be moved to H.T., it seems to be fine here so far

I am sure that cost is a huge factor in all of this, even tho they are saying it isn't... I just seen a guy on the news, smiling, saying, "Don't let these new guidelines stop you from seeing your Dr. " sure, easy for him to say.. I can go in, and get a RX for the mam. but in the end, I will have to pay for it.. That is just flat out wrong, when I pay my insurance premiums myself..

 

I think it's the worst recommendation I have heard.