uncle_chappy Posted December 23, 2009 Posted December 23, 2009 http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/23/t...-breast-cancer/
Chef Jim Posted December 23, 2009 Posted December 23, 2009 Cancer sucks. Here's to a quick and full recovery. BTW I just saw she was 71. Looks pretty good for her age.
Wacka Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Cancer sucks. Here's to a quick and full recovery. BTW I just saw she was 71. Looks pretty good for her age. That ketchup $ buys a lot of plastic surgery.
Nanker Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Cancer sucks. Here's to a quick and full recovery. Yes to that. Good thing she had the where with all to have a mammogram when she needed one and ignored the new guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Yes to that. Good thing she had the where with all to have a mammogram when she needed one and ignored the new guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Mammograms for all! They're on the Fed's dime!!
Gene Frenkle Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Yes to that. Good thing she had the where with all to have a mammogram when she needed one and ignored the new guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. That's a rather ignorant statement.
stuckincincy Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 That's a rather ignorant statement. Not at all - it's the truth.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 25, 2009 Posted December 25, 2009 Not at all - it's the truth. All I'm saying is that there are valid reasons for the new guidelines.
Wacka Posted December 25, 2009 Posted December 25, 2009 All I'm saying is that there are valid reasons for the new guidelines. So all the baby boomers die off sooner.
Nanker Posted December 25, 2009 Posted December 25, 2009 That's a rather ignorant statement. No. It's a correct statement and one that points to the ignorance of the masses that believe in "government run healthcare". It's a disaster waiting to happen. The fuse is lit. Let the rationing begin. What's the matter - you can't click a WSJ Linky? “I have had two operations and my prognosis for a full recovery is good.” Heinz editorializes that women should ignore new guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that stated women at average risk don’t need regular screenings and that mammograms in older women can be reduced to every two years, versus previous annual guidelines. She opines that the task force is “predisposed to choose numbers over people.” Give her a call and tell her how ignorant she is.
blzrul Posted December 25, 2009 Posted December 25, 2009 All I'm saying is that there are valid reasons for the new guidelines. Only a male would male such a stupid statement. I realize that statistics may point to a higher rate of breast cancer in older women, but women in their 30's and 40's (sometimes even in their 20's) get it also. Frankly a younger woman stands a better chance of recovery due to her youth than an older woman, so it makes absolutely no sense at all to avoid screening for this horrible disease until 50. Let's talk about prostate cancer shall we? What are the guidelines on that, and how frequently will a typical healthcare plan cover those?
Chef Jim Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 Only a male would male such a stupid statement. I realize that statistics may point to a higher rate of breast cancer in older women, but women in their 30's and 40's (sometimes even in their 20's) get it also. Frankly a younger woman stands a better chance of recovery due to her youth than an older woman, so it makes absolutely no sense at all to avoid screening for this horrible disease until 50. Let's talk about prostate cancer shall we? What are the guidelines on that, and how frequently will a typical healthcare plan cover those? So I'm confused. Are you for or against the new health care bill?
DC Tom Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 Only a male would male such a stupid statement. I realize that statistics may point to a higher rate of breast cancer in older women, but women in their 30's and 40's (sometimes even in their 20's) get it also. Frankly a younger woman stands a better chance of recovery due to her youth than an older woman, so it makes absolutely no sense at all to avoid screening for this horrible disease until 50. Let's talk about prostate cancer shall we? What are the guidelines on that, and how frequently will a typical healthcare plan cover those? Actually, there are valid reasons. The whole point behind the new guidelines was that treatment tends to be too aggressive in younger women who have "anomalies" on their mammograms (i.e. too much unnecessary cutting). The problem is that, while the reasons behind the guidelines might be sound (or might not be - I really don't know, I'm just quoting what I read from the USPSTF), the advice is stupid. "The diagnostics aren't completely accurate, so don't use them as much." Or how about improving them, or taking extra steps to confirm a diagnosis, or just saying "not all women need annual mammograms; discuss this with your doctor."
Recommended Posts