What we are talking about is a government panel limiting evaluation based on testing not being "good enough" to justify the subsequent negative biopsy's. And I am sure they were acting on good faith.
Can any reasonable person not interpret this as a cost analysis that a lot of negative mammogram's do not justify the occasional positive one (which will undeniably save lives).
This is what will happen when government controls YOUR health care.
Sarah was right, this is just a "mild" death panel.
A panel that sets the government's policy on prevention overturned some longstanding guidelines about testing for breast cancer. It said women should get mammograms every other year instead of annually.
The panel also recommended against self-examinations and said it wasn't sure it was worthwhile for women older than 74 to have mammograms. The guidelines are aimed at preventing wrong diagnoses and unnecessary treatment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Shocking! Everyone knows we should just throw as much money as possible at health problems - never mind the efficacy! Why do a cost/benefit analysis?
BTW - women can have all the mammograms they care to pay for.
This is an excellent example of what we should be doing.
First we do too many unneccesary tests Doctors say, now God forbid we do a few less tests. you can't win with the Health Care protester's. The system needs fixing, but Sara Palin is somehow now an expert in health Care the Governor of the state first in alcohol abuse, domestic violence. Sara get your talk show like Huckabee, and Hannity, leave serious discussion to the rest of us.
So, it is about money. It really is. How much is human life worth? Or, less dramatically, what is a person's health worth?
I really do think the new recommendations make sense. A person I truly loved died at age 31 from breast cancer. Does that mean we should start screening everyone at age 30? I don't think so.
There need to be guidelines. Let's face it, they give insurance companies cover to defend themselves when they don't offer coverage.
But, being a Free Marketeer, I want to have the market figure out the ending by allowing insurance companies to offer different coverages for different prices, which (brace yourself) puts me in agreement with Bax, if Bax will agree that the market should be allowed to offer a variety of coverages as opposed to a government mandated one-size-fits-all.
See how polite I'm being?!?!?!
Hags
Hags, you crack me up. And you are soooo polite!
I believe the current House bill allows for various plans and price groups with a lid on the patient class spread (50%?). I think Mark said that there cannot be discriminatory pricing based upon behavior - smokers, obese, etc, which is a shame if true.
One of the reasons I support universal coverage is that we can look at these issues systematically and prioritize. I think the "last six months" expenses in Medicare are due to shrink as they will be sucking funds from more meritorious uses.
But, being a Free Marketeer, I want to have the market figure out the ending by allowing insurance companies to offer different coverages for different prices.
Arguing with a sane mind is much more satisfying. Hags, sorry, you have it wrong (in part), health care is a point of service thing. Millions of little decisions (free market) working, in general, towards a better goal.
This example is perfect. You, Me or most importantly "O", should not get to determine if ladies get mammogram's. (Actually I do) anyway, when we transfer responsibility for payment to the government (as Rich describes) they get to "control" our health care.
Granted many rules in health care are messed up, most as the result of government regulations, but no...they, they being a government panel, should not be deciding who receives what. And if they do, THIS IS (OR WILL SOON BE) A DEATH PANEL!.
Lastly, invention in health care, like in any industry comes from better payment. Think Lexus. Where is the reason to risk capitol going to come from in all these one size fits all plans?
We need to pay for our own health care, would cure the "crisis" in a moment.
I don't think Hags is insane, Jim. You should take that back.
Post a Comment