Ladies, are you not outraged?

To the women I know, and even the one's I don't,


We are blessed to live in a wonderful country. Regardless of your personal political convictions, this country currently enjoys a standard of living that no other country can compete with.

I am writing this as an opinion, not as a statement of fact. But, I sending it out because I care about you, individually, and collectively, and I care about the direction our country is heading.

Below are two links to recent articles that directly impact womens' health. The first is a link to an article in the Seattle Times regarding a federal panels recommendation that breast cancer screening procedures be limited to every-other year, not every year, as what has been currently recommended by the medical community. The second link is an msnbc article discussing a similar recommendation that cervical cancer screenings be done every-other year as well.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2010327711_mammoqampa22m.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34046944

My problem with this, is simple. These are simple tests that can be done to attempt early detection of potentially lethal and certainly life-altering cancers.

I am NOT a medical expert, but to sum it up for those of you who may not know: Younger women are at a higher risk for cervical cancer. As they age, the cervical cancer risk drops, but the risk for breast cancer grows. This does not mean older women cannot develop cervical cancer or, that younger women cannot develop breast cancer. While the generalities are agreed upon, the exact ages, risk factors and changes of developing any of these conditions is the subject of constant debate, and I'm not going to try to present an exact number for any of them. The generality is the concept here, and cancer awareness organizations have fought (and still do) to reach ladies in hopes of education and testing.

I have not seen any articles yet regarding men's cancers. But, in a similar risk factor pattern, young men are at risk for testicular cancer, and as that risk drops with age, the risk of prostate cancer increases. And, it's worth noting that men can also develop breast cancer.

The reason I bring this to your attention is simple. This is an early step in the process of a national health care system. In order for that to work, they must reduce us to numbers, not people. A number cannot act on it's own behalf. A number does not have a family that cares for it. But, by looking at the numbers, you can dismiss a certain percentage to poor health, and just bad luck. You can tell a number they "can't have a test this year". A number can't decide for itself. But a person can. A person can decide what tests are important for them to have. A person can decide what kind of health care they want to pay for. (Be it with insurance plan selection or straight fee-for-service) A number can't be trusted to decide for itself.

After reducing people to numbers, it's easy to not care. After all, they are just numbers, not someone's mother, sister, wife or daughter. They are just a number.

Health care is not a right. Nowhere in our state or country's constitution does it guarantee any of us the right to health care. And, I don't advocate that it should be. Part of the reason it costs so much, is because of how great our health care is. And, we should be free to decide.

I'm not a woman; I'm a guy. I would hope that this process outrages ladies everywhere. This is but a glimpse of the kinds of changes we will be effected by, if our country goes to a national healthcare system. Anyway you slice it; it's a bad idea.

PE

Oh this topic has absolutly made me angry. We have a tough enough time as it is with brest cancer cervical cancer ect. and we are doing the yearly's and early mammos I have friends who at 22 have had scares with cervical cancer, so I don't feel that these new guidelines are doing anyone any good. I feel the guidelines come at an opportune time in conjunction with the 30bizzilion page "New Healthcare Bill" And this is a convieniant area for them to cut corners and costs. What I fear for is we get into a situation even if you have the money and still want to continue the screenings, you will be turned away, just as the women in Europe are. I have a big heart burn concerning this Healthcare bill, IT IS NOT FREE HEALTHCARE you will pay one way or another and you will put your life essentially into these predetermined guidelines, which puts everyone in a box and not looked upon individual basis. Preventative medicine is key in keeping all of us healthy, so I feel it needs to be done earlier and more often rather than later and less often.

Polar Express said:

This is but a glimpse of the kinds of changes we will be effected by, if our country goes to a national healthcare system. Anyway you slice it; it's a bad idea.

PE

Click to expand...

You mean, doing an analysis and drawing conclusions based on DATA and not emotion? I am all for it!!!!!

Polar Express said:

I have not seen any articles yet regarding men's cancers. But, in a similar risk factor pattern, young men are at risk for testicular cancer, and as that risk drops with age, the risk of prostate cancer increases. And, it's worth noting that men can also develop breast cancer.

Click to expand...

Similar things have come about for men too...

There is a point, it seems where early screening does more harm then good. Going through terrible treatments to remove a cancer that is not going to kill you seems a little much. I wouldn't want anyone to go through tough cancer treatments unless it was absolutely necessary.

The health care is an interesting one, because it IS about cost. Of course it is. It is about cost because people can not afford to get the best care all the time. Some can't even afford to get any care any of the time.

People so easily blame "the govt" as looking at people like numbers.. Yet, they have no problem when insurance companies do it, or when hospitals do it, or when doctors do it. I don't understand that.

Ruffy,

Insurance companies are in it for the money, yes. As are the other entities you mentioned. But, the current situation leaves the population a CHOICE. If you choose to not be tested, then don't. But, don't pass legislation that makes my choices for me.

A free market will determine who stays in business and who doesn't.

Polar Express said:

Ruffy,

Insurance companies are in it for the money, yes. As are the other entities you mentioned. But, the current situation leaves the population a CHOICE. If you choose to not be tested, then don't. But, don't pass legislation that makes my choices for me.

A free market will determine who stays in business and who doesn't.

Click to expand...

What choice do you have? Insurance companies make the choice now. What rubric do you think they use for making the choice? My employer makes the choice as to which insurance company I have. I have NO choice when it comes to insurance. The only choice I have is to quite my job and get a different one, that allows me NO choice either...

Who is talking about legislation? They are going to make it illegal to be tested? I don't think so. If you have the money, you can pay for what ever type of test / surgery / operation that you want, and you will continue to be able to do this.

I think at the very most, studies like this are going to be used as to determine certain levels of insurance "coverage". Insurance is about numbers, probability, and statistics. Shouldn't those methodologies be used for determining services?

I think the example of "turning women away" is for single payer systems. We don't have one of those.

Polar,

Do you agree with the Seattle times article? Seems kind of contrary to your tone of your thread. The article seems to be pretty good in talking about the reasons and methodology used for the conclusions.

Ruffy,

The article was not an editorial (opinion). It was an expose. I'm not privy to the way the statistics were compiled, therefore I will not try to support or refute them.

My intention with my post, was to illustrate how there are groups that are going to use this type of 'study' to reduce the level of healthcare you and I have access to.

Do you WANT socialized medicine? If yes, please, move to Canada. I don't, and I don't want my government trying to ram it down my throat. There are enough Canadians that come here to PAY for healthcare (because they can't get it up there) to show that their 'wonderful' socialized medicine doesn't work.

I don't want a political debate between you and I to reduce the importance of ladies being made aware there are certain groups of people that feel that simply because we don't 'need' (in their opinion) something, that we don't have access to it if we choose to pay for it.

You are correct, in that we do not have a single-payer system.... yet. It is my opinion that that is the end goal of the current political efforts, and I am whole-heartedly against such action. You can be sure that if a socialized system is in fact pushed through, our access to quality healthcare will be reduced, and 'studies' like this, will be used to support the reduction in our options.

And, contrary to your statement in post #6, you do have a choice right now. You can choose to buy more insurance than you employer offers. It's still a free country, and there are plenty of companies out there that will allow you to purchase more insurance coverage. It's not my fault, (or anyone else's for that matter) where you choose to spend you money.

So we can CHOOSE to pay extra for more services????

Yeah, the choice to pay more will always be there for you.


Closedmindedness is just too easy to refute.

backcountryislife said:

So we can CHOOSE to pay extra for more services????

Click to expand...

All we need now is a way to choose to pay less and we are all set!

Thank you for the post - I agree w/you

Women - Save the Bobbies - ck yourself - its YOUR LIFE!!!! Live to Ride another Day!

Everybody - let's get vocal about what's happening, before we don't have a voice! Otherwise I don't want to hear a word from you when your health care doesn't pay to save your wife, daughter, mother or sister's life because it's not in the new healthcare plan! (and right now its NOT in the proposed plan!)

Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D.C. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc