Pollster.com

Welcoem to the future under g'ment run helath care....wouldn't be long until age 50 went to age 60......rationing to save costs at the expense of lives......

Too bad this had nothing to do with the government. Spin spin spin!

No, but the g'ment would adopt these types of guidelines....and in a g'ment run system your stuck with that, unless you can pay cash for your mammogram. Where as my private insurance for exdample covers a mammogram starting at age 30 for my wife................

actually xenobion, you are wrong. it was recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force, a government agency. And you know these recommendations will be taken into consideration in the health reform legislation.
read here:
http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2009/11/new_mammogram_guidelines_could_kill_health_reform.html

Nothing is so sacred that the GOP won't politicize it. Has anyone looked at the science involved in the study. Can anyone here provide any evidence other than anectodal, that refutes the notion that women are at greater risk?

Should the medical establishment, public or private, provide guideliness based on science or fear?

Gee, I dunno Wong, perhaps all the women who get early detection fo breast cancer from routine mammograms in there 30's and 40's???

Early detection is key to proper treatment and high rates of survival. This is just an indicator fo what to expect under g'ment control of health care.

Its an independent body that makes recommendations to the Dept. of Health and Human services composed of mostly practicing Doctors. If anything this is the private sector's edge on reforming healthcare on the inside rather than Uncle Sam.

You have no proof that they'd adopt these guidlines. I mean I can just say that private health insurance companies will adopt these guidlines to cut costs.

Lets start giving men mamograms just to be safe. Little do people know that men get breast cancer too. Its better to be safe than sorry you know.

Do you get that this mentality is what's causing the ultra high costs of health care?

X, your stretching on this one. You know more likely than not the g'ment will adopt these guidelines to save money. Where in my private plan I have coverage at age 30 or earlier if my docto recommends it....but can start routine mammo's at age 30.

Well this study is a bunch of doctors saying its not recommended. I think this will be the start of many doctors coming forward stating wasteful MRI's and other proceedures to avoid being held hostage by the medical equipment industry.

X - Tell the women who detected there cancer at say at 42 that the memmo was a waste..........................

Okay I will.

Wow, I thought you libs were the ones with the heart! Not us stoggy conservatives.

Gotta run a tight ship, be fiscally sound with our medical practices, Stillow has inpsired the inner fiscal conservative in me.

Or you couldjust retain the private insurance system so people can choose if they want to get a plan that covers mammo's and at what age....hmmmmm, I guess that make me a pro choice liberal now doesn't it?

Where can you get ala carte insurance like that?

Aetna, Cigna, United, Pacificare, Blue Cross just to name a few off the top of my head who offer a menu of different plans which cover different items and all for different premium amounts and deductibles.

You can put in your age you get a certain care? Like I can get chiropractic care at 60?

This whole conversation is stupid.

First of all Stillow, no one is doing away with the private insurance industry. You know that.

Second, this isn't government policy. It was a recommendation from an independent board of experts. The Secretary of HHS has already come out and said that this isn't policy, it won't be policy, and she seriously doubts that any existing health insurance will change its mammogram policies because of it. This is a recommendation for asymptomatic women, who have no risk factors or history of breast cancer in their families.

Finally, no one is actually talking about WHY this recommendation was made. The reasoning was that regular mammograms weren't considered as effective for detection for women in their 40s.

Its estimated that having regular mammograms for women in their 20s saves one life in 2000. That's pretty good. The problem is that mammograms are not necessarily harmless, because they make use of radiation. Recent medical studies have shown that each mammogram can actually increase the risk of breast cancer. One study showed that having asymptomatic women get mammograms in their 40s will cause breast cancer at a rate of... 1 in 2000. So what really has been gained?

Like most medical issues, there is no easy answer. Mammograms are not a silver bullet. They have risks, and those risks must be balanced against the possible benefits, which is what this (non binding, non official, non endorsed) recommendation was trying to do.

BTW I meant "women in their 40s".

It's much more likely that private insurers will adopt this than the government will. Having said that, I'm not sure whether or not this is a good idea. Should payors pay for treatments that are not effective?

It's amazing to me how much hand-wringing this one study has caused. Every doctor I've seen on TV lately says mammograms should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Studies like this come out all the time, and they don't cause this kind of reaction.

I just read that the entire panel was appointed by Bush. If you like these recommendations, give Bush a great big hand.