•9:24 PM
November 17, 2009 9:34 p.m.
Saw this article in the New York Times. Did you catch it?
The older I get, the less likely I am to believe anything I hear.
Apparently we are no longer to seek out mammograms before the age of 50, and then we are only to get them every two years. In addition, we are not to bother doing those monthly self-exams that we have heard about for our whole adult lives. Apparently it all will do us more harm than good.
I can't help but wonder at the timing of this move. Coming as it does in advance of a whole brave new world of health care in our country. Not to mention the complete "about face" that this recommendation brings. "Doctors should stop teaching women to examine [themselves] regularly"? Hmmm. Sounds very odd.
Do you know how many billions of dollars of healthcare spending this will save? Is this the way they plan to cut back on healthcare costs? Soon, they'll tell us there is no need to get regular checkups after the age of 40. After all, they might actually find something wrong then.
Saw this article in the New York Times. Did you catch it?
The older I get, the less likely I am to believe anything I hear.
Apparently we are no longer to seek out mammograms before the age of 50, and then we are only to get them every two years. In addition, we are not to bother doing those monthly self-exams that we have heard about for our whole adult lives. Apparently it all will do us more harm than good.
I can't help but wonder at the timing of this move. Coming as it does in advance of a whole brave new world of health care in our country. Not to mention the complete "about face" that this recommendation brings. "Doctors should stop teaching women to examine [themselves] regularly"? Hmmm. Sounds very odd.
Do you know how many billions of dollars of healthcare spending this will save? Is this the way they plan to cut back on healthcare costs? Soon, they'll tell us there is no need to get regular checkups after the age of 40. After all, they might actually find something wrong then.
4 comments:
I heard this on the news. I know several woman that if it had not been for the yr mammogram they would not have made it. My mom was one of them. stage 3 cancer.
I fully agree with you, think about all the money that has been spent to educate woman already. Now say that is not true.
The news said the cancer society was not in agreement.
Do you read Spunky home school? She has a post about the new health plan, check it out if you get time. About having someone come into your home to check on the well being of your children and safety.
Thank you posting about you friend will keep her in my prayer, she is only on the beginning of her journey.
Confusing when health systems change. We have universal free mammograms every 2 years from the age of 50, and below that age a free mammogram on referral from a GP if there's any cause for concern. The advice is still to carry out regular self examination - I don't see what's wrong with doing that. I found something that concerned me last year. My GP thought it was unlikely to be significant, but referred me and I got an appointment for screening (ultrasound, mammogram and examination by a specialist) within 3 weeks. Thankfully there was nothing wrong.
I remember reading something once about aggressive mammograms over a longer period potentially causing trauma to breast tissue. For the lay person it's certainly difficult to be clear about the facts.
I saw a blip on this on yahoo news...didn't read the entire article, just the headline and didn't think too much of it (I feel like "they" are always changing back and forth...don't eat butter, eat butter, etc). But, you brought up a very interesting point, preparing the way for euthanasia. SCARY times we are living in, thankfully God is in control.
I am truly frightened by "health care". First, they're lying. It isn't health care, it's health INSURANCE. Second, has it occurred to anyone that billions could be saved simply by offering health insurance a la carte, like car insurance? My 24 year old son neither needs nor wants maternity, mental health, substance abuse rehab nor many other things mandated into policies. He also really doesn't need a low deductible. Yet as an employer, I'm required to have all those things on single employees like Bob and Marty, at a cost of $500 per person per month. Then they want to raise my taxes? I sold all my stocks and put all my money in tax free municipal bonds. I don't want my hard earned income paying even more for people who don't work hard enough to get everything they want. As for mammograms? It's my business, and I'll pay for what I want, when I want it. And the insurance companies quoted in my newspaper said they'll keep paying, too.