Mammograms and firearms... perpendicular rationing

[hicksonj]

As most have read, a government task force now recommends against routine mammograms for women under 50, since they will only save one woman's life in about 1900 that are screened, and the cost for screening is fairly large. Besides the fact this is a clear forecast for how health care will be rationed under the new plan... the same institution pushing this recommendation stands in direct opposition to firearm ownership, despite the economic impact of firearm and firearm related purchases.

From March 1, 1994 to December 31, 2008, 95 Million applications for firearm transfers and permits were approved by the BATF. This doesn't even address private transfers, accessory/ammo sales, etc. About 160,000 murders were committed with firearms during this same period.

If the government wants to promote rationing of my wife's/sister's/mom's life due to economic impact, it better reconsider the economic value of firearms.

 

[CRSIII]

When I heard this today I was disgusted.
How much more blatant can they get?
I wonder how much longer this crap will go on.

 

[Jamie]

I've said it before....this country is on a direct route to the shitter.

 

[JuergenG]

Disgusting !
Mammography doesn't detect all breast tumors, though[sad2]
My wife's been through this and is still under treatment - 6 1/2 years after.

 

[Admin]

I've said it before....this country is on a direct route to the shitter.

+1

Thank you to all of those who voted for Obama, I hope you're happy now.

 

[TomH]

They're trying to train the sheeple to ration before the health care push. Luckily it is resulting in outrage from the medical community and cancer survivors. I already posted about this yesterday: http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=83641

I have seen a number of articles written by cancer survivors who found the cancer themselves in their 40s. Flys right in the face of the gov panel's "self checks are worthless" position. I have an aunt who survived breast cancer in her 40s. I find this outrageous.

 

[Asaltweapon]

I'm married to a BC survivor. It was hell for the both of us. Thankfully I have GREAT PRIVATE INSURANCE and work for a better company. She was 46 when it was found, stage 4. Baselines at 35, yearly mamos from 40 on. At age 45 there was nothing to see. At 46 she was missing breasts. Zero family history.
If it wasn't for that mamogram she'd be 6 feet deep right now.

Could someone please provide me a list of things the government has taken over or is running on a reasonable budget?

1)
2)
3)
..

 

[Admin]

I'm married to a BC survivor. It was hell for the both of us. Thankfully I have GREAT PRIVATE INSURANCE and work for a better company.

Well the problem is when Obamacare passes your private insurance provider will have 5 years to transition you to the public option. This will be done faster than 5 years because the .gov will tax the hell out of the private companies that provide employee healthcare and they will also undercut on premiums to get everyone on the public option as soon as possible.

 

[CRSIII]

It's this kind of shit that is going to push the average person to the edge.
They say the toothless get ruthless.
Keep it up.

 

[Asaltweapon]

Derek,
I know! It's a scary thought what these A holes are trying to do all in the name of ACORN.

 

[Admin]

When I heard this today I was disgusted.
How much more blatant can they get?
I wonder how much longer this crap will go on.

The bad thing is right now they are trying to play it safe to make sure he wins in 2012. You literally haven't seen anything yet...[sad2]

 

[Gak44]

My hope is that enough people will be P-O, by all this BS, that they will toss this gang out come next nov, if there are elections!!

 

[hminsky]

You all sound exactly like the "if it saves one life" crowd right now, and I honestly do not understand what all of you are so angry about here.

Someone came out with a cost-benefit study of a diagnostic test, factoring in the cost of the test and the cost of false positives. If you think that the costs were computed incorrectly, or the benefits measured incorrectly, then say what you think are the correct values.

Do you recommend that diagnostic tests be given with no cost-benefit analysis? Do you think your insurance company does not make this decision already, every time you go to the doctor ? Why don't you ask for a full MRI and CAT scan every three months? If it saves one life....

 

[JRyan]

+1

Thank you to all of those who voted for Obama, I hope you're happy now.

I hope they get crabs from a toilet seat.

 

[Asaltweapon]

You all sound exactly like the "if it saves one life" crowd right now, and I honestly do not understand what all of you are so angry about here.

Someone came out with a cost-benefit study of a diagnostic test, factoring in the cost of the test and the cost of false positives. If you think that the costs were computed incorrectly, or the benefits measured incorrectly, then say what you think are the correct values.

Do you recommend that diagnostic tests be given with no cost-benefit analysis? Do you think your insurance company does not make this decision already, every time you go to the doctor ? Why don't you ask for a full MRI and CAT scan every three months? If it saves one life....

The heath care industry is one of the most screwed up places and they themselves know it. If it were run like a business they would have died long ago. The problem is they don't know where to start fixing it.

For the record. The last thing I am is a "if it saves just one life" person. Preventive medicine was much cheaper than the cure in my wife's case.

 

[jhblaze1]

I've said it before....this country is on a direct route to the shitter.

It's actually getting kind of scary. Relatively soon something is going to have to happen.

 

[TomH]

You all sound exactly like the "if it saves one life" crowd right now, and I honestly do not understand what all of you are so angry about here.

Someone came out with a cost-benefit study of a diagnostic test, factoring in the cost of the test and the cost of false positives. If you think that the costs were computed incorrectly, or the benefits measured incorrectly, then say what you think are the correct values.

Do you recommend that diagnostic tests be given with no cost-benefit analysis? Do you think your insurance company does not make this decision already, every time you go to the doctor ? Why don't you ask for a full MRI and CAT scan every three months? If it saves one life....

If someone's private insurance will cover it, who cares? It's worked fine for the last 20 years for the industry. If a private carrier decides not to cover certain things at certain ages then fine, you can always shop around. The problem with a gov mandated plan is there won't be any shopping around. You will have no say in what you want to be covered for, and you will wait in line until they say so.

You're comparing apples to oranges... what health insurance companies have and will offer to people is not comparable to "if it saves just one life" laws and legislation...

 

[hicksonj]

I respect your line of thinking here, but this administration is conveniently using cost-benefit analysis (on limited statistical evidence) to strength a position, while ignoring cost-benefit on everything else it promulgates.

You all sound exactly like the "if it saves one life" crowd right now, and I honestly do not understand what all of you are so angry about here.

Someone came out with a cost-benefit study of a diagnostic test, factoring in the cost of the test and the cost of false positives. If you think that the costs were computed incorrectly, or the benefits measured incorrectly, then say what you think are the correct values.

Do you recommend that diagnostic tests be given with no cost-benefit analysis? Do you think your insurance company does not make this decision already, every time you go to the doctor ? Why don't you ask for a full MRI and CAT scan every three months? If it saves one life....

 

[jhblaze1]

You all sound exactly like the "if it saves one life" crowd right now, and I honestly do not understand what all of you are so angry about here.

Someone came out with a cost-benefit study of a diagnostic test, factoring in the cost of the test and the cost of false positives. If you think that the costs were computed incorrectly, or the benefits measured incorrectly, then say what you think are the correct values.

Do you recommend that diagnostic tests be given with no cost-benefit analysis? Do you think your insurance company does not make this decision already, every time you go to the doctor ? Why don't you ask for a full MRI and CAT scan every three months? If it saves one life....

It's probably the fact that statistics and cost benefit analysis don't mean shit to individual people who care about their health. I have private insurance. I don't give a flying F what the .gov thinks I should do with my time or money. Now it's mammograms, but soon they'll be telling us to cut the shit with all our MRI and CT scanning and that their cost benefit analysis shows that grandpa's new pacemaker isn't "cost effective".

I don't want .gov run insurance and my current insurance allows my doctors to determine what tests I should have and when, and what treatments are, based on my personal medical history, appropriate. I don't want my insurance to change. I'm quite happy with it as I can see a doctor whenever I want to get something checked out. I and my employer have reached an agreement that we both find suitable to cover the premiums. I don't need or want the government's opinion on ANYTHING relating to my or my family's health.

 

[freedom2012]

You all sound exactly like the "if it saves one life" crowd right now, and I honestly do not understand what all of you are so angry about here.

...

Hey Hminsky, they didn't say it saved one life, they say it saved one life in 1900. With 150 Million women in this country that means it could potentially save 80,000 of those women living today. That is a staggering number and if paid for by PRIVATE insurance, that is a GREAT result for capitalism and the mammogram.

 

[JackDaniels]

You all sound exactly like the "if it saves one life" crowd right now, and I honestly do not understand what all of you are so angry about here.

A lot of people on this board throw out insults and get pissed off when replying to heated subjects like these. So, I will point out where you are wrong in a civil manner, and I hope I set an example:

Typically when we criticize the "if it saves on life" crowd, we are talking about a crowd that is pushing a law that strips one of our freedoms for the illusion of safety. So, these people want big government to save the day.

Here we are criticizing big government, and suggesting that they stay out of our freedom of choice to do what we will with our own money and our own health. So, these folks want big government to get the eff out of the way.

This was what the American Cancer Society had to say:

The new advice was sharply challenged by the cancer society.

"This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over," the society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said in a statement.

The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote

It is a difference of 600 women. Not that much in my eyes. And, I don't want the govt giving me advice. I'd rather it come from private research.


I hope you see how the two are very different.

 

[TomH]

It's probably the fact that statistics and cost benefit analysis don't mean shit to individual people who care about their health. I have private insurance. I don't give a flying F what the .gov thinks I should do with my time or money. Now it's mammograms, but soon they'll be telling us to cut the shit with all our MRI and CT scanning and that their cost benefit analysis shows that grandpa's new pacemaker isn't "cost effective".

I don't want .gov run insurance and my current insurance allows my doctors to determine what tests I should have and when, and what treatments are, based on my personal medical history, appropriate. I don't want my insurance to change. I'm quite happy with it as I can see a doctor whenever I want to get something checked out. I and my employer have reached an agreement that we both find suitable to cover the premiums. I don't need or want the government's opinion on ANYTHING relating to my or my family's health.

Exactly, since government doesn't run health insurance (yet), and has no authority to do so who gives a crap what their "panel" says? Capitalism has worked fine so far, and hundreds of thousands of women under 50, a family member of mine included, have been successfully diagnosed, treated, and cured of cancer. The companies are obviously still making money or they wouldn't cover it. Insurance companies don't operate on cost effectiveness alone, they also operate to make customers happy. If a major carrier stopped offering mammograms and biopsies for women under 50 you can bet they would be promptly losing a LOT of business. Mandated gov insurance won't really care if you're happy or not, since they would have eliminated the alternative.

The government shouldn't have anything to do with the medical field period. I wish they would stop wasting my money on this crap research and start doing the things spelled out for them to do in the Constitution.

 

[JackDaniels]

I can't imagine this not being a slap in the face if your a woman in her 40s who is concerned for her health and pays for her healthcare.

What if they did a study and found that people of a particular race are less likely to have heart problems, and recomended that they don't have their bloodpressure checked as often as they may wish to?

Then would the people jump out of the water before it starts to boil?

 

[Kalahari]

You all sound exactly like the "if it saves one life" crowd right now, and I honestly do not understand what all of you are so angry about here.

Someone came out with a cost-benefit study of a diagnostic test, factoring in the cost of the test and the cost of false positives. If you think that the costs were computed incorrectly, or the benefits measured incorrectly, then say what you think are the correct values.

Do you recommend that diagnostic tests be given with no cost-benefit analysis? Do you think your insurance company does not make this decision already, every time you go to the doctor ? Why don't you ask for a full MRI and CAT scan every three months? If it saves one life....

According to CNN tonight (I don't control the remote), in every 100 "positive" mammograms for women in their 40's, only 2 will be a true positive.

Now, obviously 2:98 is a substantial ratio. I won't claim to know the actual numbers, but it seems possible to me that those two breast cancers may cost much more than the combined biopsies. Knowing women who have undergone breast cancer and the insanely high costs their treatment incurred, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of the treatments for those two women outweighed the cost of the 98 biopsies to prove a false positive. None of this brings into picture the "worth" of a human life.

Again, I don't know the numbers, but I'm more interested in hearing that CBA. Either way, people ought to be able to spend their money how they wish.


In any case, its just a stupid "recommendation." It isn't a law. I highly doubt it will be a law. There's a ***load of outrage going on right now, on both the left and the right.

 

[Climbnsink]

Look on the brightside this could be a blow to obamacare. The outrage might change a few minds and they picked on women, and their boobs. Bad move for them. If they were smart they would have started by revising prostate exam recommendations most guys would be happy to be told they can go another 10 years without the digital exam.

 

[Len-2A Training]

A doctor on TV news today said that it cost ~$135/mammogram.

I have good reason to believe that treating breast cancer in Boston costs >$100K/patient and as much as $250K. I've heard those numbers before, but can't pin down when/where.

 

[Kalahari]

A doctor on TV news today said that it cost ~$135/mammogram.

I have good reason to believe that treating breast cancer in Boston costs >$100K/patient and as much as $250K. I've heard those numbers before, but can't pin down when/where.

To be fair, you then have to factor in the cost of biopsies for all the false-positives.

 

[Bob P]

I'm married to a BC survivor. It was hell for the both of us. Thankfully I have GREAT PRIVATE INSURANCE and work for a better company. She was 46 when it was found, stage 4. Baselines at 35, yearly mamos from 40 on. At age 45 there was nothing to see. At 46 she was missing breasts. Zero family history.
If it wasn't for that mamogram she'd be 6 feet deep right now.

Could someone please provide me a list of things the government has taken over or is running on a reasonable budget?

1)
2)
3)
..

+1

My wife would NEVER have been diagnosed with her cancer under a public option. She fit NONE of the profiles and had minimal symptoms. Her own stubbornness is the only reason she got a cat scan and - surprise - there was the disgusting little bastard sitting in her lung. She's still here and fighting but if they had waited she might not be.

F Obamacare and F anyone that supports it.

 

[K-DUB]

You all sound exactly like the "if it saves one life" crowd right now, and I honestly do not understand what all of you are so angry about here.

I'm angry b/c the stinkin' government has no business telling me when to examine (or have examined) my breasts. That's between me & my doctor. They also have no right to force me to buy insurance, or to tell me what sort of treatment/medicine/doctor I'm entitled to. I want to pay my own way, make my own decisions, & be in charge of MY LIFE, but they're trying to make that illegal. That's why I'm pissed off.

 

[soloman02]

Still, it is cheaper to catch the cancer early (by having screenings, etc.) and treat it, than to discover it when it is much further along in development. When you factor in the little tidbit that the farther along in development the cancer is discovered the risk of death greatly increases, the cost of screening early goes way down.

I don't disagree with the sentiments above. The government has no business telling me what insurance I must have et al.