Hey liberals, guess how the government is going to reduce the cost of your highly coveted government-provided public option?
No mammograms for chicks before they're 50!
At least that's what the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (the government) is now recommending. Apparently the few lives that are saved by routine preventative mammograms in the 40-49 age range aren't worth the cost.
"With its new recommendations, the [task force] is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives; just not enough of them," Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society.
The organization says it looked at virtually the same data as the task force but came to a different conclusion. "Breast cancer is a serious health problem facing adult women, and mammography is part of our solution beginning at age 40 for average-risk women," it says. It recommends annual exams beginning at that age.
Experts at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center also voiced concern and said they aren't changing their screening protocol. "We disagree with their conclusions," Dr. Therese Bevers said of the task force. "You have to screen more women. It's the value we put on zero women dying."
The task force acknowledged that mammograms can save lives and fear their new guidelines may be misinterpreted. "We aren't against screening women in their 40s, we just don't think it should be routine," Petitti said.
But some doctors say the language isn't clear and the confusion may turn women away from being screened at all.
The task force claims that the risks of routine mammograms - false positives and small doses of radiation exposure - are too great for the actual percentage of women in their forties (15%) who do catch breast cancer during the exams.
Too great? Too great for whom? Who wouldn't trade the short-lived anxiousness of a false positive for the ability to catch cancer early and eradicate it with a higher success rate than
giving it a ten year head start? The reasons these quacks put forth for recommending against routine mammograms are weak and pathetic. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together can see the real motivations for this bullshit conclusion.
Hey guys, how much do you think it costs health insurers to pay for a decade worth of mammograms for every covered woman? How can the government - President Barack "Jesus Christ" Obama - with its stated goal of health reform with no increase in the national deficit use these numbers to plead its case? What else will the government decide to recommend against because it doesn't save
enough lives?
See, everybody who's been clamoring for a public option has fought blindly, zealously, for it without actually thinking about the realities of implementing it. I mean, the fucking thing doesn't even exist and yet the government is
already proposing health care rationing (and it
is rationing, don't think it isn't).
So let's say you get your public option. And let's say you're on it. And you're happy because, yay, you've got insurance, right? But, uh-oh, you later find out you've got this nasty disease that could have been caught and treated early with routine screening. And your life
could have been saved except that your one (1) single life wasn't deemed
significant enough for the government to incur your health care costs.
Now, I'm not saying it will happen to you, dear reader; what I am saying is it
will happen. It's
already happening.
What's in
your family's medical history?
