Skip to comments.
Extra screening for women with dense breasts may not be necessary: study
nydailynews ^
Posted on 05/19/2015 10:14:52 AM PDT by BenLurkin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
1
posted on
05/19/2015 10:14:52 AM PDT
by
BenLurkin
To: BenLurkin; Lazamataz; Darksheare
NO, no, no, it’s too easy...
2
posted on
05/19/2015 10:18:59 AM PDT
by
Old Sarge
(Its the Sixties all over again, but with crappy music...)
To: BenLurkin
So what “BOOB” came up w/ this “Study”?
3
posted on
05/19/2015 10:19:53 AM PDT
by
US Navy Vet
(Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
To: Old Sarge
There’s a joke in that bra somewhere?
4
posted on
05/19/2015 10:20:24 AM PDT
by
no-to-illegals
(Do what is Right ... Take This Freepathon Over the Top!!!)
To: BenLurkin
5
posted on
05/19/2015 10:20:52 AM PDT
by
Mr. K
(Palin/Cruz - to defeat HilLIARy/Warren)
To: BenLurkin
so many doctors are going to be suicidal on this news ...
6
posted on
05/19/2015 10:22:06 AM PDT
by
no-to-illegals
(Do what is Right ... Take This Freepathon Over the Top!!!)
To: Old Sarge; BenLurkin; Lazamataz
7
posted on
05/19/2015 10:22:37 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
To: no-to-illegals
We can milk it for all it’s worth - kind of a tet-a-teat...
8
posted on
05/19/2015 10:24:47 AM PDT
by
Old Sarge
(Its the Sixties all over again, but with crappy music...)
To: Darksheare
9
posted on
05/19/2015 10:26:56 AM PDT
by
Old Sarge
(Its the Sixties all over again, but with crappy music...)
To: Old Sarge
Made for H00Ts and H00TERS?
10
posted on
05/19/2015 10:27:39 AM PDT
by
no-to-illegals
(Do what is Right ... Take This Freepathon Over the Top!!!)
To: BenLurkin
“...have a high enough risk for breast cancer after a normal mammogram to justify having more screening tests.”
Justify to whom?
This is an example of slanted journalism. Justified - unless they’ve changed the definition - that means one person / group is explaining to another why something should / should not be done. The journalist has made clear one side of the debate - the “explainers” stating their case.
However, the journalist has not said TO WHOM they are making that case. We are left to assume they are making their case to either an insurance company (private insurance) or to the government (via Obamacare).
All that’s left really is for us to infer WHY the author didn’t mention either of those entities. Any takers?
11
posted on
05/19/2015 10:28:45 AM PDT
by
Personal Responsibility
(Changing the name of a thing doesn't change the thing. A liberal by any other name...)
To: Personal Responsibility
the author was paid to write this by the Health Secretary at the Federal level?
12
posted on
05/19/2015 10:31:18 AM PDT
by
no-to-illegals
(Do what is Right ... Take This Freepathon Over the Top!!!)
To: BenLurkin
I’m just going to sit back and enjoy this thread.
13
posted on
05/19/2015 10:32:00 AM PDT
by
dfwgator
To: no-to-illegals
I was going to go with “the author supports Obamacare and is priming the pump to get us used to this kind of thinking”. Either way works though.
14
posted on
05/19/2015 10:33:32 AM PDT
by
Personal Responsibility
(Changing the name of a thing doesn't change the thing. A liberal by any other name...)
To: Old Sarge
Nothing is as funny as breast cancer
I guess...
15
posted on
05/19/2015 10:37:28 AM PDT
by
stanne
To: BenLurkin
16
posted on
05/19/2015 10:38:10 AM PDT
by
Manic_Episode
(GOP = The Whig Party)
To: BenLurkin
I noticed that ever since Obamacare came along, a number of tests have suddenly become unnecessary. I'm suspicious as to whether this is the result of better science or an effort to save money for the insurance companies and/or Medicaid.
Or maybe a way to kill off certain age groups or classes of undesirables.
To: Old Sarge
18
posted on
05/19/2015 10:39:13 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
To: Mr. K
19
posted on
05/19/2015 10:41:52 AM PDT
by
EinNYC
To: fatnotlazy; BenLurkin
It is stealth eugenics.
The probable idea behind it is this: Reduce the number of genetically predisposed to cancer people by removing tests as being unnecessary.
Then remove treatments.
Then give a push ever so slightly towards assisted suicide.
Then eventually outright forcing people to be euthanized due to “increased risk to the population”.
Eugenics never went away, it just got real quiet and tried another tack.
20
posted on
05/19/2015 10:42:50 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson