Posted on 11/18/2009 6:12:25 AM PST by shortstop
Yep...glad you brought that up before it goes down the memory hole:
tell all those chumps in gubmint we think it would be cost effective to stop screening for prostate cancer.
>>>Welcome to Rationing 101.
Doesn’t the current policy already reflect rationing since it proposes that healthy women wait until they are 40. What if a healthy 25 year old woman wants to get a mammogram? Will insurance cover it?
Only "productive citizens" need apply, Please report for your end of life counseling.< / Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel>
If a woman is otherwise healthy, would a scan be necessary at age 25 ?
One of our local news programs in Boston painted it as being the fault of the evil insurance companies... (implying that their lobbyists must have pushed for it)
One of our local news programs in Boston painted it as being the fault of the evil insurance companies... (implying that their lobbyists must have pushed for it)
>>>If a woman is otherwise healthy, would a scan be necessary at age 25 ?
That is the question being raised by this policy. If a woman is otherwise healthy, would a scan be necessary at age 40? There appears to be consensus on this thread that there is some benefit for women to begin at 40 instead of age 50. Would there similarly not be some benefit of beginning at age 20 instead of age 40?
Exactly, and the next step is medicare will discontinue paying a penny on mammograms which will allow the supplemental insurance to disallow them and eureka...everyone saves money. We all better get our burial prepaid policies while they are still a bargain!
Now, the culture of death refuses to permit treatment of the tidal wave of breast cancer it caused.
So much for women's "liberation." When will women learn you can't fool Mother Nature, and you can't break the Natural Law without there being dire consequences?
And men sit back silent, because they are the ones who ultimately benefit from hormonal birth control pills and legalized abortion, by indulging in procreation without procreating.
I'm beginning to think this is part of the plan to wear down resistance to government daycare, the next step in our socialist utopia. Think about it: There is no mommy. Daddy has to go to work and daddy's single income can't afford private day care.
A his bill isn’t even law yet!
We haven’t hit bottom yet, it’s a shame.
>>>It won’t only end up killing women, it will end up especially killing women in their 30’s and 40’s who have young children.
So do you support guidelines for annual maamograms for healthy women beginning at age 30? Age 25? Age 20? The current guidelines do nothing for the young mothers in their 30s with children.
Obama also said it would save money, it does the opposite, but it saves lives. Obama was never called his lie.
NO ONCOLOGISTS ON THE DEATH PANEL.
Lots of democrat party “public health” hacks.
Reduce access to these screenings by women who cannot afford them. Their cancers are not detected in time, so they die off. Those who have sufficient PRIVATE insurance or otherwise can afford to pay for their own screenings will still get them and will survive.
Those who cannot afford them are not going to be paying as much in taxes as those who can, so they are weeded out of the population.
Once Obamacare is instituted, even using your own money to pay for treatments that are not approved by the government will be made illegal. Thus certain middle-aged women [who tend to start having expensive health problems] will be culled from the herd — except those deemed more equal than others of course. The likes of Michelle Obama will get all of the screenings and treatments she needs no matter what health policy is enacted, I promise you.
Interesting actuarial move in the coming Brave New World.
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.