Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-22-2012, 09:18 AM
 
749 posts, read 835,404 times
Reputation: 647

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Prostate cancer is one of those rare cancers that you can have for years and it will not kill you. Many men who have surgery and chemo do not really need it. In fact, many elderly men have prostate cancer at autopsy.

Routine PSA Tests For Prostate Cancer On Men Of Any Age Should End, Group Says : Shots - Health Blog : NPR

For men over 75: The Iowa Prostate Cancer Consensus « THE "NEW" PROSTATE CANCER INFOLINK
Tell that to men like Jerry Orbach.....oh wait, can't do that....he's dead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2012, 09:28 AM
 
749 posts, read 835,404 times
Reputation: 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
As far as I know there are only two tests for prostrate cancer, and I wouldn't call a finger up your butt sophisticated...
Well...sophisticated or not, it correctly identifies the presence of blood....which indicates a potential problem.

When used recreationally, such as in your case, then yes....I too doubt its merits.

Oh, and it's prostate....not prostrate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
41,737 posts, read 74,692,347 times
Reputation: 66672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockside View Post
First it was mammograms, which they're now backing off of, now this silliness. Hopefully the SCOTUS will soon blow this bad law out of the water.
What law? This was a recommendation, not a law. Consult a dictionary before you post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Vermont
11,754 posts, read 14,570,102 times
Reputation: 18502
First off, anyone who claims that this new recommendation, based on years of scientific study, is coming from President Obama is an idiot.

Second, people who pay attention to this have known this for years. It has nothing to do with saving money or "death panels", it all has to do with the fact that the negative consequences of widespread prostate screening are far worse than any benefit it produces.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 09:57 AM
 
Location: CHicago, United States
6,933 posts, read 8,458,810 times
Reputation: 3510
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
You can bet your last dollar that if this was taking place with a Republican in the White House, the liberals would be outraged.
I think the announcement yesterday, which, if my memory isn't failing me, is a reiteration of what that same panel said a year or year and a half ago. As someone who regularly had the test and surgery and who was diagnosed with prostate cancer and had his cancerous prostate removed, I believe the misunderstanding of what this scientific/medical advisory group has said will cause more harm than good. To suggest that the President somehow had a hand in the discision is a sign of ignorance. Ignorance of how government and these advisory groups work, and how their recommendations are utilized. I doubt the Obama haters expressed the same outrage when committees during the "W" Bush years issued similar recommendations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 09:58 AM
 
749 posts, read 835,404 times
Reputation: 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
I'm correcting your assumption that all opposition can be categorized into one category and telling you to focus on details of the opposition itself.
You're a chore....you know that?

I was NOT throwing MY thought process into the mix....only speaking in generalities.

Over and out...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,714,136 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftyTrav View Post
You're a chore....you know that?
I'm a handful to a certain kind, I know that.

Quote:
I was NOT throwing MY thought process into the mix....only speaking in generalities.
And I was addressing the problem with generalities, especially when presented as a defense, or offense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 10:07 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,035,663 times
Reputation: 9407
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
First off, anyone who claims that this new recommendation, based on years of scientific study, is coming from President Obama is an idiot.

Second, people who pay attention to this have known this for years. It has nothing to do with saving money or "death panels", it all has to do with the fact that the negative consequences of widespread prostate screening are far worse than any benefit it produces.
That's what they're telling you, and then you come online and parrot the same information. Do you understand, Jack, that that's exactly what they wanted you to do?

You see, when government tries to move in one direction or another, it's generally understood that the populace must be willing to move with it. What better way to do that than to have an organization with a political appointee (CDC) come forth and make grand proclamations about a given test procedure, only to have those new findings to be beneficial to the one single accomplishment that Barack Obama can claim (until the Supreme Court shoots it's down)?

Do you think the CDC would have made such a bold announcement if it actually increased the costs to Obamacare? Of course not. Then you should reconcile with yourself that the CDC would indeed make such a finding known when the President's signature achievement would benefit from it. That's how Washington works.

It makes sense on the surface that this is a random, unbiased finding, yes, but you shouldn't summarily discount the political reality of such a grand pronouncement when a political appointee is involved. There's a rhyme and a reason to EVERY government action.....especially in an election year.......especially in an election year for a failed President.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 10:13 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,035,663 times
Reputation: 9407
Quote:
Originally Posted by gomexico View Post
I think the announcement yesterday, which, if my memory isn't failing me, is a reiteration of what that same panel said a year or year and a half ago. As someone who regularly had the test and surgery and who was diagnosed with prostate cancer and had his cancerous prostate removed, I believe the misunderstanding of what this scientific/medical advisory group has said will cause more harm than good. To suggest that the President somehow had a hand in the discision is a sign of ignorance. Ignorance of how government and these advisory groups work, and how their recommendations are utilized. I doubt the Obama haters expressed the same outrage when committees during the "W" Bush years issued similar recommendations.
The CDC is led by a political appointee. I believe it is you that is ignorant of how government actually works.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2012, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Vermont
11,754 posts, read 14,570,102 times
Reputation: 18502
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
That's what they're telling you, and then you come online and parrot the same information. . . .

It makes sense on the surface that this is a random, unbiased finding, yes, but you shouldn't summarily discount the political reality of such a grand pronouncement when a political appointee is involved. There's a rhyme and a reason to EVERY government action.....especially in an election year.......especially in an election year for a failed President.
In other words, everything is a government conspiracy and the burden of disproving it falls on those who don't believe it.

I see so many posts from you, and others like you, that I think you must have a terribly miserable existence, always looking out the window or under the bed because you're so sure that the government is constantly plotting against you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:28 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top