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.
I still wonder if the cost of preventive care is still going to be more expensive than, say, patients with cancer each of whom might have to undergo surgeries, chemo, radiation, hospital stays and cost of drugs.
I don't know if people on welfare are liberal or not, my experience with them is that few really have any political philosophy.
I'm quite confident that welfare recipients have among the lowest voter turn out numbers of just about any group. It wouldn't matter if they were liberal or conservative. They don't vote.
I still wonder if the cost of preventive care is still going to be more expensive than, say, patients with cancer each of whom might have to undergo surgeries, chemo, radiation, hospital stays and cost of drugs.
So what are you are you trying to point out?
Are you saying that if the cost of finding more people with cancer and thereby treating them is more expensive than say..having them NOT find the cancer and dying.. we're better off leaving it as it is.. so that we don't spend the money on saving people that may have otherwise been saved if their cancers were found ?
But if they did vote they would obviously vote in favour of those who support them the most and are willing to give them the most money. Democrats.
Not necessarily. Many poor people vote Republican while many wealthy people vote Democratic. The Republicans draw from a vast "NASCAR Dad" crowd while the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote Democratic. It also goes hand in hand that the more educated you are the more likely you are to be a high earner.
What's "obvious" is not always what the facts back up. Just because something seems "logical" doesn't mean it's backed up by facts.
This is just an example of wasteful spending for preventive measures.
Mammographies are NOT the only way to detect breast cancer. Self Exams are probably the BEST way.
They are also not really given to woman of a younger age unless their is a history of Breast Cancer in the family.
I think screening usually starts in either the 30's or 40's.. one test yearly or every two years.. along with self exam. I know when I go to my gyno all he/she does is feel the breasts for exam.
It makes sense that woman with more dense breast ie: much bigger breasts with alot of fatty tissue, would be harder to detect in the mammogram.
However, it's still effective when detecting breast cancer to detect it early.. because usually teh self exam doesn't reveal the smaller lump that can not yet be felt by the ones hands.
Are you saying that if the cost of finding more people with cancer and thereby treating them is more expensive than say..having them NOT find the cancer and dying.. we're better off leaving it as it is.. so that we don't spend the money on saving people that may have otherwise been saved if their cancers were found ?
That's an extremely harsh stance.
Not at all. Just the opposite. Read my previous post here #598. I was responding to those who said preventive care will be more expensive. I am all for preventive care so that patients may have a lesser chance of getting cancer and other diseases., something which is sorely lacking now.
Breast cancer self exams have been found over and over again to have no effect on breast cancer mortality, because once a tumour can be felt it is already in the late stages.
Breast cancer self exams have been found over and over again to have no effect on breast cancer mortality, because once a tumour can be felt it is already in the late stages.
I am looking for the actual scientific study on it. I have access to it through my school, but you wouldn't be able to see it.
excuse me.. but go back up and read what I said.. I said exactly what you said.. that usually the lump can not be found that way until it's much bigger.. and that mammograms are excellent for EARLY detection.
There are quite a few celebrities that have been victims of breast cancer..all of whom had theirs detected early with the mammograms.. the most recent ones..Maura Tierney.. .. of course you remember Christina appelgate... What's her name from Nurse Jackie..etc. etc. etc.
Mammograms DO work.. .. it is again understandable that ti wouldn't be as affective in woman with thicker breasts.
Oh.. and af ormer H.S friends mom.. also detected via yearly mammogram.. very early
What the hell is your point anyway..
Unless your positino is still you don't give a crap that those that can't afford insurance die every year becasue they don't have insurance... Breast Cancer is only one example of many illnesses. afflictions, etc..
So what the hell is your point anyway..??
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.
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.
