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.
Lets lay this out with the facts already provided.
The cost for the insurance reform already in Congress has been proved by the CBO to be too expensive. This is based in part on the recommendations for preventative care of patients. If I was a doctor who was on a panel of a group who openly advocates for a healthcare reform bill, and I feel that the only thing preventing that system from being passed, then it only makes sense to look at current recommendations for preventative care and reduce them to try and bring the costs inline with a doable program.
The problem is... insurance companies will then reduce the amount of preventative care they will cover since it is not "recommended" by these groups. Thus, even people that don't intend on getting on the government insurance program will have to reduce their preventative care for the sole purpose of providing care to people that currently can't afford insurance.
This is twice now in a week that we have seen these groups of doctors who openly advocate in support of a healthcare reform bill revise their recommendations for preventative care.
Lets not play this off like its just "science" and no politics. Doing so is dishonest.
Many of us who oppose a government ran health insurance program used these EXACT circumstances to oppose the plan. Most of which many of you dismissed. Lets focus on the fact that this bill isn't even passed yet, and already its becoming apparent that regardless of if you support a government plan or not, you will have to sacrafice.
And the American Cancer Society has come out in full support of this recommendation, as well as stating they will come out with their own recommendations in the near future.
This is about science. Medicine is a science.
The recommendations regarding mammograms and pap smears are not based on politics, they are based on science.
You do not find it interesting though that all of a sudden the MSM is all over this?
Lets lay this out with the facts already provided.
The cost for the insurance reform already in Congress has been proved by the CBO to be too expensive. This is based in part on the recommendations for preventative care of patients. If I was a doctor who was on a panel of a group who openly advocates for a healthcare reform bill, and I feel that the only thing preventing that system from being passed, then it only makes sense to look at current recommendations for preventative care and reduce them to try and bring the costs inline with a doable program.
The problem is... insurance companies will then reduce the amount of preventative care they will cover since it is not "recommended" by these groups. Thus, even people that don't intend on getting on the government insurance program will have to reduce their preventative care for the sole purpose of providing care to people that currently can't afford insurance.
This is twice now in a week that we have seen these groups of doctors who openly advocate in support of a healthcare reform bill revise their recommendations for preventative care.
Lets not play this off like its just "science" and no politics. Doing so is dishonest.
Many of us who oppose a government ran health insurance program used these EXACT circumstances to oppose the plan. Most of which many of you dismissed. Lets focus on the fact that this bill isn't even passed yet, and already its becoming apparent that regardless of if you support a government plan or not, you will have to sacrafice.
Sacrifice what? Mammograms and pap smears that are potentially more harmful than beneficial? Well, I for one don't consider that a sacrifice. And people who do want these procedures will still be able to get them, most likely paid for by their insurance, simply because after talking with their doctor about their individual situation, the doctor thinks the tests are advisable.
For a regular healthy young woman every three years should be fine.
I always had normal annual paps since I was 18....until I was 27. Since then I have had numerous biopsies, a laser ablation procedure, a LEEP procedure and a half dozen colposcopies. I have severe dysplasia and am monitored every 6 months with colposcopies and pap smears. A significant portion of my cervix has been removed -- maybe I will have trouble carrying to full term.
Most women do not have to go through what I have experienced. A lot of my girlfriends have had an abnormal pap and a colposcopy, but that's it. For them, they resume life with normal pap smears and going an extra year in between, as long as there are no irregular symptoms such as pelvic pain or bleeding after sex, won't hurt them.
Squamous type cervical cancers are generally slow-growing. Even at the highest level of abnormality, (CIN III or CIS) it generally would take 10 years of no treatment to progress to invasive cancer.
I guess what I am trying to say is that if a woman is normal and healthy and has a history of clean paps, this change won't be a problem. If a woman has a history of cervical abnormalities, they will still get the testing and services they need.
You do not find it interesting though that all of a sudden the MSM is all over this?
Wasn't the MSM all over the risks involved with the H1N1 vaccine?
During the previous administration, didn't the MSM discuss the risks with the PPV vaccine?
Logically speaking, if this is some conspiracy associated with healthcare reform, whose conspiracy is it? The Obama administration's? Because the release of these recommendations has done nothing to advance health care reform, has it? If anything, it's hurt the chances of this bill's passage.
Or do you think the conservatives were behind the recommendations?
...And people who do want these procedures will still be able to get them, most likely paid for by their insurance, simply because after talking with their doctor about their individual situation, the doctor thinks the tests are advisable.
That is complete BS. Insurance companies establish their guidelines for payment based on physician recommendations, especially from groups like these. When they say "it isn't necessary" private insurance says "we aren't paying for it". I don't blame them.
Who I do blame are the physicians who put out these recommendations, not based exclusivily on their medical opinions, but also on their political ideologies and how those medical opinions effect their ability to push their agenda.
That is a conflict of interest in itself. This doctor, the panel for the group she serves on, and that panels open admission of advocating for healthcare reform should be clear enough for most people.
This doctor should spend a little more time being a doctor and a little less time serving on panels which have expressed interest in lobbying congress. Her decision not to do so, makes me and I suspect many other objective thinkers doubt her motivations.
That is complete BS. Insurance companies establish their guidelines for payment based on physician recommendations, especially from groups like these. When they say "it isn't necessary" private insurance says "we aren't paying for it". I don't blame them.
Who I do blame are the physicians who put out these recommendations, not based exclusivily on their medical opinions, but also on their political ideologies and how those medical opinions effect their ability to push their agenda.
That is a conflict of interest in itself. This doctor, the panel for the group she serves on, and that panels open admission of advocating for healthcare reform should be clear enough for most people.
This doctor should spend a little more time being a doctor and a little less time serving on panels which have expressed interest in lobbying congress. Her decision not to do so, makes me and I suspect many other objective thinkers doubt her motivations.
Actually, your position is BS.
The recommendation, actually both recommendations, are general, and both take great care to explicitly advise that women consult with their doctors and that the decision to have these screenings should still be at the discretion of the patient and doctor. Neither of the recommendations is a green light for insurance companies to deny coverage of the screenings if the patient's doctor thinks those screenings are merited.
The recommendation, actually both recommendations, are general, and both take great care to explicitly advise that women consult with their doctors and that the decision to have these screenings should still be at the discretion of the patient and doctor. Neither of the recommendations is a green light for insurance companies to deny coverage of the screenings if the patient's doctor thinks those screenings are merited.
How do you think insurance companies determine what to cover at what interval?
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.
