Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:
It's an ends-justify-the-means argument, and I don't accept that argument here any more than I do in the case of, say, torture ("It's okay to torture bad people to save lives.").

Besides, I'm interested in saving women's lives so that they can have good ones, not so that they can be reduced to their most desirable parts while people ignore their thoughts, ideas, etc.

Moreover, you seem to me to be presenting a false dichotomy

A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Yeah, I have to say I agree with you. Breast cancer awareness should be aimed at women, with the view of preventing a disease which kills women, and if it doesn't kill them, causes suffering and possibly disfigurement. It's shouldn't be about - 'save men's playthings'.

Many women face the choice of losing a breast/or breasts or die - there are women who opt for mastectomies to reduce their chance of breast cancer - and part of the reason that women suffer so psychologically because of this operation is to do with self image, the concept of a 'proper woman' hvaing to have large, full breasts.

Also, Anthony, not all societies revere the breast. In societies where breasts are out in the open more, they are not considered particularly sexual - just something that babies enjoy!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
but isn't it a bit of moot point whether a woman's body is enjoyed or not....

it's about the suffering brought about by a disease.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"I'm a male. I should give two flying shits about mammograms in the first place, WHY, exactly? What does breast cancer have to do with me?"

Hello Mike,

This is an unexpected statement.

Breasts are amazing fantasyland playthings that provide endless hours of entertainment and delight to males everywhere.

I want all the breasts to be safe.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OPPYH:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by participant:
Ok guys, it stopped being funny a long time ago.
Thread title is supposed to read ' Government health care'
If this continues I recommend a carpet banning (myself included)

The firefly board is supposed to be a friendly community and don't dragged down by this troll kingdom schoolboy crap

---

I try to be as polite as possible, but sometimes I get a little upset.

Kwicko, sorry to bug you. You're good people.

AnthonyT please accept my apology.

---

Quote:

---

I do not believe that when people enjoy thinking about a woman's body, that they also start ignoring their thoughts, ideas, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
TONY- I see. Hmmm... When someone says "In my country, people don't do laundry" it's logically clear that those who DO laundry are therefore not people. When someone says that people enjoy looking at a woman's breasts, does that mean those who don't are therefore not people? I guess logically not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Okay, I'm coming in waaaay too late to read the whole thing (tho' I got through about half of the responses since my post).

For one thing, I immeditely thought Oppy was being sarcastic, not serious. If he was serious, then I abhor everything he said (half-way through at least). If he was being sarcastic as I thought, then I'm surprised you guys didn't pick up on it.

As to the new "guidelines" and Magon's question (apologies if it's been replied to already), there is no problem getting health insurance to pay for mammograms every two years, despite whatever guidelines they suggest...at least at this time. Who wants to bet that changes in private insurance, with this stuff given as the excuse? It's the perfect "out" to refuse coverage.

Besides that, almost everyone I've heard/read on the news, including experts and government officials, have said "ignore the report" and do what you think is best. That anwers THAT, to my satisfaction. As to what's coming; who knows? But I think I see it as an excuse for insurance companies to refuse mammograms by saying "we follow the recent report" just as much, if not more, than the government would. Just my opinion.

And I didn't see (half way through) any mention of the new "suggestions" about PAP smears...I find it interesting these two things come out right in the middle of the health care debate. I'd bet dollars to donuts that, given it's coming out at this time and now there are two of them, it makes the idea of government health care look bad, and that since SOME kind of regulation on the insurance companies denying coverage is in the works, it might well be yet another ploy to defeat reform.

As to the boobs comment, I thought it was funny, not sexist. But then I'm not easily offended, so I can't speak for anyone and respect their right to be offended.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Okay, I'm coming in waaaay too late to read the whole thing (tho' I got through about half of the responses since my post).

For one thing, I immeditely thought Oppy was being sarcastic, not serious. If he was serious, then I abhor everything he said (half-way through at least). If he was being sarcastic as I thought, then I'm surprised you guys didn't pick up on it.

---

Quote:

---

As to the new "guidelines" and Magon's question (apologies if it's been replied to already), there is no problem getting health insurance to pay for mammograms every two years, despite whatever guidelines they suggest...at least at this time. Who wants to bet that changes in private insurance, with this stuff given as the excuse? It's the perfect "out" to refuse coverage.

Besides that, almost everyone I've heard/read on the news, including experts and government officials, have said "ignore the report" and do what you think is best. That anwers THAT, to my satisfaction. As to what's coming; who knows? But I think I see it as an excuse for insurance companies to refuse mammograms by saying "we follow the recent report" just as much, if not more, than the government would. Just my opinion.

---

Quote:

---

As to the boobs comment, I thought it was funny, not sexist. But then I'm not easily offended, so I can't speak for anyone and respect their right to be offended.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, there are people who abuse the system, there are lazy slackers. But don't just assume that everyone that wasn't blessed with insurance falls into this category.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Yes, there are people who abuse the system, there are lazy slackers. But don't just assume that everyone that wasn't blessed with insurance falls into this category.

---

Can you just imagine what our government and our country would look like if we governed EVERYTHING by assuming that, because there's going to be people who abuse the system, we better not ever try to change anything or move forward in any meaningful way, and we better scrap any system that can be abused.

Let's see... Medicare, GONE. Medicaid, GONE. The entire military-industrial complex, GONE. Police, GONE. All government offices, GONE. Prisons and jails, GONE. Farm subsidies and corporate welfare, GONE. Tax breaks and tax havens, GONE.

And that's just the beginning!

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
S'wenyways... peeps on both sides are playing with statistics on this one. The reasoning for fewer mammos goes like this: In the 40-49 age group, fewer than 2% of screened pts have detectable breast cancer. So the risk of radiation is not worth the benefit of extra screening.

The argument on the other side goes like this: Of those women who are diagnosed with cancer (a different, and much smaller population than the first) 20% are under 50.

As far as I can tell, there are only two statistics that should count: The FIRST is the overall death rate of women in the 40-60 age group for those with regular screening and those without (all other things being equal). This is a gross measure that determines whether screening detects cancers and saves more lives than it might "waste" from false positives, over-treatment, and excess radiation (highly unlikely).

The SECOND is the relative survival rate from BREAST CANCER in the 40-60 group between those with regular screening and those without.

The reason to extend the study population to 60 y/o is that cancers which may develop under 50 may be detected or recur over the age of 50... you need to "sweep" those women into the study.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EvilDinosaur:
You are so incredibly clueless, if this is truely how you feel then I can't begin to describe how much I hate you, and envy your apparant luck in life.

I worked hard in high school, I went to college immediately and worked hard, got my degree, and got my resume out to every employer I could find, and I was met with a wall of rejection. I finally got "lucky" with a fucking part time job, which obviously doesn't give me any benefits.

I continue to search, every time there is a job opening, I apply for it. I'm not sure where you found this magical job land you seem to live in where all one has to do to get the job of their dreams is want it, but that's not where I live.

I did not choose this life and you are a fool if you think most people like me did. Yes, there are people who abuse the system, there are lazy slackers. But don't just assume that everyone that wasn't blessed with insurance falls into this category.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Me, personally, I think any healthcare related decision oughta damn well be up to the person who's health it is - don't you ?

Personal choice and risk assessment should be the primary foundation of any medical procedure, and to do it any other way offers too many opportunities for corruption or exploitation.

Your health, YOUR choice.

---