REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Government health care Re: Mammograms/PAP tests

POSTED BY: OPPYH
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4276
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, November 22, 2009 1:24 PM

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!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 1:32 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


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






Hello,

I think that where you and I disconnect is an abhorrence for the means.

I do not believe that when people enjoy thinking about a woman's body, that they also start ignoring their thoughts, ideas, etc. I myself do not. I can enjoy someone's physical appearance or not enjoy it, and still listen to what they are saying. If you published a large image of yourself displaying the absolute ideal of desirable feminine beauty, it would not impact my consideration of you or what you are saying to any degree.

To me, that is the false dichotomy. That if we enjoy a woman's body, we therefore objectify her as an inhuman article, a mass of tissue. No. Absolutely not. We can enjoy a woman's body and still value her based on what she says and does.

If anything, recent beauty pageants should provide material encouraging to you. Despite the tremendous beauty of some participants, people react to their foolish statements and biases against individual freedom with no more consideration than they would give a man who said such things.

In short, I can enjoy women, I can enjoy their body parts, I can celebrate their beauty, and I can also judge them on their words and actions ALL AT THE SAME TIME. It's not either-or.

--Anthony



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 1:39 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 1:44 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


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!!



Hello Magonsdaughter,

(correctly, this time, I hope. ;-)

I suspect much of the desirability of the breast comes from its concealment in our culture. I hear that ankles were once all the rage.

Then again, lips and eyes can be desirable and they are not concealed. Even in Muslim cultures with full coverage clothing, you can see the eyes.

So there must be some cultural component and some biological component, and I'm not sure how it is split.

Unfortunately, concepts of beauty do tend to suggest that a person should be whole. Remove any part of a person's body, and they will tend to be less physically desirable. Even if the part removed is non-sexual. An ear, for instance. A hand. Even hair, in some instances and in cultures that prefer hair.

If I had to remove my left nipple, I suspect I would feel less attractive and desirable. I might wear a shirt while having sex. I don't think this is a product of the objectification of men in society. I think it's just natural to prefer people who are physically complete and symmetrical.

It would of course be nice to live in a world where we didn't appreciate people at all based on appearance or physical aesthetic in even the slightest degree. I think I would have had much more romantic success in my life if potential partners didn't include my appearance in their decision making process.

Unfortunately, I think such imagined ideal worlds can only exist in works of fiction. Something superficial will always excite the senses, and the lack of it will always dismay. Whatever it is. We just have to hope to overcome our individual imperfections with strength of personality and time.

--Anthony



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 1:46 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


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.



Hello,

In terms of motivating people to support a cause, I think enjoyment sells easier. And so why not use enjoyment as a factor?

Lord knows if I could make people enjoy thinking about Leukemia, I'd wrangle that into a whole charity campaign.

--Anthony

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 2:00 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Well, you misunderstand what I'm saying, then. I think it is possible to desire someone's body and appreciate them as a person. But, in the case of campaigns like "Save the Boobs," or other arguments which focus on breasts to the total exclusion of women (which is what the initial post you wrote did), I don't think that's even remotely what's happening.

Let's re-visit your post and I'll break down for you what I find problematic:

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



You want all the breasts to be safe, but there's no mention in this post that breasts are connected or in any way related to women (except maybe implicitly with Kwicko's quote). For all I know, you could have been talking about disembodied breasts, like on boob mouses and mouse pads,* or boob mugs**, or boob aprons***, or boob stress balls,**** or any of the other many wonderful products like them.

What these sorts of arguments almost always do is focus on breasts (or other desirable body parts) while ignoring women. For example, in the "Save the Boobs" commercial, the woman who is being oggled isn't given a voice. That is a tactic of dehumanization. She also has no other features highlighted which don't focus on her body, other than in the YouTube annotations, where her name and profession (Aliya-Jasmine Sovani, MTV News Canada host) are mentioned briefly, so there isn't anything else but her body to admire.

And, aside from all those other arguments, things like this really squick me out, as a woman who has breasts, because it's really frustrating and frightening to me when I see things like that, knowing that there are a lot of people out there that do dismiss me as a person because I have breasts, that do only care about what I look like, etc. So while I know that it is possible to objectify someone and still acknowledge them as a person, there are a lot of people that don't seem to be capable of doing so.

* http://tinyurl.com/boobmouse
** http://tinyurl.com/boobmugs
*** http://www.props-n-frocks.co.uk/proddetail.php?prod=AJ060
**** http://tinyurl.com/boobstressball

A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 2:15 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Anthony,

I get that men are visual creatures, I really do. I don't care that you like breasts, or that men in general like 'em.

But in terms of discussing breast cancer, I think it's inappropriate. It's simply not about men or men's desires. It's not about saving boobs, because in saving a life, you might end up losing the breast.

The ad campaign sounds offensive, I don't think it would be tolerated here, but then I'm amazed at the depths we sink to at times. Frankly, it sounds utterly puerile.

I don't think it has to be a perfect world for women to be less objectified. I think its possible and something to aim for.

I said a few posts ago that I thought you were being facetious, but the more you try to dig yourself out, the bigger the hole seems to get.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 3:03 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

It was tempting to have said "Just joshing" and move on. While I was joking, the truth is I didn't feel the same way you did about the statement. I'm not trying to dig myself out, really. I was trying to get you to understand why I didn't feel 'in' a hole to begin with.

At the end of the day, though, you can't detect how I feel about women other than through the words I write. And it seems that the words I write are either not conveying my feelings adequately, or my actual feelings about women are offensive.

In either case, I do lament having offended. It was certainly not my intention.

--Anthony

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 4:55 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


No offense taken. Just having an open discussion from different viewpoints as far as I can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:00 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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.



Wow, I leave for a few hours to go to work, and what have y'all done? Teach me to leave in the middle of a good argument!

Oppyh, you owe me no apologies. You have strong opinions, which is fine. But you have to understand that others may hold strong opinions as well, and they might not agree with yours. In and of itself, that's not a problem at all. It's just that things can get a little heated when it happens, and tempers flare. Things get said in the heat of the moment, and feelings get hurt.

Since I pretty much can't be offended, I tend to assume that holds true for others as well, and it leads to people getting offended.

Oppyh, I know Anthony well as someone who does not hold a grudge. He and I have had heated disagreements, and the very next conversation we have, he's as cordial and polite as he's always been. He's a shining example of how we all should be, and one that I rarely (if ever) live up to. If Anthony gives an apology, it's sincere; if he accepts one, all is forgiven, and it's in the past and forgotten.

Mike

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:16 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


As for boobs, I'm in favor. Big, small, in between, it's all good.

What I care for isn't the boobs - it's the woman behind them. Take away the mind behind the boobs, and I lose interest. And I don't know about the rest of you, but her thoughts, dreams, words, and desires are the most important thing about her. Every woman I've ever made love with, at some point or another, there had to be a conversation. And if the conversation isn't there, if the connection isn't there on a communications level, then the sex just isn't going to be worthwhile. Great conversation can make up for so-so sex and a so-so body. A great body can't make up for an empty head.

I've loved women truly, longingly, and deeply without ever laying a hand on them. And I've made love to women and then realized too late that they weren't someone I wanted to spend time with, and we'd both made a huge mistake. The best of all world is making love with someone, and then being able to have a conversation about world events, or just make fun of the dog, and it's all completely natural and mutual.

Mike

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 7:51 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


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.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 8:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


OPPYH
Eh, Oppyh, you seem to be ok with businesses killing people but not ok with gubmint doing the same (to a lesser degree). Can you 'splain that to me 'cause it's not making any sense. Maybe I misunderstand, but you seem to be tossing people to the Moloch of big business, and you're ok with that.

TONY:
Quote:

I do not believe that when people enjoy thinking about a woman's body, that they also start ignoring their thoughts, ideas, etc.
Tony, you have just said that women are not people. It's like the guy from the Philippines who said (completely seriously) "In my country, people don't do laundry." You might want to look into that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 8:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Uhhh, not sure which post the remark came from or what it was intended t convey, but there are peoplewho enjoy womens' bodies who are male...just for the sake of argument.

I'm a breast woman myself, think they're one of the most beautiful parts of either male OR female anatomy... Beyond that, I agree with everything Mike just wrote.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 9:52 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


"Class, please observe how only after women challenge the males' primary perception of breasts (OOGLE) does the male resort to use the flowery prose of love..."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 10:16 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"TONY:

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

Tony, you have just said that women are not people. It's like the guy from the Philippines who said (completely seriously) "In my country, people don't do laundry." You might want to look into that."

Signy,

I think you are seeing what you want to see.

I had previously talked about how men enjoyed a woman's body, and someone pointed out that there are women who enjoy a woman's body, too.

So I expanded the statement to 'people' to include men and women. You are correcting me for being exclusive, when in fact I was being more inclusive.

--Anthony








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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 10:29 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"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."

Hello,

There was something going on at the same time as the debate which made me very angry. I think the ire I felt spilled over into the debate with Oppy.

Someone was systematically vandalizing thread titles using three different identities, and the adjustments were very crass.

I came to believe that Oppy was implicated in the vandalism, and some of his words and actions within this very thread reinforced that belief.

But he has since apologized for his behavior and I accepted that apology. I lament that my extreme anger at the vandalism may have leaked across threads yesterday, and infected my dialogue with the fellow in other places and potentially with alternate identities.

--Anthony


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 10:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 10:44 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


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.



Hello,

Here is where your logic breaks down. If women do laundry in the country, and someone says people don't do laundry, then they are excluding women from people.

However, if I talk about people who enjoy women's bodies, and women enjoy women's bodies, then women are clearly included in people. That's inclusive.

If I said people don't enjoy women's bodies, then everyone who enjoys women's bodies would not be a person. That's exclusive.

It's the difference between an inclusive and exclusive statement.

Moreover, I did not say (I hope) that you must enjoy women's bodies to be a person. That would also be exclusive.

Measure twice, cut once.

--Anthony


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 11:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Tony, yes, it depends on whether one is using a word in a exclusive sense (not) or inclusive sense. But to clarify: the Philippino who said this was excluding people on the basis of wealth, not gender. Because in his country, servants did the laundry, and servants are not people.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 11:19 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


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.






Despite all the hysteria, I don't think it's unreasonable that government does put limits on the type of services that are funded (so long as you can self fund to your heart's content).

The recommendation here has always been for women over 50 to have mammograms every 2 years - seems there is a good deal of research to suggest why earlier isn't better.

A lot of complaints that I have read about the current health care system is that the inflation of costs is caused by the provision of too much testing, unnecessary testing at that. If insurance companies have played into people's fears about needing endless screening and tests, then, then there will need to be paradigm shifts if such services are now deemed not to as necessary as once thought. Again, I'd recommend that citizens look to what happens elsewhere as a kind of yard stick about what governments fund elsewhere in terms of healthcare to see whether you are getting a good deal or not.

In the end, mammograms are not particularly expensive - it's not like a course of treatment for cancer, or surgery. It would be within the reach of many to pay upfront if needed, surely.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 11:29 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I long for the day when these illnesses can be detected with a blood test or electromagnetic scan that doesn't require you to pay more than you would for dinner for two at McDonalds.

--Anthony

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 11:39 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Magon, what I've heard is that mammograms (and PAPs) can lead to further tests which can be deleterious, as well as expending funds unnecessarily. Mammograms can give a false positive--tho' the PAP test is accepted as THE best method. So if mammogram gives a false positive, the follow-up tests not only are unnecessary, put the woman through a time of worrying, and cost unnecessarily. Apparently there was something about the PAP smear test that could actually affect a woman's reproductive ability down the line (tho' that could be propaganda, I just heard it).

So if it avoids further unnecessary tests/costs/stress, there's reason to think about it. But I still think it should be up to the individual, as more stress can be created by NOT getting tested, yes?

As to the number of cancers missed by fewer mammograms v. the number of people who died for lack of health care, that kind of says it all, doesn't it? Does to me...

I wonder (eventually) if it would cost more to get a "dog test" than one with machinery? Dogs are being used more and more to detect cancer...? (that's ;o), but not really, y'know?)




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 11:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


One of the criticisms of the British National Healthcare system is that women in Britain had a statistically higher percentage of death from breast cancer compared to other national healthcare systems AND the USA. The cause of that statistic was the guideline that women get mammograms only every three years... which of course by then had allowed cancer to progress to the fatal stage. Britain has since changed its policy to every other year.

Unfortunately, the websites which looked at mammogram policy in detail have actually been obscured by this recent discussion, and I can't find them again.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 11:53 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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.



Okay, now it's MY turn to play catch-up. Yes, I was sure Oppyh was being sarcastic and hyperbolic. Which was why I responded the way I did. Not very constructive, maybe, but illustrative, and as I said elsewhere, sometimes cathartic. I mean, I certainly didn't think Oppyh REALLY was suggesting that I quit my job and go on the dole if I love poverty so much. Is there any way such a suggestion COULD be taken seriously?

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.



Heard someone (Sebelius, maybe?) yesterday saying that in every state except Utah, insurance companies are already required BY LAW to cover mammograms every year for women 40-50 years of age. I can see insurance companies lobbying to change those laws now, but they were likely going to try that anyway.

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.


Kinda the way I took it. Anthony's never struck me as a lust-maddened psychotic boob fetishist, so I figured he must just be having a go at us.

Mike

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 12:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 1:06 PM

EVILDINOSAUR


"I wouldn't bother. They are the people that chose the shitty jobs without health insurance, not me.

They made their choices, let them accept the consequences.

Besides most of them are unemployed. By choice. They make the decision to live poverty stricken lives by skimming on welfare. Not because they are disabled, but because they choose NOT to work. Career losers.
Continue to be the champion of these peoples cause, maybe you can follow suite, and become one of them.

You like Ramen noodles, and macaroni and cheese?"

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.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 1:42 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Dino, as we agreed just above, I believe that remark was made sarcastically, to show just how clueless people who say it are. I could be wrong, and if so, will someone correct me, but I don't think anyone here (with the possible exception of PN or someone like him) would say such a thing. At least I certainly HOPE not!

I worked my entire life from 17 on. Now I'm disabled...I miss working, I loved the work I did and it was creative challenge I badly miss now. But I would be considered one of those "slackers" by anyone who believed that bull, so I would be just as infuriated as you if it was serious.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 1:53 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 2:08 PM

EVILDINOSAUR


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



I wasn't suggesting that at all, I was just conceding the point that there are people who abuse the system. But that's certainly no reason to screw over the vast majority that doesn't abuse the system. I'm 100% for fixing the health care mess.

Also, apologies to oppyh if the statement I previously responded to was sarcasm, I didn't read it that way, but I understand sarcasm is hard to convey online.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 3:19 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Dino, I'm afraid you misread me. I wasn't disagreeing with you, just trying to better illustrate your point. If we start throwing out every system that gets abused in any way, we're going to be left with nothing at all. The idea that because some will try to scam the system, so you shouldn't do it in the first place, just doesn't sit well with me.

No matter WHAT you do, someone will try to game the system and juke the numbers in their favor. Contracts, no-bid contracts, research dollars, grants... you name it, someone's trying to get something they didn't earn. It doesn't mean you stop trying to do things - it means you damned well better get better at catching and punishing the abusers!

Mike

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 7:29 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


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.



It's interesting for me to step outside my current way of thinking and have a look at something that i've always taken for granted ...that is, not to worry about getting a mammogram until I'm 50 because ALL the health guidelines here recommend that and have done for as long as I can remember. DO I trust all the websites here that recommend that? Or is it a government healthcare conspiracy?

Actually, now having looked into this, I can get a mammogram if I request it after 40 for free, but I won't get a reminder like I will at 50 and like I currently do for pap smears. So I guess having it available, but not recommended gives me more confidence with the recommendation.

If that all makes sense.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2009 10:54 PM

OPPYH


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.


I'm sorry. I understand your dilemma as I have certainly been there. I finally lucked out and found a good job as you will someday(hopefully soon).

What you quoted me on was pure spiteful sarcasm. Not my true feelings at all. My sister passed away when she was just 20 years old from cancer, so obviously this is a very touchy subject for me. Mike made a pretty cold statement, so obviously I tried to 1up him and be a little nastier. So I just posted in anger, not thinking about consequences.
Apologies all around to anyone who thought I'm actually that big of an ass.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:31 AM

FREMDFIRMA


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.


I stand by my earlier comment, in case it was missed.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:02 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Just a hint for those using sarcasm - use a smiley icon or something to indicate the sarcasm. I missed it as well and thought the poster was being serious.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:08 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Just a hint for those using sarcasm - use a smiley icon or something to indicate the sarcasm. I missed it as well and thought the poster was being serious.


Tho' I AM disappointed by you guys; I really thought you'd catch that one. Forty lashes with a wet noodle...




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, March 27, 2024 07:58 - 6153 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL