Another Day, Another Recommendation to Relax Screening for Women

This is how the Dems plan to reduce health care costs.
Rick McDaniel | Nov 20, 2009 11:40:04 AM
What by listening to PROFESSIONAL DOCTORS who are applying sound science and data? The way Republicans talk you’d think the elimination of using leeches to release bad humors was a socialist plot to ration care.
“the cervical cancer screening advice is being generally being received – at least in the medical community – as sound advice based on the data.”

Dems better get that tort reform in place now with all of these new recommendations. Get ready, docs. It’s going to fall on you.
It may be sound recommendations in general, but following it will lead to some missed cases of cancer.
A lot can happen between today and two or three years from now.
Some women will just wait it out because it’s “not time yet” or lack of money that would be out-of-pocket.

jhw:
You missed the point.
You focused on the word “dems”.
I was focused on the word “women” and their health. Since you took it in another direction, here goes:
Did I say “federal court” with the word “dems”?
You are wrong if you think there are no ambulance chasers who win bogus cases.
With every new drug there’s a lawyer shouting his message across the screen.
You, too, can get a huge settlement.
Congress can do more by giving uniform guidelines for malpractice cases.
Why do some people get $50,000 and another case just like it might bet $500,000? It depends how good your lawyer is and what jury you have. It also depends on the state or city you are in.
Congress was asked to look at tort reform and to provide uniform guidelines.
In fact, I heard democratic SENATORS themselves say that “there will be no tort reform; that’s off the table, etc.,etc.”
So, if I’m wrong about this, then your democratic senators are wrong about this, also.
Besides, I was originally making a point about women and their health.
Can you have some sympathy there?

Everyone who writes for ABC News needs to read an op ed piece in today’s New York Times by Robert Aronowitz, a physician and professor of the history and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania.
No, Mr. Stephanopolis, early detection is not “the basic principle of medicine.” In cancer it is an idea devised by surgeons and gynecologists more than 90 years ago based, Dr. Aronwitz argues, “on intuition and wishful thinking and the desire to do something for patients, not on detailed evidence that patients were more likely to survive if their cancer was caught early and cut out.” That evidence is still not conclusive.
It is unfortunate that your reporting staff do not listen to the wisdom of your own medical correspondent, Dr. Tim Johnson. He put it well tonight (and I paraphrase): “medical rationing is not in the future. It is here today. For how many is treatment rationed because they do not have insurance? 45,000 people die every year from denied care.”
There are, of course, women in their 40′s who believe, perhaps correctly, that early screening saved their lives. There stories are compelling but they are not a good basis for choice. In healthcare, as in everything in life, choices are necessary. We cannot afford to “do everything.” We have to choose and the only way to make those choices effectively is to demand that every healthcare expenditure provides the greatest health benefit to the greatest number. Otherwise we’re just spending money randomly while neglecting other compelling issues.

On one hand, according to people in power, everyone or almost everyone will be covered by insurance. In fact, it will be mandatory.
On the other hand, you might not get to actually use it as often as you would like or get the tests that your doctor might want to order.
So early detection is useless?
I say fix small leaks in your pipes before they become a real problem and flood your home.
I don’t see any male doctors or politicians talking about denying medical checkups to guys with ED.

This is a relief for women! Cervical cancer is about as common as mouth cancer, unlike prostate cancer which is far more common.
Perhaps American women will no longer be coerced into pelvic exams just to get birth control, or worse jobs. Freedom!
Oh and if you’re worried truly about cervical cancer, fight for the blood test which is far far more accurate and doesn’t damage your cervix or involve these bdsm type exams.
BTW abnormal cells and dysplasia are common and meaningless for the most part in young women, NOT cancer, which is why low risk women under 30 should never be tested using the unreliable smear. The truth will set you free.