Death Panels Already Beginning

[PocketRocket]

Death Panels Already Beginning

:rolleyes:

[Moonlight Graham]

Shady - It looks like posters have put the relevant information here.

You write as if Shady cares at all about this issue. This post is just an excuse to bash Obama. Whether it has any validity or not doesn't matter.

[kimmy]

WOLF THERE IS A WOLF

YES YES BEWARE THE SOCIALIST DEATH SQUADS ARE COMING!!!

Ultimately, Pliny has it right. Who ultimately decides if it's time for a breast (or prostate) exam? You do.

Read as much as you can, make an informed decision, take responsibility for looking after yourself.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

You write as if Shady cares at all about this issue. This post is just an excuse to bash Obama. Whether it has any validity or not doesn't matter.

MG - If I don't at least give Shady the benefit of the doubt, then there's no point in arguing with him. I think that these boards don't work if we try to expose secret motives of the other posters, since these are unknowable anyway.

[Sir Bandelot]

I disagree with the panels decision, I think a woman should be ADVISED to get a mammogram at age 40, and then at a certain regular interval. Maybe not necessarily annually, but initially less frequent and then becoming more frequent, as reflected by the risk vs. age. Or whatever other factors need to be considered, these should be primarily medical and scientific decisions. But statistics and inevitably, economics come into play.

Keep in mind they are only supposed to be advisements, but at least they give the person some guidance, and as a government regulation, maybe the insurance companies would even pay for it.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[OddSox]

I disagree with the panels decision, I think a woman should be ADVISED to get a mammogram at age 40, and then at a certain regular interval. Maybe not necessarily annually, but initially less frequent and then becoming more frequent, as reflected by the risk vs. age. Or whatever other factors need to be considered, these should be primarily medical and scientific decisions. But statistics and inevitably, economics come into play.

Keep in mind they are only supposed to be advisements, but at least they give the person some guidance, and as a government regulation, maybe the insurance companies would even pay for it.

Are you a doctor? Did you speak to a doctor about your decision? Do you know what a doctor is?

[Shady]

I disagree with the panels decision, I think a woman should be ADVISED to get a mammogram at age 40

I agree. And so do many doctors, including the American Cancer Society. But in this thread, we're suppose to ignore that, and instead take the word of an Obama-loving Salon editorialist.

This is insanity.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Shady

[Oleg Bach]

Death panels exist all over the place. I have witness with my own eyes where the super aged are tossed about in pain like a garbage bag. Personally, I had a private conversation with a young nurse while in a large hospital. She trusted me and confided in me - she was about to give and injection of morphine to my daughter who was very ill - all of the nurses dispised my daughters doctor..who would threaten to preform aggressive surgery on a person if they did not submit and comply to his will totally - having said that..The nurse steped aside and squirted some morpine in the air and looked me in the eye - and said "THIS is what we use to get rid of old people" - Now if this is the case in one hospital it must exist in all Canadian hospitals. The panel might consist of a couple nurses who off patients while doctors turn a blind eye - the other nasty thing I saw was a doctor speaking to a very elderly person.

The doctor asked if they had any family or advocate of anykind...the person was non-responsive..an hour later a sing was put above her bed that said - "do not feed or give liquids by mouth" - I noticed that no other form of nutrition was available to this poor lady - they staved her to death - also - when my mother who was taking to much time dying - they shipped her to another hospital with out the families knowledge - they dehydrated her until she was dead - but the time I got there she was a corpse..."I would rather drink muddy water and sleep in a hollow log" _ Don't get sick and stay away from hospitals if you can - If you are to die keep it private and within your own home if you can. You will last longer staying out of the system.

[BubberMiley]

This is insanity.

The point, which you don't appear to get, is that nothing is stopping them from getting mammograms.

[Sir Bandelot]

Are you a doctor? Did you speak to a doctor about your decision? Do you know what a doctor is?

Doctor Bandelot, at your service...

Sorry to outrage you! But yes, I know what a doctor is... generally an ordinary schmuck like you and me, only with a bit more of an arrogant attitude.

But I agree that people should thimk more for themselfs

These organizations, should only provide the broad guidelines...

Edited November 22, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Shady]

The point, which you don't appear to get, is that nothing is stopping them from getting mammograms.

No. The point is, that the government shouldn't be discouraging women from getting mammorams. The consultation should be left to doctors and patients. The government should stay the f out of this subject. But like I said, government death panels are already beginning. I'm sure this is just the beginning. How many more tests for other groups will be deemed "unnecessary" by the Obama administration?

[Michael Hardner]

No. The point is, that the government shouldn't be discouraging women from getting mammorams. The consultation should be left to doctors and patients. The government should stay the f out of this subject. But like I said, government death panels are already beginning. I'm sure this is just the beginning. How many more tests for other groups will be deemed "unnecessary" by the Obama administration?

The government as in departments or ministry of health ? They have to set up guidelines for use of the system, taking into account public health as well as efficient use of resources.

There's no issue here - it's just more political deep-diving by the scuba team. It's discouraging, because there are so many things wrong with government that are ignored, while these nit-picks are blown out of proportion.

[Shady]

The government as in departments or ministry of health ? They have to set up guidelines for use of the system, taking into account public health as well as efficient use of resources.

And that's what is wrong with getting the government involved in healthcare. If somebody wants to pay for their own mammogram at age 43, or 35, or whatever, they should have that right. They shouldn't have some government beauocrat telling them to come back in 7 or 15 years.

There's no issue here - it's just more political deep-diving by the scuba team. It's discouraging, because there are so many things wrong with government that are ignored, while these nit-picks are blown out of proportion.

I'd say that life and death issues are much more than just so-called nit-picking.

[GostHacked]

And that's what is wrong with getting the government involved in healthcare. If somebody wants to pay for their own mammogram at age 43, or 35, or whatever, they should have that right. They shouldn't have some government beauocrat telling them to come back in 7 or 15 years.

I'd say that life and death issues are much more than just so-called nit-picking.

The report is recommending that mammograms are not needed as frequently between 40-50. This is no way stopping anyone who wants to get one from getting one. What is so hard to understand? And government has been regulating health care in the US for quite some time in case you missed it. They still have the right Shady. It's just now doctors are probably not going to push for it as much as they used to.

[Michael Hardner]

And that's what is wrong with getting the government involved in healthcare. If somebody wants to pay for their own mammogram at age 43, or 35, or whatever, they should have that right. They shouldn't have some government beauocrat telling them to come back in 7 or 15 years.

I'd say that life and death issues are much more than just so-called nit-picking.

Shady - the point is that there are standards and best practices that have to be promoted that are NOT life-and-death issues, but good management. You can have a chest x-ray every year, if you're so inclined and you want to pay for it but it has nothing to do with managing public health.

[Shady]

Shady - the point is that there are standards and best practices that have to be promoted that are NOT life-and-death issues, but good management.

Telling women not to get mammograms until they're 50 IS a life and death issue. The government shouldn't be so-called managing your health and welfare. It should be your business, and that of your doctor.

[ToadBrother]

Not at all. Don't you think women should get mammograms during their 40's? It's a simple question.

The issue of mammograms is far more complex than this. A lot of researchers are not convinced that they are as useful a diagnostic tool as they are often advertised (false negatives and false positives are not uncommon). As well, there are serious concerns about the use of ionizing radiation on younger women, which is where this directive is likely coming from. Unfortunately, some folks, for political reasons, have latched on to the "we want women to die of cancer" crap line and are either ignorant of the larger debate on mammograms, or, just as likely, are liars.

[Shady]

The issue of mammograms is far more complex than this. A lot of researchers are not convinced that they are as useful a diagnostic tool as they are often advertised.

Shouldn't they be erring on the side of caution? And no offense to anyone in thie forum, but to categorize a woman who's 48 as young is ridiculous.

Also, another point should be known regarding the death panel. Women 70+ are being told not to receive mammograms at all anymore.

[Michael Hardner]

Telling women not to get mammograms until they're 50 IS a life and death issue. The government shouldn't be so-called managing your health and welfare. It should be your business, and that of your doctor.

No, it's not. We already discussed this on the thread and the medical establishment has pushed that age to 50.

[Shady]

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. Look at the statistics.

We already discussed this on the thread and the medical establishment has pushed that age to 50.

Who is this so-called medical establishment you speak of? You mean the specfic people picked by the Obama administration to put together their death panel recommendations?

Wouldn't you consider the American Cancer Society part of the "medical establishment?" And they're against it. So are many, many other doctors and organizations.

I wonder. Can a woman sue the government if she is diagnosed with breast cancer when she turns 50, that otherwise could have been prevented with a mammogram 6 months, or a year prior to her birthday? Seems fair.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, it is. Look at the statistics.

Who is this so-called medical establishment you speak of? You mean the specfic people picked by the Obama administration to put together their death panel recommendations?

Wouldn't you consider the American Cancer Society part of the "medical establishment?" And they're against it. So are many, many other doctors and organizations.

I wonder. Can a woman sue the government if she is diagnosed with breast cancer when she turns 50, that otherwise could have been prevented with a mammogram 6 months, or a year prior to her birthday? Seems fair.

Sorry - are people actually being prevented from getting mammograms ? I don't agree with that, if it's happening.

[ToadBrother]

Yes, it is. Look at the statistics.

Who is this so-called medical establishment you speak of? You mean the specfic people picked by the Obama administration to put together their death panel recommendations?

Wouldn't you consider the American Cancer Society part of the "medical establishment?" And they're against it. So are many, many other doctors and organizations.

I wonder. Can a woman sue the government if she is diagnosed with breast cancer when she turns 50, that otherwise could have been prevented with a mammogram 6 months, or a year prior to her birthday? Seems fair.

I dunno. Could she sue if a mammogram, due to the use of ionizing radiation, gives her cancer? Can she sue if she gets a false negative and develops breast cancer?

Nothing in diagnostics is perfect. When you try to determine, particularly with tests that have their own risks, the appropriate categories, it's a trade off. You're making mammograms sound like the be-all and end-all of cancer detection, and they're not. And the American Cancer Society is not the only expert group here.

Like I said, the debate is a lot more complex, and anybody who didn't just wake up yesterday bitching and moaning about health care reform would know that there has been considerable debate over the last decade over frequent screening of women under the age of 50.

[Gabriel]

No. The point is, that the government shouldn't be discouraging women from getting mammorams. The consultation should be left to doctors and patients. The government should stay the f out of this subject. But like I said, government death panels are already beginning. I'm sure this is just the beginning. How many more tests for other groups will be deemed "unnecessary" by the Obama administration?

To be clear, the task force doesn't represent the official position of the government. It simply made recommendations - relevant agencies, governmental or non-governmental, still have discretion with respect to whether or not they want to accept or endorse the new recommendations. As we've already seen, though, every relevant agency immediately rejected the task force's new recommendations. The task force then quickly altered its position. If it was official government advice or policy it'd have been endorsed by some agency like HHS. It hasn't been.

EDIT - Shady, I think the Obama plan for health care is a disaster. I think you're on the right side of this issue. I reject, however, your assertion that this story is representative of emerging death panels, or evidence of some sort of secret socialist agenda planning to save costs by 'pulling the plug on grandma'. Obama's plan is just plain stupid, but we don't need to attack it with Palin-esque argumentation, i.e. the 'death panel' thing. Let's be serious. There are many reasoned and accurate arguments AGAINST the Obama plan. Palin's arguments and rhetoric aren't needed (or valid).

Edited November 26, 2009 by Gabriel

[Gabriel]

Michael Hardner and GostHacked - You're both right in correcting Shady when he alleges that these new recommendations (which were altered within days after wholesale rejection from all relevant medical agencies and organizations) will lead to denial of healthcare services to women. Where you're both wrong (or just uninformed) is where you both suggest that anybody will be implementing these new guidelines (again, guidelines that were altered days after their release due to their stupidity) in any way, shape, or form. This story is now dead.

Cheers.

[BubberMiley]

Shady, I think the Obama plan for health care is a disaster. I think you're on the right side of this issue. I reject, however, your assertion that this story is representative of emerging death panels, or evidence of some sort of secret socialist agenda planning to save costs by 'pulling the plug on grandma'. Obama's plan is just plain stupid, but we don't need to attack it with Palin-esque argumentation, i.e. the 'death panel' thing. Let's be serious. There are many reasoned and accurate arguments AGAINST the Obama plan. Palin's arguments and rhetoric aren't needed (or valid).

But it is those arguments that are the most fun to debate! WHy do you think the left doesn't shut up about Palin?

Keep posting Shady! Don't let anybody silence you!