Could Mammograms Fall Victim to Obamacare?  No. 

According to  Dr. Diana Petitti, a professor of biomedical informatics at Arizona State University — and also vice chair of the task force that released the recommendations, "I do understand the confusion.

And I think part of it is because of the subtlety of the language of the task force. The task force recommended against routine screening of women starting in their 40s. What they recommended in favor of was a discussion of a woman with her physician about what age to start screening.

The recommendation has been widely misinterpreted as saying women shouldn’t be screened ever in their 40s. And that, in fact, is not what the recommendation was about."

"…It’s a recommendation for a conversation that a woman might have with her physician about when to start screening, and an informed choice about what the tradeoffs are of the benefits of starting earlier vs. the benefits of starting later, and the risks or negatives or harms of starting earlier compared with starting later."

"…I think we agree that these — that women need to be able to make a choice, that the discussion should be about the benefits and the harms. The message should be that this is something that has a benefit, the benefit may be small, and that it’s a discussion starting at age 40 about when to start being screened."

Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society and a professor of oncology, hematology, and epidemiology at Emory University School of Medicine said, "… one of the problems here is that mammography is a good test, but it’s not a great test. And women deserve a great test.

So, scientists need to work to develop something that is better. Until we have something better, it is the ACS position that mammography is the best thing that we can use. The task force and the ACS have an agreement here that mammography in women in their 40s decreases the relative risk of death by 15 percent.

We happen to think that that means that all women in their 40s ought to get screened annually. They should be informed of the potential harms, the potential for over-diagnosis, the potential for false positives or for false alarms. If they’re informed of this beforehand, it will decrease the anxiety. And then we can have that 15 percent decrease in mortality."

An analysis of risk/benefit and a discussion with her doctor is very different from "falling victim to Obamacare," whatever that is.

Namaste.

My friends, I think there is no basis to support the choice of picture on the cover of Newsweek.  If you choose to disagree with her politics, that’s fine.  Stay on point.  But that is not the picture with which to depict the former Vice Presidential candidate.

This is, in my opinion, sexism, pure and simple.  And to the degree any woman is subjected to such treatment, we are all subjected to it.  Whether you like her or not, all women are demeaned by that cover.

Namaste.

My friend Marie, I believe the word you were looking for is "moot," meaning irrelevant, as opposed to "mute," which is what I feel, as does Margo, it is appropriate to be on this subject.

Namaste.

My friends, has it every occurred to any of you that this column’s comments are highly charged political sparring - with little, if anything, to do with economics?  I suspect that it is written in a way to do just that, which increases site participation, which increases site sponsorship.

Namaste.

If I may, my friend Ms. Morgan, if you were to actually read the bill in question, you would find that the section to which you refer is a completely voluntary provision wherein you may, if you wish, meet with your physician up to every five years to discuss your wishes as to medical intervention to be taken in specific circumstances.

This discussion would be so much more informative were the participants actually to read the bill to which she were referring, as opposed to repeating the opinions stated by others.

Namaste.

My friends, when I last asked for a show of hands by those of us who have read the actual bill in question http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf rather than someone’s opinion about the bill, I received one response from Leigh Hart. 

The rest of you, I fear, are reading others’ opinions on the bill rather than drawing your own conclusions.  Perhaps that is why most reactions are quite predictable.

Namaste.

My friends, a show of hands by those of us who have read the actual bill in question http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf rather than someone’s opinion about the bill.

Namaste.

My friend Steve, I appreciate your relevant comment to this issue, and join you in pointing out that "creative types" often do very well with their money when playing on a level field.

Namaste.

It was precisely then I stopped scoffing at people who claimed they had flashbacks from the ‘60’s

My friend Liz, equating presidential poll numbers to stock market performance is, in scientific terminology, false cause association.  That indicator would have to be shown to be reliable historically in order to be used in this case, would it not?

Namaste.

My friend Liz, of the stimulus package approved: 2% ($1,735M) of education; 27% ($16.861M) of Health and Human Services; less than 1% ($69M) of transportation; less than 1% ($44M) of energy; 10% ($3.695M) of labor; and 2% ($2.190M) of all other catories has been spent.  This is 6% ($24.593M) of the approved stimulus package.  Should the question, then, not be whether another stimulus package is appropriate, but whether to expedite the approved package? 

How is it that some charge that "it is not working," when only 6% has been spent?