Most women don't need to get mammograms until they reach age 50, according to a controversial new report that recommends that far fewer women undergo the breast cancer screenings.

For years, mammograms have been recommended every year or two for women beginning at age 40. The new report from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, issued Monday night, now says women this age should simply talk to their doctors about the benefits and risks. The group also says there's no benefit to performing breast self-exams. The recommendations, which help shape how doctors practice, don't affect women at high risk, such as those with strong family histories of cancer.

The only reason women need breasts are to feed babies and women over 50 can live without them.

This was all over the news today...
As for the idea that:


The "living" is really the issue. Breast cancer takes lives. I've known women who lost that battle or know women who's mother died from breast cancer.

On the flip side, I know a number of women who caught a lump when it was very small and they had a high cure rate because of early detection (both because of mammos and self-exams.)

You want to tell any of either group that it doesn't matter if it will save a buck?

Wow. Where are all the Liberals???

I would have bet good money that they would have been in here saying this report would never be the beginning of rationing.

After all...the government and, in particular, Obama said there wouldn't be any rationing.

And everyone knows that Obama was 100% truthful in everything he said...even though he, himself, didn't actually HAVE a health care plan.

Key word,, recommendation. I dont see the big dilemma. I have had many check ups and doctors visits because of my own concern and guess what.....insurancs still covered it. Insurance covers more than the care that is 'recommended'. If I say I think I feel a lump and I ask to have it checked,, insurance isnt gonna turn it down because it wasnt 'recommended' by some panel. Insurance is gonna work with my DOCTOR to determine what treatment is necessary and then they are going to cover their part of the bill.

what are the odds of that being the case when that panel shares office space with the "insurer"??

this "recommendation" is another line of evidence for there to be a buffer between the policy- (i.e. law-) maker and the insurer..

I dont know the odds of the panel sharing office space at every insurance office. I do know however, that what is necessary or recommended for ME is determined by my doctor and not a panel who has not seen me. I go to him, we decide the best course of action, preventive or otherwise, and insurance covers it....quite simple.

I dont know the odds of the panel sharing office space at every insurance office. I do know however, that what is necessary or recommended for ME is determined by my doctor and not a panel who has not seen me. I go to him, we decide the best course of action, preventive or otherwise, and insurance covers it....quite simple.

"sharing office space" I use as a figure of speech.. I'm sure you're not so obtuse as not to realise that..

government panel is in charge of insuring millions of Americans..

government panel recommends that this practice or that is or isn't effective against one thing or the other.. what makes you think your government paid doctor is going to act counter to the recommendations of his/her employer (i.e. the government)??

I am not obtuse, but you are not getting my point. An exam is more than just a practice. It is a case by case recommendation by a personal doctor who knows his patients history. What makes me think my doctor is going to put my interest above a panels recommendations? The fact that a recommendation is just that and doesnt cover EVERY case every time. The details of each case is what determines the end result. Doctors take an oath, they are there to help their patients, I dont happen to think that will change.