Government health care Re: Mammograms/PAP tests

POSTED BY: OPPYH
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 21:08
VIEWED: 7222
PAGE 1 of 1

OPPYH

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 7:04 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/critics-health-care-rationi
ng-new-breast-cancer-screening-recommendations/

'The new government recommendations, released Monday by the Preventive Services Task Force of the Department of Health and Human Services, recommend against regular mammography tests in women aged 40 to 49. The guidelines also downplay the effectiveness of self-examinations and advise that women aged 50 to 74 years receive mammograms every other year.'

Yup that breast cancer stuff you don't have to worry about it till you are 50 years or older..........this is getting pretty fucking scary.

"it was the pax"

I wish this were just another PN paranoid thread, but it's all too real.

NIKI2

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:37 PM

That's obviously not what they're saying. Going from every year to every other year and not doing it "regularly" doesn't mean ignoring it completely. Doesn't compute.

Me, I'd rather not go through that miserable procedure every year (and I don't), and see no reason to absorb that much x-rays if it's not necessary. It shifts responsibility to the woman, rather than having it automatically scheduled annually, which is fine with me. If we ALL took more personal responsibility for our health care, like asking if a test is necessary, deciding if we want to take what the doctor says carte blanche, it would be one of the ways to cut health care costs by not engaging in unnecessary tests and treatments.

Having dealt with p-docs, one of the things we learn is to use them as ENCYCLOPEDIAS, people with more knowledge than us but who might not always be right, and to take responsibility for ourselves in making decisions and questioning the effectiveness of tests and treatments.

Your mileage may vary.

OPPYH

Friday, November 20, 2009 5:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
That's obviously not what they're saying. Going from every year to every other year and not doing it "regularly" doesn't mean ignoring it completely. Doesn't compute.

Sorry you feel that way, but that is exactly what they are recommending.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33973665/ns/health-womens_health/

* Most women in their 40s should not routinely get mammograms.
* Women 50 to 74 should get a mammogram every other year until they turn 75, after which the risks and benefits are unknown. (The task force's previous guidelines had no upper limit and called for exams every year or two.)
* The value of breast exams by doctors is unknown. And breast self-exams are of no value.

......I don't know what the reasoning here is, but this is the first strike in a scary scenario.
Task force...government...health care. These words just don't add up.

And like i said earlier, this is scary stuff.

OPPYH

Friday, November 20, 2009 5:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

If we ALL took more personal responsibility for our health care, like asking if a test is necessary, deciding if we want to take what the doctor says carte blanche, it would be one of the ways to cut health care costs by not engaging in unnecessary tests and treatments.

Breast cancer doesn't discriminate between healthy and unhealthy. You could be the picture of perfect health, and still develop it. Doctors can help detect cancer early on so you have a chance to beat it.

This "task force" seems to deem mammograms as a complete waste of time if you're under 50(14% of breast cancer occurs under 50 years of age in females).

Nikki, have a heart.

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, November 20, 2009 5:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

If we ALL took more personal responsibility for our health care, like asking if a test is necessary, deciding if we want to take what the doctor says carte blanche, it would be one of the ways to cut health care costs by not engaging in unnecessary tests and treatments.

Breast cancer doesn't discriminate between healthy and unhealthy. You could be the picture of perfect health, and still develop it. Doctors can help detect cancer early on so you have a chance to beat it.

This "task force" seems to deem mammograms as a complete waste of time if you're under 50(14% of breast cancer occurs under 50 years of age in females).

Nikki, have a heart.

I'm not sure about the US, but the every two year recommendation has been made in Canada as well with the provision that if you have any family history of cancer you stick with once a year...

so with that 14%, taking into account those with a family history that number would actually be even lower.

OPPYH

Saturday, November 21, 2009 9:44 PM

bump

KWICKO

Sunday, November 22, 2009 2:34 AM

Quote:

This "task force" seems to deem mammograms as a complete waste of time if you're under 50(14% of breast cancer occurs under 50 years of age in females).

Seems like, given those figures, they ARE a complete waste of time for at least 86% of women under 50.

As for "having a heart", try telling that to the 47 million uninsured who can't even GET a mammogram, or any other kind of medical treatment, at any age.

Mike

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

OPPYH

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Seems like, given those figures, they ARE a complete waste of time for at least 86% of women under 50.

Yeah, it's just nearly 6,000 women(40, and under) every year that die from it. No biggie. They probably didn't have much to live for anyhoo.
Also, government guidelines for medical care should become the norm. With the government in charge, I think we'll all sleep a little better at night.

You've changed my mind about all of this. Sometimes it's better to be uncaring, and self centered than worrying about other people woes.

"Are you Alliance?"

OPPYH

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

As for "having a heart", try telling that to the 47 million uninsured who can't even GET a mammogram, or any other kind of medical treatment, at any age.

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?

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 9:07 AM

"They are the people that chose the shitty jobs without health insurance, not me."

Hello,

I don't think anybody chooses this. I think they end up with this when all their hopes and dreams turn to ash, and they must choose to earn an income, any income, that will allow them to feed themselves and provide themselves with shelter.

Perhaps you've never worked a shitty job. My first job was at Radio Shack, for about minimum wage, and I can assure you I'd much prefer to have been working a better job with better benefits.

I may not necessarily like elements of the government health care plan, but I acknowledge that there are people suffering under our current system. I do not like that, and I can't believe you do, either. How can you be so critical about a deficiency in one place and so nonchalant about a deficiency in another?

Even if you don't support socialized medicine, surely you can sympathize with the sentiments of people who do.

--Anthony

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

KWICKO

Sunday, November 22, 2009 1:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Seems like, given those figures, they ARE a complete waste of time for at least 86% of women under 50.

Yeah, it's just nearly 6,000 women(40, and under) every year that die from it. No biggie. They probably didn't have much to live for anyhoo.
Also, government guidelines for medical care should become the norm. With the government in charge, I think we'll all sleep a little better at night.

You've changed my mind about all of this. Sometimes it's better to be uncaring, and self centered than worrying about other people woes.

"Are you Alliance?"

Yeah, under the current system it's only 42,000-plus people every year that die from not having insurance. No biggie - they probably didn't have much to live for anyway.

Also industry guidelines for medical care should become the norm. With the insurance industry in charge, I think we'll all sleep a little better at night.

Keep telling us all how you're "a liberal", 'cause that joke NEVER gets old.

Mike

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

KWICKO

Sunday, November 22, 2009 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

As for "having a heart", try telling that to the 47 million uninsured who can't even GET a mammogram, or any other kind of medical treatment, at any age.

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

This, coming from the person who was telling Niki to "have a heart". Priceless. It's not that you don't care about PEOPLE, it's just that you don't give a flying fuck about POOR people. And surely those 47 MILLION uninsured made a conscious choice to have shitty jobs without insurance, right?

Quote:

They made their choices, let them accept the consequences.

Hey, if you're too stupid to figure out for yourself whether to get a mammogram or not, then you deserve what you get, right? Isn't that what you've just said above?

Tell me - do you follow ALL the government guidelines in everything you do every single day? 'Cause if you say yes, you really ARE an Alliance shill. I guess maybe you're not bright enough to figure out that the word "GUIDELINES" does not equate to the words "LAWS" or "RULES". Maybe you can show us all where in any version of any healthcare reform bill it's written into law that you CAN'T get a mammogram more than once every two years. Go, fetch!

Quote:

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?

47 million unemployed? Really? I'll take it as given that you actually have documentation and cites to support those ludicrous claims; you just CHOOSE not to share them with the rest of us, right?

By the way, I think you missed the subtle irony in your claims: if "these people" (as you call them) are really skimming by in their chosen career as "welfare queens", then they do indeed have medical coverage.

Mike

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

KWICKO

Sunday, November 22, 2009 1:40 PM

See, Oppyh, here's the thing: The thing you accuse others of doing - not giving a shit about these 6000 women in need - is THE EXACT SAME THING YOU'RE DOING when you say you don't care about FORTY-SEVEN MILLION AMERICANS in need, and FORTY-TWO THOUSAND who will die.

And then you accuse me of being crass and dismissive about it, by being crass and dismissive.

You want me to argue on your level? Okie-dokey.

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? And if you've made stupid choices that result in you getting titty cancer, then that's on you, not me. And don't expect me to care, 'cause you made the choice to bring this on yourself.

Is that what you want? Is that the conversation you want to have here? If you want to lash out, don't get your panties in a bunch when someone else lashes out in response.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 4:37 PM

"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

KWICKO

Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:23 PM

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

Anthony - Too true.

I was exercising what's known as a "response-in-kind", using logic and language of the kind used by Oppyh in her (his?) argument and railing against the poor, which reminded me a bit of Hunter Thompson's meeting Richard Nixon, in which Nixon responded to Thompson's question "But what about the doomed?" by answering, "Fuck the doomed."

Oppyh seems to be advocating the Republican healthcare plan which was exposed by Rep. Allen Grayson, which essentially consists of two mandates:

1) Don't get sick.

2) If you do, die quickly and get out of our way.

So, my response-in-kind about her (his?) concerns about breast cancer: Why should *I* care?

By the way, I'm married for over 20 years, so there's officially only two breasts I'm supposed to care about. :)

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:49 PM

The recommendations I saw were against routine mammography for women less than 50 years of age. It accepted them for women with a history or risk factors.

I don't have access to their statistic base, but they have a large enough data base to make worthwhile cost-effectiveness analysis. To test every woman in her 40's to catch only 14 % of cases does not seem very efficient, and if 6000 women in their 40's die of breast cancer each year, out of 280 million, that's a very small percentage.

The question is about the reliability of these policy people. Who are they, really? Whose pocket are they in? The anti-insurance reformers? The insurance companies? Obama's? The anti-tax, government waste folks? Are they practicing oncologists? I, personally, need to look into that, as should we all, instead of adopting or rejecting what they reported on the basis of our own pre-prejudices and existing objectives.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:14 PM

I just looked these folks up. Note the time difference -- took less than 15 minutes of Interent research-- The policy task force members are MD's, either practicing physicians or medical school professors. They are partnered with the AARP, the CDC, and the Surgeon General's office, among others, including AHIP, the American Health Insurance Plans association.

Those opposing them include Fox News ( And what does that say about their opponents' credibility?), and Republicans who who oppose reform and are now saying, " This MIGHT lead to health care rationing."

I gotta admit that the Administration caving in on it LOOKS bad-- but that's a political choice, not a medical one.

My wife, who has a history of hormonal problems, and a family history of cancer, and is in her late 50's, hasn't had one in 5 years, and isn't worried about it. I support her choice.

PARTICIPANT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I want all the breasts to be safe.

--Anthony

Amen

OPPYH

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

By the way, I think you missed the subtle irony in your claims: if "these people" (as you call them) are really skimming by in their chosen career as "welfare queens", then they do indeed have medical coverage.

Yup, and you seem to be OK with it, so like I said why don't you quit you're job, and join them?

KWICKO

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

By the way, I think you missed the subtle irony in your claims: if "these people" (as you call them) are really skimming by in their chosen career as "welfare queens", then they do indeed have medical coverage.

Yup, and you seem to be OK with it, so like I said why don't you quit you're job, and join them?

Probably for the same reason you don't inject yourself with breast cancer. Just because you can sympathize with someone, that doesn't mean you want to BE that person.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:19 PM

"Kwicko (Mike) does not give TWO FLYING SHITS about mammograms in the first place"

Hello,

Another thread title change, designed to blatantly and crassly insult an individual.

What infantile impulse is driving wooden-headed anti-intellectual thugs to sabotage someone else's message?

If you have something intelligent or useful to say, then bloody well post it. Do not go back and alter someone else's words. If you can't win by adding your own words in a thoughtful fashion, then you're not a winner.

You're a bloody loser.

And pathetically sad.

--Anthony

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

OPPYH

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Keep telling us all how you're "a liberal", 'cause that joke NEVER gets old.

Here is a concept...try to keep up you brain freeze.

I am a liberal in every sense of the word. Unlike you, when I see a bad idea I speak out against it. recommending someone not to get checked for cancer if you're under 50 is a pretty fucking stupid idea.
Just because you're a democrat doesn't mean you have to believe every thing the administration purposes is a brilliant idea.

Think outside the box. Or continue to be a lemming slave with low mentality. Get an idea of what you think is right, take that thought and believe in it. it's really simple.

Or put you're brain on autopilot, don't think for yourself and put all of you're trust and admiration in something you will never be a part of.

OPPYH

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
This, coming from the person who was telling Niki to "have a heart". Priceless. It's not that you don't care about PEOPLE, it's just that you don't give a flying fuck about POOR people. And surely those 47 MILLION uninsured made a conscious choice to have shitty jobs without insurance, right?

Oh you see I wasn't being serious. I just thought I'd post a crass comment like the one originally posted. If you had anyone you loved die from breast cancer, maybe you'd be upset with you're tacky response also.

Liberal-Liberals generally believe in neutral government, in the sense that it is not for the state to determine personal values.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
This, coming from the person who was telling Niki to "have a heart". Priceless. It's not that you don't care about PEOPLE, it's just that you don't give a flying fuck about POOR people. And surely those 47 MILLION uninsured made a conscious choice to have shitty jobs without insurance, right?

Oh you see I wasn't being serious. I just thought I'd post a crass comment like the one originally posted. If you had anyone you loved die from breast cancer, maybe you'd be upset with you're tacky response also.

Liberal-Liberals generally believe in neutral government, in the sense that it is not for the state to determine personal values.

Hello,

If you are not serious about your point of view, it will be difficult for people to seriously understand you.

--Anthony

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

KWICKO

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Keep telling us all how you're "a liberal", 'cause that joke NEVER gets old.

Here is a concept...try to keep up you brain freeze.

I am a liberal in every sense of the word. Unlike you, when I see a bad idea I speak out against it. recommending someone not to get checked for cancer if you're under 50 is a pretty fucking stupid idea.
Just because you're a democrat doesn't mean you have to believe every thing the administration purposes is a brilliant idea.

Think outside the box. Or continue to be a lemming slave with low mentality. Get an idea of what you think is right, take that thought and believe in it. it's really simple.

Or put you're brain on autopilot, don't think for yourself and put all of you're trust and admiration in something you will never be a part of.

The only "liberal" thing about you is "you're" (!) liberal abandonment of decent writing skills in trying to point out someone else's "low mentality".

Work on that, then get back to me. If you want to impugn someone's intelligence, it bolsters your case if you can actually do so without revealing yourself to be of much lower intelligence.

Now, if I were a woman, and had a family history of breast cancer, I reckon I'd get myself checked regularly, no matter what the government guidelines said. Likewise, if I knew I was at risk, I'd likely get checked regularly no matter what my INSURANCE COMPANY said, too.

OPPYH

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

If you are not serious about your point of view, it will be difficult for people to seriously understand you.

--Anthony

.

OPPYH

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Now, if I were a woman, and had a family history of breast cancer, I reckon I'd get myself checked regularly, no matter what the government guidelines said. Likewise, if I knew I was at risk, I'd likely get checked regularly no matter what my INSURANCE COMPANY said, too.

There, now was that so hard?

Congratulations that is the kind of response that I was looking for.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

If you are not serious about your point of view, it will be difficult for people to seriously understand you.

--Anthony

Hello,
Eat shit and die mother fucker

Hello,

I think I understand what you are about now.
Please stop tampering with thread titles.

--Anthony

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

OPPYH

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I think I understand what you are about now.
Please stop tampering with thread titles.

--Anthony

I didn't touch the thread title

PARTICIPANT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Keep telling us all how you're "a liberal", 'cause that joke NEVER gets old.

Here is a concept...try to keep up you brain freeze.

I am a liberal in every sense of the word. Unlike you, when I see a bad idea I speak out against it. recommending someone not to get checked for cancer if you're under 50 is a pretty fucking stupid idea.
Just because you're a democrat doesn't mean you have to believe every thing the administration purposes is a brilliant idea.

Think outside the box. Or continue to be a lemming slave with low mentality. Get an idea of what you think is right, take that thought and believe in it. it's really simple.

Or put you're brain on autopilot, don't think for yourself and put all of you're trust and admiration in something you will never be a part of.

In Defense of Mike, maybe he was drinking when he posted that junk

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I think I understand what you are about now.
Please stop tampering with thread titles.

--Anthony

I didn't touch the thread title

Hello,

If that's true, I'm glad to hear it.

"Eat shit and die mother fucker"

--Anthony

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

OPPYH

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

If that's true, I'm glad to hear it.

"Eat shit and die mother fucker"

--Anthony

Was that necessary?

PARTICIPANT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:50 PM

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

PARTICIPANT
SIGNING OFF FROM A VERY CRAP AFTERNOON OF POSTING

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

If that's true, I'm glad to hear it.

"Eat shit and die mother fucker"

--Anthony

Was that necessary?

Hello,

It was your quote, sir. I simply copied and pasted it into my post.

Noting that you edited your original statement, I am now certain that you are a villain in this little drama.

--Anthony

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

OPPYH

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

The only "liberal" thing about you is "you're" (!) liberal abandonment of decent writing skills in trying to point out someone else's "low mentality".

Not true, and there is nothing wrong with my writing skills.

OPPYH

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:55 PM

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.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

The only "liberal" thing about you is "you're" (!) liberal abandonment of decent writing skills in trying to point out someone else's "low mentality".

Not true, and there is nothing wrong with my writing skills.

Hello,

Only with your morality, judgment, and intentions.

--Anthony

Edited to add: I see you have inserted an apology. If you are genuine in your remorse, I accept the apology and am prepared to move on.

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

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, November 22, 2009 9:30 PM

I have a query - probably because I am too lazy and not interested enough to trawl through a whole lot of articles on American health care reforms....if you wanted one at 45 because you are a mammogram freak or you are worried, could you pay for one yourself?

Secondly, what do insurance companies currently provide for in the way of routine mammograms?

Here in Australia, the recommendation is for over 50 as well - any younger and you'd pay the full cost unless you had a history etc

YINYANG

Sunday, November 22, 2009 9:46 PM

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

I really hope you're being facetious, because otherwise that's a disgusting amount of sexism you just spewed, Anthony.

I think the reason men should care about breast cancer is because it has the potential to kill women they love, or because it can kill so many human beings in general (after all, 1 out of 100 breast cancer cases are in men*), which is a tragic loss of life. Not because boobs are hawt (so what about the women whose lives are saved by having mastectomies, and therefore don't have hawt boobs to play with anymore? should men not care about that? and what about not-hawt boobs? I guess you don't care about saving them.).

Plus, the way you stated it "I want all the breasts to be safe," disembodies them from the people whose breasts they are, which is dehumanizing and gross.

However, if it's the case you really were being facetious, then you failed to differentiate yourself from the genuine campaigns that espouse the same logic you did here:

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/09/if-ladiez-dont-have-boo
bs-how-will-we.html
http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/05/12/save-the-ta-tas-fight-breast-
cancer

* http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/guide/breast-cancer-men

PS: I think it was actually participant who changed the thread title. If you click "reply" to people's posts, you can see what title they used. For example, I can see that it was Niki who changed the title to "Government health care," because she's the first person who used it, and then when other people respond to her that carries the title over, and so on, unless they change it.

A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

OPPYH

Sunday, November 22, 2009 9:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
I think the reason men should care about breast cancer is because it has the potential to kill women they love, or because it can kill so many human beings in general (after all, 1 out of 100 breast cancer cases are in men*), which is a tragic loss of life. Not because boobs are hawt (so what about the women whose lives are saved by having mastectomies, and therefore don't have hawt boobs to play with anymore? should men not care about that? and what about not-hawt boobs? I guess you don't care about saving them.).

Like I said maybe the people who don't give a hoot about breast cancer, or mammograms might think very differently if their wife or mother suffered and lost their lives because of it.

Government run health care won't work, as what were seeing is the first stage in cost cutting measures that will cost thousands of lives.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:16 PM

Hello YinYang,

You brought up some poignant arguments and complaints here, and I wanted to address them.

Of course I was going for a little poke in the ribs and a laugh with Mike there.

I'd like to add that my primary concern with all types of illness is the loss of valuable human beings, women or not, cancer or not, breasts or not.

However, I have to present some disagreement with parts of your complaint.

I do find breasts attractive. All breasts, generally. I also find women's legs and derrieres attractive. And lips.

I enjoy my wife's body as though it was a playground. I revel in it. I enjoy touching it, rubbing it, and generally doing all sorts of romance related activities with it.

I do not know why I find a woman's body attractive, or why particular parts of a woman's body excite me. I suspect part of it is cultural (what is concealed becomes alluring) and I suspect part of it is biological (I am programmed to propagate the species, and I am given drives and tastes that support that mandate.)

While I do not think a woman missing a breast becomes a less valuable person, I would be lying if I said it made her no less attractive to me. I suspect if I was given the choice between two nearly identical women- one disfigured and one not disfigured- I would choose the not-disfigured woman. I don't consider it particularly sexist to respond to my conceptions of beauty.

You expressed some concern about single breasted or no breasted women. What if society as a whole deselected them for desirability?

I consider this problem somewhat preposterous. From experience, I can tell you that when I fall in love with someone, my perceptions of them become greatly changed, and I find them desirable in ways and to degrees that would have seemed impossible beforehand.

I have enjoyed romance with perhaps eight women in my lifetime, and only two of them could be described as universally desirable in terms of society's generic view of beauty. Yet my most fantastic romantic experiences have been with the remaining six, not the 'desirable' two. A good personality is the pathway to friendship and eventually love, and once love enters the picture, classic dimensions of beauty matter little. I dare say if such was not the case, I would not have wooed even eight women in my life!

I have heard concerns like yours before, YinYang. Concerns about the objectification of women, the dissection of them to desirable parts, and the treatment of women as sex objects. I can understand why someone might have such concerns, but I will tell you what I think is normal and correct.

I think it's normal that if I am a heterosexual male, that I find the opposite sex physically attractive, and capable of engendering a physical and lusty response within me.

I think that in order to find the opposite sex physically attractive, it is normal that I should find aspects of their physique arousing.

I think it is normal that when I give over my emotional devotion to someone, that I find their physique, any physique, much more alluring due to the filter of the human mind and heart.

I think it is normal to treat all human beings as having equal worth, whether you find them physically attractive and alluring or not. Only a person's actions, inactions, and expressions of self should modify this base position.

If you find any of this sexist, then I apologize for injuring your sensibilities. I think it's all quite fantastic.

--Anthony

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

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:24 PM

He was being facetious, and snarking at some of the ridiculousness of a couple of the "arguments" at the same time, Ying.

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.

-F

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:29 PM

Anthony,

It wasn't me who posted any complaints - I got that you were being facetious

YINYANG

Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:33 PM

Ahem. (I'm yinyang, not Magonsdaughter.)

I wasn't saying that I find your attraction to breasts problematic. Heterosexual men, as well as gay women and bisexual people, do tend to find breasts attractive, and I have no problem with that. (Otherwise I would have to have a big problem with myself first, before criticizing anyone else.)

What I do have a problem with is framing the fight against breast cancer solely in terms of this attraction. Women are more valuable than the beauty that people may find in their breasts, and there are far better reasons to support breast cancer awareness and prevention than because of a self-centered desire to want to have breasts to look at and play with. In fact, I would think such a seemingly nice and intelligent man such as yourself would value the prevention of deaths from breast cancer, even if that prevention meant diminishing attractiveness via the loss of someone's breasts.

I also have a problem with this framing because it seems to me to be the only widespread case involving cancer where people cite this type of desire, to save a body part because it is sexy. There is no, for example, "Save the Penis" campaign. Now, partly this may be because penile cancer isn't as widespread, and partial or full amputation of the penis is probably a rarer treatment. But, part of it I think has to do with the fact that we don't as often objectify men in the way we objectify women, by erasing their existence as people and reducing them to the body parts we find desirable. And, rather than demand equality and start a campaign like "Save the Penis," I would rather eliminate campaigns like "Save the Boobs," because I find the sort of objectification in this instance does a disservice to us all.

ETA: I had hoped that you were kidding, Anthony, but, again, it read to me exactly like the real campaigns that use this type of logic that I honestly couldn't tell the difference. So, I thought it was worthwhile to address it, because I think you're better than that.

A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:33 PM

Hello,

My apologies, it was Yinyang who complained. I shall correct my response.

--Anthony

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

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:42 PM

It's interesting reading a little research into this topic. I was wrong, you can actually get free mammograms after 40 in Oz, it's just not recommended.

There are appears to be some controversy over the usefulness of having regular mammograms when you are younger, because of the inaccuracies of the procedure. It misses 30% of present cancers, and in addition there is a high rate of an incorrect positive result, leading to further invasive and unnecessary biopsies. Other screening and diagnostic tools such as MRI's and ultrasound have better result rates.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:54 PM

Hello YinYang,

I apologize for getting the name wrong. And I apologize to MagonsDaughter too.

I think there are aspects of the Breast Cancer campaign that may be working against your sensibilities, and you may not realize it.

Most people can appreciate a pair of female breasts. I personally enjoy thinking of breasts in various sizes, shapes, ages, and perkiness. It is an enjoyable feeling to imagine a naked woman, breasts in particular. Endorphins are released which make us happy when we think about such things. It is a positive experience.

Thinking of human beings sickening and dying is not a positive experience. It makes us sad, it makes us uncomfortable. We prefer not to think about it. When the various Feed the Hungry commercials come onto the television showing skeletal children with distended bellies, I find a swelling of sympathy within me followed by a great discomfort and a desire to see and think about something else. We are not, as a species, programmed to pursue such imagery or sustain thoughts about it. If anything, such imagery invokes a desire to separate oneself from it.

Accepting these realities, you have to decide what your goal is. If your goal is to find a solution to the problem of breast cancer, and to motivate people to donate money and effort to solve the problem, you should pursue the best route to victory.

Women are very very fortunate that breasts are so desirable and so programmed into the culture and biology of people who might enjoy sex with women. This means that rather that relying on an ad campaign that promotes breast health by showing sick, dying, distressed human beings, you can tap into something that makes people feel good.

If people feel good about something, they pursue it with gusto and happily think about it often. They will buy products that make them think about it. They will donate money to it. They will give you exactly what you want.

I believe it is for this reason that Breast Cancer is funded to a greater degree than other forms of cancer. NCI spent 572 million on Breast Cancer research, about doubling the second runner up: Prostate Cancer.

I am glad that Breast Cancer is getting such great publicity. I am glad for every pink product and every 'save the boobs' shirt. I am thankful that such a horrible cancer can also be spun to make people want to think about it and want to donate to it and not shrink away or look away in horror. Where some fella might glumly donate some spare change to solve Leukemia, that same fella might joyfully slap down twenty bucks or more to proudly claim their defense of their favorite female body parts.

This isn't a problem. It's a solution.

I wish the prostate was sexier. Unfortunately, I don't even like thinking about my prostate because of the invasive exams associated with it.

--Anthony

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

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:01 PM

Aha! Welcome to a woman's world. Invasive Exams R US!

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:05 PM

Hello,

This is why I think we need to invent the tricorder ASAP. ;-)

--Anthony

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

YINYANG

Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:17 PM

While I understand the reasoning you give, I cannot accept that this is the best way to run a breast cancer campaign. I don't think there needs to be a trade-off of dehumanization and objectification for saving women's lives. 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. And I think that campaigns like "Save the Boobs" help contribute to that kind of sexism present in our society.

Moreover, you seem to me to be presenting a false dichotomy: either we have to advertise with sick people, or objectify women. I think there are plenty of campaigns and commercials and arguments that aren't engaging in sexism that do a good job. I'm pretty sure Susan G. Komen's organization isn't hurting for money, and they do not to my knowledge engage in "Save the Boobs"-type advertising.

A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:24 PM

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!!

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:32 PM

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

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:39 PM

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.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:44 PM

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

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:46 PM

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

YINYANG

Monday, November 23, 2009 12:00 AM

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

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, November 23, 2009 12:15 AM

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.

ANTHONYT

Monday, November 23, 2009 1:03 AM

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

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, November 23, 2009 2:55 AM

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

KWICKO

Monday, November 23, 2009 4:00 AM

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

KWICKO

Monday, November 23, 2009 4:16 AM

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

NIKI2

Monday, November 23, 2009 5:51 PM

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.

SIGNYM

Monday, November 23, 2009 6:25 PM

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.

NIKI2

Monday, November 23, 2009 6:49 PM

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.

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, November 23, 2009 7:52 PM

"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

ANTHONYT

Monday, November 23, 2009 8:16 PM

"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

ANTHONYT

Monday, November 23, 2009 8:29 PM

"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

SIGNYM

Monday, November 23, 2009 8:35 PM

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.

ANTHONYT

Monday, November 23, 2009 8:44 PM

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

SIGNYM

Monday, November 23, 2009 9:04 PM

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.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, November 23, 2009 9:19 PM

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.

ANTHONYT

Monday, November 23, 2009 9:29 PM

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

NIKI2

Monday, November 23, 2009 9:39 PM

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?)

SIGNYM

Monday, November 23, 2009 9:44 PM

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.

KWICKO

Monday, November 23, 2009 9:53 PM

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

SIGNYM

Monday, November 23, 2009 10:37 PM

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.

EVILDINOSAUR

Monday, November 23, 2009 11:06 PM

"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."

NIKI2

Monday, November 23, 2009 11:42 PM

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.

KWICKO

Monday, November 23, 2009 11:53 PM

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

EVILDINOSAUR

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:08 AM

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."

KWICKO

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:19 AM

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

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:29 AM

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.

OPPYH

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:54 AM

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.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:31 AM

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

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:02 PM

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.

NIKI2

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:08 PM

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...