Beebs52 wrote:I only have my own personal anecdotal experience vis a vis breast cancer. Mine was caught with a mammogram, unpalpable, lumpectomied and radiated out with follow up for five years with medication. I have/had good insurance. I missed almost two years of mammos before it was discovered, but I was also 50 at the time of discovery. No history in the family.
I had been fairly religious about getting mammos after the age of forty.
I guess my point is, I'm happy with the insurance we've had throughout several iterations of employers. Yes, I could have waited another five years without a mammo and had an actual huge mass taken out and then undergone chemo and maybe my mortality rate would be the same. I don't know. I'm seven years out right now. I also have pre-cancer crap in the other breast. I'm down to a regular mammo each year now.
I think, considering the small size of my original mass and the possible weirdness of the other stuff on the other side, with governmental sorts directing when and how I have detection, I might be screwed at some point. I think the MRI's I had to reinforce what the microcalcifications had/hadn't done wouldn't have been done. Who knows. Maybe they were useless. But, I simply do not trust some undereducated federal government employed drone to tell me what is necessary.
And, I do think that's what it would come down to.
And yet, no one on Medicare has afaik been denied a mammogram under circumstances similar to yours (and mine). Nor has anyone covered by TriCare been turned down -- before my husband went to work for the railroad, TriCare paid for every test my doctor asked for.
But under our current system, there are millions who are not tested because they are not insured or not insurable. I guess you think that's ok as long as you've got yours? What do you think will happen if your insurance company drops you if you become a bad risk?
And as someone who used to work for the federal government, I can assure you we are not undereducated drones. In fact, most people who work for the government are better educated than those who do the administrative grunt work at an insurance agency.
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:hf_jai wrote:I would also add that just because one person, no matter how well credentialed, writes a book, that doesn't mean that "some doubt" of any significance exists in the medical community as a whole. That's not the way science works. I don't see doctors all over the country standing up and saying, "My God, we've been doing it wrong for the last 40 years!" Perhaps Dr Hadler is on to something -- he seems to have some valuable ideas -- but public health policy should be based on the mainstream of scientific opinion, not a book written by a university professor.
If you read the chapter on mammograms you will see that Dr. Hadler makes an argument that mammogram policy is set more by politicians than science.
I don't believe that's an accurate description of what he is saying. If it is what he meant, I don't agree. I know of no politicians who are forcing any private insurers to provide mammograms, and I doubt it's a matter of internal politics within the medical community. Insurers pay for mammograms because it is cheaper than paying for extensive cancer treatments. And so will the government, if it ever comes to that.
But even if it is what he's saying, he's not the first "lone voice" against the mainstream to claim he is not being listened to because of politics. VERY seldom does it turn out to be true.
