New Mammogram Guidelines

Hi, I'm Australian and don't have any boobies (though most of the women-folk here do). On the subject of the health-care debate that seems to be raging in the USA, I doubt that many foreigners would fully understand the issues. I don't. I guess you have to be there to experience it and really appreciate what's going on. Though I must say that the whole exploding health insurance thing has the appearance of a parasitic insurance industry bleeding everything it can out of a very, very broken health care system, which itself has been hijacked by corporate interests for maximum profit. HOWEVER, I do have a strong opinion about "early detection" regimes such as annual mammograms. What do they do if they find cancer in your boobies? Fry the boobies in the microwave, pump them (and you) full of poison, and/or chop them off! The standard medical approach to "treating" cancer really is quite neanderthal, if you ask me. A bit like burning off all the pustules to "cure" measles. And maybe a bit of blood-letting just for good measure. Sure, it makes buckets of money for the cancer-treatment industry (and it IS a full-blown industry - just look at the trillions of dollars involved). But there are ALTERNATIVE ways to "detect" cancers, and to treat them. The mammograms have become an industry "standard" because the industry itself has declared it so, but that doesn't negate various other strategies to determine the presence of cancer. There are well-known cancer markers that show up in your urine if you have active cancers in your body, and the test for this can be done quickly, cheaply and easily at home. No big bucks in it for the cancer professionals, though, so you most likely won't be told about THAT. I guess what I'm trying to say (and I could go on for HOURS) is, okay, if a mammogram is seen to be the "standard" way to check for cancer in the boobies, then fine, go ahead and do it. If they start cutting back on access to mammograms, is that really such a big deal? There are other ways to determine that you have a cancer problem, and there are MANY other (cheap and effective) ways to eliminate cancer from your body than the three preferred high-profit options (surgery, chemotherapy and radiation) which are aggressively marketed by the cancer industry. The real issue in back of all this is the "cure" for cancer. Just eliminating a cancerous tumor (by whatever means) doesn't "cure" the problem, because cancer is a symptom of entrenched health issues in your body. The real cure involves dietary and lifestyle changes to stop whatever caused the cancer in the first case from endlessly generating new cancers. You can't take steps to address a problem if you don't know it's there, but limited access to mammograms shouldn't stop people from finding out if they have a problem. If the multi-trillion dollar American cancer industry refuses to make alternative detection options available (and simple, cheap alternatives DO exist) then you should probably be asking why.

I am not sure how I feel about the guidelines, because as far as I've known, mammograms are not recommended until you're 40 UNLESS you have certain risk factors or a family history of cancers, especially at younger ages. I personally have never had to worry about it because I'm too young for it to be recommended, and I don't invite trouble. NOW if my DOCTOR recommended it or suggested I get one and I couldn't, then I would get angry, but my doctor would not suggest it without a damn good reason. I think a better way around this is to reduce the cost of mammograms to begin with - I see no reason for them to be as expensive as they are. ANY testing that goes on includes a TON of waste because you know those lab tests do not cost $85 or whatever! Also I believe tests should only be asked for and recommended when there is a clear medical reason and proof given, and doctors should make the decision, not ins companies. I have the answer for you as far as Medicare and Medicaid spending issues - do not spend ANY money toward health care under those programs for anybody who cannot legally prove they are an American citizen. That would cut off about half the people who use those programs right off the bat, meaning that there might be enough money to keep the programs going at the current rate even though all the baby boomers are aging. Then - go with medical necessity. Don't suggest anything that is not medically necessary UNLESS the person intends to pay for part of it out of pocket.

Hi there Heather I have not heard anything about it here in the UK so I guess this will just be there

I have heard that there is new test available that is just a blood test looking for the traces of bad things and the bodies reactions to bad things. Mammograms and Pap smears are old fashioned and can be replaced with better technology, but there is money to be made still from these old ways and X-Ray devices and radiographers to keep employed, but I would go for the blood test, rather than ANOTHER dose of X-rays to add to the total.

We tried to tell people that healthcare would be rationed....but they just wouldn't believe it. Now maybe they will.

Yes, it is now consensus! You need not go for a mammogram until you reach 50. Apparently the advice is given because of some reasons. The obvious one as you pointed out is saving money. I guess at 40 onwards, maybe selectively those who have some family history may need to do mammograms. The rest can wait, I suppose!

it could be but then I never had one till after I found my lump I was 67

I am not familiar with new guidelines, or even if they apply in Australia. I must admit to never had a mammogram. Im 51, so I guess its getting time for me. I am not comfortable with the idea of one, as I have been told it can be uncoimfortable & even painful.

Actually I am from the medical field and this has been a raging debate for a long time. Actually we as medical device manufactures know that it is helpful in early diagnosis. The problem though is with insurance and they do not want to pay for each scan and so they look for statistics of how much of these scans have been successful and then ask for reduction. The problem with this approach is that some of the cancers would be detected later and that would definitely affect that specific individual. Unfortunately, we live in a world where medicine has become a business and every one involved in this are equally to share for this situation. Doctors ask people to go for scans indiscreetly, the insurance guys lobby against scans and the manufactures get the doctors to refer more and more patients. It is a vicious cycle, and I am not sure if there is an easy solution to this problem. Cheers! Ram

I've listened to enough of this that I think I get what they are saying. They are not telling women what to do and of course if you have a family history then you should get tested earlier. These are just guidlines and they are not coming from the government. They are trying to reduce some of the false/positive results that are common in younger women because these results cause a woman to go thru a battery of tests and procedures that are invasive and costly.I think they are making a big deal out of pretty much nothing. They are not going to stop testing younger women at all. Again...this is not a government decision.

I believe this is a testing of the waters. They are trying to gauge public reaction to rationing. See, the elders and young ones won't object and neither will most of the men so they can sneak that one in and eventually make the "guidelines" accepted policy. Then it's on to more and more rationing, group by group. By the time they're rid of the Boomers and the Seniors through rationing of services, all they'll have left is a bunch of sheep that let the government decide what's good for them.

i think they are here for the best of the reasons given in the guidelines and not to do any harm.

I do hope they do not go ahead with this new guidelines. A lot of women have survived as a result of early detection and more have had cancer at the sge of 40, it is going to be terrible when the effect of this decision starts taking effect.

This is a sign of things to come. This is one of their methods to reduce costs and it's the easiest one to implement, they just reduce services. They put out new guidelines, and these are government guidelines, not endorsed by anyone in the medical field, and they can show how they're reducing costs. Right now, they are just "guidelines" but once the healthcare bill passes and once they get government run healthcare, they will decide what services you get. They are free to say they are only going to cover a mammogram every 2 years or every 5 years or whatever. They are reducing the frequency of pap smears too and I'm sure there are many other tests and screenings they are going to restrict as well. Welcome to government healthcare, people.

The doctors are having a fit! I seen this on the news this morning. It is sad. They were claiming that they were going to approve more preventive care, so there would be less sickness. This sure does not sound that way.

I'm actually for EARLIER detection. I mean the earlier you can find something wrong, the easier and more likely it will be to fix it. My sister and I actually had this conversation and she is for the later testing. She said it's stupid to worry people about it when there's usually nothing wrong - which was the case with me last winter. But, I argued that had there been something wrong I would have been better able to deal with it at that early stage. I do think it all comes down to money for the health insurance industry. It's such a pain that our wellbeing is dictated by that.

My first thought, and my continuing thots...this is cost-cutting! This is a recommendation for Canada, too! Even tho' we have Medicare, it is certainly a saving measure for the government! In eastern Canada, there is a huge law-suit in progress over misdiagnosis' and many, many reciprients of "radical" mastectomy's that were not required at all! I think the result of this lawsuit will have a great determination in what happens here in our country! Cheers!

I don't know anything about Mammogram. What is it really since this is my first time to hear such words. It sound like a form of psychological healing method. Anyway, the best medicine as far as I know is your belief or faith that you are going to be healed.

I think it's crazy. There have been so many lives saved because of the early detection that it seems screwy to me that they would want to change the guidelines in this manner. If anything they should increase the preventive measures. In truth by catching this early..it can save money because treatment can be less invasive and done over a shorter period of time.