RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

The Mammogram Panic, or, False Positives Are No Picnic

by LaVonne Neff 11-19-2009

Inhale through your nose (be sure your abdomen moves, not just your chest). Exhale through your mouth. Slowly, now …

OK, let’s talk about the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s recommendation that women begin getting mammograms at age 50 instead of 40, and that we space them two years instead of one year apart.

I’m not going to argue that the USPSTF is right or wrong about this. I’ll probably keep on getting my annual mammogram, and the HHS secretary assures me that this should be no problem. But I do understand the task force’s wish to cut back on unnecessary procedures. As satirical columnist Gail Collins wrote this morning, “Whatever happens, we do not want the government conducting any studies on whether current health practices actually do any good. Let this continue and soon you will not be able to get your hands on a good leech when you need one.”

The USPSTF’s recommendations are not exactly outlandish. Beginning mammography at age 50 and thereafter at two- (or even three-) year intervals is already the standard in the European Union and Japan. Breast cancer, however, is one of the few diseases with higher survival rates in the United States (especially for white women) than anywhere else. Is this due to early detection, better treatment, fewer smokers, or a different approach to statistics? People have theories, but no one knows for sure. So, until they figure this out, I imagine I’ll opt for the annual mammogram.

Still, there are good reasons to be concerned about false positives. I’ve had two false positives, and here’s what happened to me.

I had a worrisome mammogram on July 25, 1999. The doctor didn’t like what he saw, so he sent me for a second mammogram on July 29. It did not make him any happier, so I went immediately for an ultrasound. On August 18 — after nearly three weeks of what the USPSTF, with classic understatement, calls “anxiety” — I went to the hospital for one-day surgery.

First, however, I had yet another mammogram to mark the tiny mass through needle localization. While the breast is compressed, a needle bearing a small wire is inserted. This does not feel good. Also, it somehow affects the vagus nerve, and some women pass out while it is being done. I came very close to being one of them. Fortunately, the technicians started hollering and someone brought a bed to catch me. Eventually they found what they wanted, and I was taken to the operating room for a surgical biopsy. It left me very sore for several weeks and slightly disfigured forever. Nothing whatsoever was wrong with my breast.

Two years later I had another false positive. This time I went directly to an oncologist, whom I will bless forever. She did not ask for a second mammogram, and she did not do a needle biopsy. Instead, in her office, she did an ultrasound followed by a fine needle aspiration. Again, nothing was wrong.

A number of my friends have been sent for breast biopsies too. Most of them had stereotactic biopsies (if you’re in a grisly mood, see Mayo Clinic’s descriptions of different kinds of biopsies). None of them had anything wrong either. They had a lot of anxiety, discomfort, and expense, though.

I’m not saying mammograms should be done later, or less frequently. I don’t know. I’m just saying that false positives are nothing to sneer at. If yearly mammograms really do provide better results, then false positives may be an unpleasant, expensive, but necessary side effect. If yearly mammograms make little or no difference, then we need to consider that false positives carry their own risks, not the least of which is infection.

I suppose I’m going to carry on with yearly mammograms. Maybe they contribute to the U.S.’s good survival statistics. Maybe I’m superstitious: if I skip a year, I will surely be punished. But if Blue Cross or Medicare someday decides not to fund annual mammograms, or if I move from Wheaton to Paris or Geneva, I won’t panic. At least not as much as I did when I had the false positive mammogram results.

portrait-lavonne-neffLaVonne Neff is an amateur theologian and cook; lover of language and travel; wife, mother, grandmother, godmother, dogmother; perpetual student, constant reader, and Christian contrarian. She blogs at Lively Dust.

Categories: Health
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • Ngchen
    Bravo for pointing out the problem with false-positives. There is an article on slate I believe that goes into further detail about how overtesting causes its own problems, not to mention the expense involved.
  • KentuckyBlue
    There is no way I will follow their recommendation! Not one single oncologist was on that govt. panel who came up with this.

    My first thought when I heard this was.... here we go, this is a glimpse of what life will be like if govt. controls health care as they desire. They will tell us what we can and can't do.

    If govt. controls healthcare, this could quite easily move from recommendation to mandate and govt. could very well then decide not to pay for mammograms for anyone under 50. And you know what the result will be? Sure, less negatives. But those who would've been positive. Well, they'll be dead.

    But for the govt., it'll be a cost control move. Lives and saving them will not be the biggest priority. It will be containing cost.

    This recommendation shocked me. Absolutely shocked me. I have a couple of friends whose breast cancer was discovered before age 50! Last night, I saw an entertainment show where Olivia Newton John and Jacyln Smith were outraged because they both had breast cancer under 50.

    So did some other actresses, musicians-- Sheryl Crow, Christina Applegate (who was only in her late 30's when diagnosed), and some others.

    Newton-John said, ""It's ridiculous, I mean, mine actually was found by my own self-examination, not a mammogram, but I have friends whose cancers were found by mammogram and they're in the forties and so, yeah, we're all pretty outraged," she told ABC News Radio.

    Well, they are also saying that self-examinations are worthless so don't do them. What? I am dumbfounded.

    It truly scares me to think that govt. might control our health care because this is exactly the type of thing that will result. I am glad in a way they came out with this recommendation so that people could see what might happen if we have govt. health care (besides Medicaid and Medicare).

    I am really disappointed with the way Sojourners only posts blogs that support every single govt. decision, action, and agenda.
  • KentuckyBlue
    "But if Blue Cross or Medicare someday decides not to fund annual mammograms, or if I move from Wheaton to Paris or Geneva, I won’t panic. At least not as much as I did when I had the false positive mammogram results."

    Deciding to not have a mammogram should be your own personal decision or based on your doctor's recommendation. It should not be decided by government beuracracy.

    You might be at peace with skipping a mammogram and "not panic," but I'm not. I'd much rather go through the stress of a false negative than be cancer-ridden and/or dead from breast cancer because I failed to get a mammogram.

    Which is worse? A false negative due to a mammogram? Or having breast cancer but not finding it because you didn't get a mammogram?

    This recommendation, IMO, is motivated by cost, not by saving lives.
  • NC77
    I would agree with you KentuckyBlue. I believe the new recommendations are just the beginning of goverment efforts to reduce healthcare costs by recommending less of it. Hmmm could that be rationing? The decision to test should be between the woman and her doctor. So if the government is wrong about this, and the death rate for breast cancer in the U.S. goes up, can we call them a death panel ? Hypothetical question. Sarah Palin is not looking so dumb now.

    How weird that the very next day, Friday 11/20, the government comes out with recommendations for easing the testing for cervical cancer too. They are not even waiting for the so called "healthcare reform" to be law yet. It is just way too coincidental that the government is making these recommendations now.

    My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 40. That was back in the sixties when not as much was known about it as now. She was fortunate and the timely treatment and care she got let her live another 27 years.

    I wonder if they will be coming out with new recommendations for reducing the need for men being tested for prostate disease soon. If not, I would be suspicious and wonder why women are the primary potential victims of a new government control over health care decisions. Let's see what happens in the coming weeks and months.
  • scat
    Take heart. I think the uproar over this "study" demonstrates an unwillingness on the part of the public to let the insurance companies or government to slip one by us. It has started a worthwhile debate on the effectiveness of the diagnostic methods used in the study. I have heard some medical people comment that what they actually studied is already out of date and there is progress in improving diagnostic methods. I think it is a very good consequence that the public is now engaged in the debate. Breast cancer is so pervasive that almost everyone is touched by it either personally or as a family member.
    It is odd that the servical cancer study was made public within a day or two, but it is an entirely different kind of cancer. But both situations shoud demand the attention of all of us.
    To just speculate on some nefarious motivations on the part of the government does not help us make progress on these issues.
  • KentuckyBlue
    "I think the uproar over this "study" demonstrates an unwillingness on the part of the public to let the insurance companies or government to slip one by us."

    I hope so. We've come such a long way as women, and this type of thing would be setting us back in a way.

    I realize that mammograms might not always be effective, but for the women whose lives they've saved, they are worth it. I think a false positive is a small price to be paid for a true positive that might be caught with a mammogram.

    If there are better things out there than mammograms, then I think it'd be wise to hold off on these recommendations, so they can "replace" mammograms with better things that would still include women under 40.

    But doesn't it make you suspicious at all that the govt. panel is saying women under 40 shouldn't get them? It's a whole decade of money that would be saved.

    I also think when they give these types of recommendations, they shouldn't just group all women together by saying things like "women don't need them at 40." For instance, with the cervical cancer recommendations, I would think they would have a qualifier that if someone is sexually active (or with multiple partners... not at the same time!), that the recommendations don't apply.
  • scat
    I am "suspicious" of anything I hear that sounds bizarre until I get a chance to investigate further and obtain information as opposed to gossip and rumor. I am even more skeptical of people's speculation when they don't have all the facts.
    IN fact this panel was not studying cost effectiveness although others who have loooked at the report have applied some numbers to do just that. The point of the study was to determine relative effectiveness of early detection methods. If I were comcerned about the cost aspect I would be much more nervous about the fact that there were at least three insurance represntatives on thiis panel.

    In fact they did not say that women under 50 should not have mammograms. They found that mammograms in women under 50 were less significant in detecting cancer.

    I think it is irresponsible to spread wildly scary speculation about what this means and what will occur in the future as a result. I am glad to hear representatives of the American Cancer Society as well as members of the medical community discuss the actual facts of the study. They have all stated that they do not intend to change their recommnedations. I am also happy that women in particular have taken such a vocal interest in it.There was a time when it was considered unseemly to discuss breast cancer.
  • KentuckyBlue
    Well, my first thought when I heard the recommendation, after I got over my shock, was... "this is rationing. This is what rationing will be like" and I quickly picked up on the fact that the govt. could very easily make other recommendations like this and could ration care this way, as a cost-saving measure.

    Of course they are going to say, "No, that won't happen," but in a few years, if govt. health care is mandated and we have no choice, they could easily change their minds and then implement those "recommendations." But they aren't foolish enough to come out and admit it. They know how the public feels about rationing, and since we enjoy our right to free speech here, they know we'll talk about it.

    And for the record, I didn't read or listen to a single news person, blog, or any source to come up with my own conclusion. I opened my newspaper, read the story, and immediately though "rationing." All I needed to come up with that is common sense (2 + 2 = 4). You don't need Hannity or Limbaugh to tell you what is clearly evident.

    But as a woman, it really concerns me.

    I also heard about the cervical recommendations. It's strange though that the news seems to be not speaking about it much. It has not been talked about much on the news sources I listen to or read, which I think is odd. Is there a reason for this? Is it because it does look "fishy" (as the White House would say). Because, yes, it does raise the hairs on my head when the very next day, another "recommendation" comes out. Both of them concerning women's preventative health.

    When you consider women's preventative health, there is a whole lot of money spent on it. Breast cancer research and prevention is huge (which is why the rate of breast cancer survival in the U.S. is higher than any other nation). So, you just wonder if this is a way to cut back some of that spending. I wonder how many men are on that panel. Hmmmm... maybe there's a lot of women, but I can't help but wonder. It looks like you were wondering about that, too.

    I would think that feminists and women's health providers, including organizations like Planned Parenthood, would be outraged, or at least be voicing concerns. Why aren't they? Are they so loyal to their party affiliation that they won't address something that surely they must be upset about?

    I do agree with you about it being "way too coincidental."

    The other ironic thing is that Obama has talked a great deal about preventative health and how it will save money, even though doctors say it actually does not. I was happy though (and shocked) that Kathleen Sebelius actually stated publicly that women should disregard the recommendations and continue to get mammograms at age 40.

    Look at how one liberal, Steven Pearlstein, slammed her for it in The Washington Post:

    "Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius did a marvelous job this week of undermining the move toward evidence-based medicine with her hasty and cowardly disavowal of a recommendation from her department's own task force that women under 50 are probably better off not getting routine annual mammograms." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

    Sigh.

    It'll be interesting to see what is next, although interesting isn't the right word. Frightening is more like it. Every time I read about health care advancing, my anxiety levels rise so high. IMO, Obama gets everything that Obama wants, although I guess we are now starting to see some things he's not getting (like Gitmo closing and cap-and-trade). I really hope the current House and Senate bills are scrapped.

    I'm not against reform. There are definitely things that must be addressed with health care (esp. the rising costs of it), but the Democrat's plans are much too intrusive and w/o a doubt, they will grow to be even moreso once they are implemented.
  • KentuckyBlue
    "Beginning mammography at age 50 and thereafter at two- (or even three-) year intervals is already the standard in the European Union...."

    Exactly! It's because the govt. mandates it! They have govt. health care there, and govt. set those guidelines. In fact there is an article in the UK with the headline: "Breast cancer storm in U.S. as American women are told to follow British lead and wait till age 50 for routine mammograms." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/artic...

    As for Japan, I don't know how they handle their health care, but they live very healthy lives, eat healthy, stay slim, and this could very easily explain why their breast cancer rates are low.

    It makes sense that it's one of 'the few diseases with higher survival rates in the U.S. than anywhere else," like you said, because look at how much money we devote to cancer research and promoting things like self-examinations and mammograms starting at age 40! Don't you think that the fact that women get mammograms here at age 40 vs. women getting them in other nations at age 50 could be part of the reason that we have higher survival rates??

    So I'll leave you with this quote:

    "These new recommendations seem to reflect a conscious decision to ration care." --Dr. Carol Lee, chair of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Commission
  • mindymama
    I was 37 when my suspicious calcifications were discovered via my baseline mammogram. After a diagnostic mammogram and a needle biopsy, these things, which were each the size of half of a grain of rice, were found to be cancerous. I am so grateful that I was able to get a baseline mammogram before the age of 40, as these could not have been detected in any other way. And so are my husband and three young daughters! However, many women are already prohibited by their insurance companies from getting early screening mammograms. And many other women are without insurance and therefore unable to afford this costly procedure. So, to say that government-run health care will be worse than the large corporate millionaires who presently make our health care decisions depends upon your current insurance status. My own coverage has changed, and my current insurer would not have covered that baseline mammogram (which, by the way, is not as terribly painful as you often hear, and may just save your life).
  • hottamales
    Uninsured women can get free mammograms and pap smears. Most ciities have health clinics that provide care for poor and/or uninsured women. Planned Parenthood also provides low-cost mammograms.

    It's not true that insurance companies "prohibit" mammograms. If the plan has preventative care, it'll be covered. Some plans don't have preventative care coverage though, so no, it won't be covered. It's not being "prohibited" though. It's like going into a store and expecting to buy alcohol when the store simply does not stock it. If a woman has insurance that covers preventative care, mammograms will be covered. If she doesn't, she can either get a better plan that covers preventive care, and if she can't afford that, then she can get one for free or at low-cost at a clinic. Or she could always save about $20-$30 a month and by the end of the year, she'll be able to get herself a mammogram. Or she can just wait for Obamacare but unfortunately, she might still be denied if she's under 50!

    It's wonderful that a mammogram caught your breast cancer and now you are alive. It's a shame to think that had you been living in Europe and had universal care, or if you were living in the U.S. under Obamacare, you would've been denied the mammogram since you were under age 50. It hasn't yet happened in the U.S. but I'm not so naive and ignorant to believe that it can't.
  • bethboyle
    I had a false positive and it was a nightmare. I was so stressed and no one said a thing to me that the odds were it was not cancer and they took for ever to schedule the lumpectomy. The fear and waiting made me so ill. I was terrified. In the end it was nothing at all. The ugly scar is a reminder of the terror. I was only 30 years old when this happened.
  • hottamales
    Better a false negative than a positive that went uncaught. Better a scar than death.
  • scat
    So would you rather that the tests had been positive? Be grateful that you found out that you did not have cancer. Can you just for a moment imagine the fear when it is confirmed as positive and the doctor is on the phone reserving an operating room. Add to that the fear when you realize your insurance is not going to cover surgery. Imagine the fear when you find out there is not help from and public or private source to pay for the surgery.
    I don't have to imagine. That was my experience. And if you want to complain about the scars from a lumpectomy, try to imagine your lopsided body with ten inch horizontal scar. But I am not complaining because I got lucky and the nurse, yes the nurse, figured out a way for my surgey to be covered as an outpatient procedure. I am alive and enjoy every moment and even grateful for the experience.
  • alternatives
    Why is there no discussion in the news of the risk of more exposure to radiation with yearly mammograms especially for premenopausal breast tissue? Why is there no mention of the alternatives to mammograms like thermograms, ultrasounds and more frequent breast exams by a qualified practitioner? Mammograms for women ages 40-49 has been in question for many years but unitl now mammograms were the 3rd rail in medicine; you couldn't mention any negative aspects. I get Thermograms which detect heat because cancer cells radiate more heat. This is earlier detection than mammograms but they are not covered by insurance because radiology and mammography have enough clout to make sure only mammograms are covered. Why doesn't anyone question the motives the these for profit industries but only the motives of a group of professionals reviewing research studies and data? I have known women who have had clear mammograms and then a few months later discovered a lump (cancerous) on their own. I was heavily pressured by a clinic to have a mammogram; so much for it being a decision for me and my doctor. I personnally feel mammography machines belong in the dungeons of Europe with the other devices used during the Inquisition.
  • KentuckyBlue
    "I personnally feel mammography machines belong in the dungeons of Europe with the other devices used during the Inquisition."

    What about the women whose lives were saved as a direct result of a mammogram catching cancer?

    I know nothing of thermograms, so I can't answer you there. Maybe the insurance companies don't pay for them because there's not enough solid evidence that they are effective, or as effective as mammograms. I have never heard of anyone's cancer being detected by a thermogram.

    I believe ultrasounds are mostly done on high-risk patients, aren't they? I remember hearing about Christina Applegate, whose doctor told her to get them in her 30's because her mother had breast cancer, so she was high-risk. Sure, enough, it caught her breast cancer.

    One of the main things I question about this panel is that there was not a single oncologist on it. I can't remember where I saw the list of panel members, but you can find it online. Not one oncologist.

    Also, I question it because it was a govt. panel and we are currently discussing govt. controlled health care that is going to be very, very costly. So, one can't help but connect the two and wonder whether this recommendation is partly a cost-saving measure. After all, if women wait until their 50's, a lot of money will be saved.

    Profit industries (health insurance) may have imperfect motives, but they are not the ones recommending women wait until 50 to have mammograms and they cover the cost of mammograms (if the ins. plan has preventative care coverage). If they were the ones making these recommendations, I'd bet that those who are for govt. health care would accuse the insurance companies of making the recommendation for profit motives.
  • NC77
    Hey Kentucky,

    I appreciate your insight and perspective.

    We do have reason to be concerned. I am hearing only really bad things about both the house and senate bills.

    One thing that concerns me is that the house bill would virtually eliminate all private insurance by 2013. If that happens then we are truly at the mercy of the federal governent.

    Here is a link that touches on a few points concerning the public option and how it will be handled.

    http://www.christianworldviewofhistoryandcultur...

    It is short but touches on some key points. There should be lots more about the bill coming out in the weeks to come. I read HR 3200 back in August. Don't feel like reading another one. Wish our representitives would.

    One saving grace is that we will have two elections before the bill goes into effect in 2013 or 2014, so we can do something to make changes by voting. The down side is that I believe people who do not currenty have insurance will need to start making their premium payments or pay taxes before any benefits are available in 2013. It breaks down to 10 years of payments for only six years of benefits. That is how they make it deficit neutral (whatever that means). That won't go over well.







    I
  • KentuckyBlue
    I share your concern completely. In fact, govt. health takeover was probably my biggest concern when Obama was elected. Although I have many other concerns about him (his socialistic ideas, cap-and-trade, his pro-abortion stance, his lack of experience, and the media's "free pass" treatment of him... oh, and the trillion dollar stimulus along with the rising deficit), I am very anxious/concerned about the Democrat's plans to take-over the American health care system. If it is implemented, it will be nearly impossible for us to ever reverse it.

    It will give government tremendous power in our lives! And when cost is the bottom line for government, there will without a doubt be rationing, although they will not call it that nor will they be truthful about it. It will happen in subtle ways, under the guise of things like "new recommendations based on scientific evidence."

    Not only this, but what kind of care are we going to receive? Considering that there already is a shortage of nurses and doctors, to suddenly open the floodgates of coverage to many millions more people, this shortage will pale in comparison to how it will be if the govt. health care passes. I do believe that all people need affordable access to health care, but this govt. plan fails to address many important things. Instead, it's like putting a band-aid on top of a growing sore.

    But it's much worse than a bandaid because it's the government, and they can use their power of lawmaking to force us to do things to where we will be breaking the law if we don't. In fact, under the Pelosi bill, we will be fined or imprisoned if we do not have health care.

    And, yes, private insurance will be obliterated. There is no way it will be able to survive in the face of govt. care. It's like a huge cruise ship vs. a rowboat. The cruise ship will eventually sail right on over the rowboat, sinking it. Businesses will exchange private coverage for their employees for govt. coverage because it will be cheaper. Their employees will have no choice in the matter. Also, Reid's Senate bill plans on raising taxes on health insurance companies. Eventually, health insurance companies, like many businesses, will not be able to stay in business.

    I could go on and on, but we must stay informed on these bills. There are many people in our nation who are uninformed or misinformed, or they just simply refuse to believe the truth of what these bills will do.

    I do not understand why anyone would willingly want more government control over theirs or their loved one's lives. Or why they would be so loyal to their party or candidate (Obama), that they accept every single thing said by him or the party as truth or as something good for them.

    I will check out the link you provided. I get a lot of my information from sources like HotAir, Townhall, Newsbusters, Fox News, and then emails I receive from AFA (Amer. Family Assoc.) and FRC (Family Research Council). You should check out some of these sources if you have the time and don't already go to them. I thank God for all these news and commentary sources! If it were not for "watchdogs" like these, we'd only have liberal news sources and we'd all be duped and manipulated.

    I really, really hope that in 2010, there is a clear referendum on Obama. It looks like it's very possible. Hopefully, many of these health care supporters (esp. the ones who ignore the voices of their constituents) are voted out of office, including Reid. They refuse to listen to us. The majority of people are against the bills and do not want to lose their current health plans. They dismissed people at the townhall meetings, calling them things like "manufactured astroturf," even though across the nation, there were many, many townhalls filled with concerned citizens.

    As for reading the bill, Reid wouldn't even put it online at first. I'm sure it was only because of Republicans that it's now online. However, you won't find it at CNN or MSNBC. Of course not. But Fox News has a link to it. Who has time to read 2000+ pages filled with garbly govt. language though? Not even our own senators read it!

    People call Fox News biased, but providing news and sources that liberal media simply won't provide for us is not bias. It's like when someone withholds information and then says, "But I'm not lying. I'm just not giving you all the information." Here's a link to the bill: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/111909_Reid...

    It's one big ugly mess of regulations, rules, and government-speak. Let's hope and pray that it fails! And maybe then some real reform can take place that will help those w/o health insurance while allowing our nation to be the free people that our Constitution wants us to be. And if it passes, maybe I'll meet you in jail when we both refuse to pay the fine for not having health care! ;) Kidding.
  • KentuckyBlue
    I just read the link you gave. Sigh. I hope the public is informed in the upcoming days and moths about the bill and it's contents!

    The other day, was an article entitled, "Gripes aboout swine flu vaccine abound." http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=9...

    It was a rather lengthly analysis of all the problems with this national program, and it wasn't reported by Limbaugh, Beck, or Fox News. It was reported by the Associated Press.

    Here are a few things said:

    -- Health officials have been terrible at predicting when and how much vaccine would be available.

    -- Vaccine shipments have been inexplicably lopsided.

    -- Health officials have stressed that people... should go to the head of the line, but they haven't tried to make sure that acutally happened.

    -- Despite pledges that they would be transparent... some officials have refused to disclose where all the doses are going, and they have held back on public service announcements telling people who should be coming in for shots.

    -- Complaints have been mounting, with lawmakers this week holding hearings in Washington and elsewhere, pressing for explanation.

    -- People are frustrated everywhere.

    -- Layers of misinformation and miscommunication.

    -- It is not working right at all.


    This is one program, much smaller than providing nation-wide health care coverage. This is a prime exampled of what we can expect.

    We are completely naive and in denial if we think that govt. (esp. this very inexperienced administration) is going to run a highly effective, timely, fair, and well-managed health insurance program.
  • KentuckyBlue
    Today, I read at the Fox News website that the former NIH Chief is saying to ignore the new recommendations.

    I'm saying very powerfully ignore them," former NIH director Dr. Bernardine Healy told "Fox News Sunday."

    This is what she has to say:

    This will increase the number of women dying of breast cancer. Women in their 40s have a very aggressive kind of breast cancer. They tend to progress fast. And to not screen women in that age group is astounding to me, and it goes against the bulk of individuals who are actually caring for patients. You may save some money, but you're not going to save lives

    Now, here is something that really irks me. I went to both MSNBC's and CNN's websites, and there is nothing about this.

    People accuse Fox News of being biased, but the truth is Fox News reports on things that MSNBC and CNN, because of their liberal bent, will not report.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008