Every Woman in America Needs to SEE this...

[trailmonkee]

[Heather MC]

1. This Awesome!

[flying_wahini]

2. great

I may print this and stick it on my car next to my I love Obamacare sticker!

[Amak8]

3. Mammograms for women without risk factors may do more harm than good.

The data, Gøtzsche has maintained for more than a decade, does not support mass screening as a preventive measure. Screening does not cut breast cancer deaths by 30%, it saves probably one life for every 2,000 women who go for a mammogram. But it harms 10 others. Cancerous cells that will go away again or never progress to disease in the woman's lifetime are excised with surgery and sometimes (six times in 10) she will lose a breast. Treatment with radiotherapy and drugs, as well as the surgery itself, all have a heavy mental and physical cost.

"I believe the time has come to realise that breast cancer screening programmes can no longer be justified," Gøtzsche said. "I recommend women to do nothing apart from attending a doctor if they notice anything themselves."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/23/breast-cancer-screening-not-justified

[eggplant]

4. Yup, but now, cost won't be a factor in their decision whether to have one or not.

Whether getting them is a good idea or not has NOTHING to do with the OP.

[Paka]

5. Thank you. n/t

[Amak8]

6. So healthcare dollars shouldn't be spent based on effectiveness?

Sounds like Mitt's justification for putting $700 billion back into Medicare for stuff that doesn't work.

[nolabear]

8. This is completely off the mark.

Nowhere in the OP does it say money will be spent on ineffective and misleading mammograms. That's utterly another issue. What's your point in raising this argument here?

[trailmonkee]

9. I agree, what they bring up is a medical effectiveness discussion... has nothing to do with this?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. The 47 million women can now get mammograms IF and WHEN APPROPRIATE. But still it's 47 million.

(on edit: 47)

It doesn't mean they all get mammograms tomorrow.

It means it is now an option where it was not before.

[littlemissmartypants]

13. My hero!

Bernardo de La Paz! Thank you!

[littlemissmartypants]

11. Please do not get started hijacking this thread.

If you want to have a legit discussion about health care costs we need more than a one liner and not a hijack of someone trying to spread some good news. Thank you.

[trailmonkee]

14. thanks littlemissmartypants, it's fine with me...

I think the flame-off will keep the thread kicked, which means more people will see and more people will post to facebook and twitter which means even more people will see

this info needs to be burned in the brains of everybody... I really do think, even with all the hullabaloo (and rightfully so) about the 47% etc, it will come down to the women who will be the force to move us forward (sounds kind of flighty.... but i believe it to be true)

[BlancheSplanchnik]

17. there are a lot of women in that 47% demographic!

You're right about women being a powerful force!

[Doctor_J]

20. Health care dollars should be based on on medical facts, not insurance companies' stockholders'

best interests.

[tblue]

7. I appreciate this info.

It freaks me out.

[MineralMan]

15. I think they can rely on their doctors' advice, rather than yours.

I'm just saying. Are you a physician? Do you deal with women who may need a mammogram? I'm pretty sure women want to hear from their physicians, not some anonymous new DUer. What do you think?

[Doctor_J]

19. True, but those who DO need them can now get them

and, more importantly, survivors cannot be "pre-existing'd" by the Big Insurance Death Panels

[littlemissmartypants]

12. Nice Catch

Trailmonkee! LMSP

[ProfessionalLeftist]

16. Women for Obama

because Obama is for Women.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

18. ....

I want this and the OP bumper stickers. !!!!!

[Doctor_J]

21. And men