It is no secret that I am not a fan of socialized medicine and the past few weeks has done nothing to change my opinion.
I am sure that it was a coincidental that the "big" changes in health care were both for women, but it sure feels like a slap in the face and incredibly sexist. It also seems that it is a rationing of health care and at whose expense? Let me start with this little bit of information from the American Cancer Society, between 1955 and 1992, the cervical cancer death rate declined by 74%. The main reason for this change was the increased use of the Pap test...with that reported, let's cut the need for so many pap tests. Catching cancer after 2/3 years instead of every year will surely not advance the cancer before it is caught. Oh yeah, let's also throw in the fact that women should now wait until they are 21( average age virginity is lost is 16 in the US)to start having pap tests instead of the old, start when you become sexually active. This when we know that atleast 70% of cervical cancer is caused by HPV and sexually transmitted disease. Seems smart to wait. Instead, let's immunize our 9 year old daughters from an STD(a vaccine that is now required in many states)that is seemingly not an issue because they will not be tested until they are 21 or older. Again, I am not sure I understand. No, I do, if we are only going to save a FEW women, is it really cost effective? In my opinion, yes, it is!
I guess what it comes down to for me is who gets to decided who lives and who dies and who decides how many lives make a test cost effective? What is the price of a human life? I am glad that these doctors and researches feel that they have come up with that price.
As I said, I am sure that the change in pap tests and mammograms coming out at nearly the same time was coincidental, but someone should call-up Christina Applegate and let her know that her life is not worth the cost of a mammogram and she is not the only woman under 50 to have been diagnosed with breast cancer thanks to a mammogram. But I guess that is the price of human life a mammogram, a pap test.
I am finding these changes in guidelines hard to swallow. Watching insurance companies make money hand-over-fist and then arbitrarily deciding who deserves to live so that they can make MORE money is annoying and wrong!
Yes, I have heard the argument for mammograms and radiation, but shouldn't a patient be able to weigh that risk, not the insurance company? And I have yet to hear what the negative effects of a pap test is, so if women will go every year starting when they becomes sexually active, who does that hurt? Right, the insurance company that has to pay for it, pay for it with the money you have been paying ALL YEAR!
I am sure it is not ALL about money, but it sure seems like it is. Is this what socialized medicine is going to be like in the US? Because I much prefer my personal doctor deciding what is best for me and not some analysts looking at bottom-lines. I am not a bottom-line, I am a person and if a test can save one person is that not worth the cost? I am just glad that I am not the one trying to put a monetary value on human life!
1 comment:
Em,
You know where we agree and disagree on most things.
I think that the change in Pap smears is a fine one as it is based on each patient's history and family history. Lifelong normal paps, no family history, no HPV, every other year seems appropriate, at least to me and is not governed bu insurance, they would pay for a yearly pap for me if I had one. As for mammograms, I personally wouldn't begin getting them until 50 anyway as we have no family history and I am a breastfeeder, I would, however, continue self exams. I believe that the recommendations should be based upon personal history, for the majority of women, mammograms at age 50 are perfectly fine, for others, they may need to begin at 30, but that needs to be determined by the patient and their doctor, and insurance should pay based on doctor recommendation...period. My two cents :)
Post a Comment