Critical Thinking Not Fear Based

Colette, I am minimizing my time on this board and frankly don't care if I get kicked off.  So let me very bluntly say to you: "Please shut the @#!* up about Canadian healthcare!  If you don't want the Canadian women here to participate in threads about American healthcare, it would help if you stopped slandering the Canadian healthcare system (which you clearly know nothing about) every time you post." 

This thread is a discussion about the new mammogram guidelines, and it was set up specifically for those of us who want to discuss the new guidelines using real scientific data and critical thinking.  Posting a youtube video about Canadian healthcare is about as irrelevant as you can get.  For the sake of those who are interested in continuing the good discussion, I hope that this thread can get back on track.

Colette, you said:

"Ok...I can understand US women coming on these threads and talking about what is happening, but why are Canadians chiming in about something that is happening in the US and is US legislation?"

1) The new mammography guidelines are NOT legislation (yes, I know about that paragraph stating that insurance companies will have to provide A and B level recommendations without co-pays, but the guidelines THEMSELVES are not legislation)

2) This thread was started by someone living Italy for the purposes of discussion of the scientific merits/shortcomings of the recommendations.  The first response was from a Canadian living in the U.S.  The second response was from an Australian.  These kinds of scientific analyses and recommendations/guidelines affect women all over the world.

3) On page 2 of this thread, you posted speculation that the USPSTF was "one of 23 working groups of the North American Union" -- I don't think you can expect to post such political speculations (which to me seemed to imply Canada was a threat to the U.S.), on a thread whose stated purpose is to discuss the scientific merits and shortcomings of guidelines -- and then wonder "why are Canadians chiming in about something that is happening in the US?"

"Since this topic was addressed by me at this thread, I will respond here and also share it with my fellow Americans at Shirley's thread (although the Cans have and continue to poke their runny noses in)"

I stopped reading that thread when homeless people were described as dirty and disease carrying.  Unbelievable.  But not surprising when you consider that uninsured people are lazy and uneducated.  However, I didn't see the "Canadian noses" that you referred to.  ?

Regarding the 'lottery'.  Is it not a different form of lottery when you expect a 25 year old to choose the type of insurance they will need to cover themselves in the years to come?  Talk about playing the odds! 

This seems like a good place to relate this story.  We have long been aware that many (certainly not all) Americans have some strange ideas about Canada.

When we were in the States last year, we mentioned that we needed to go for a walk after a restaurant meal.  Our waiter was quite curious as to why we would want to do that.  Then he says, "Oh right.  You're from Canada.  I guess you don't really have anywhere to just walk up there."  

HUH!

I said,"yes, the polar bears and lumber jacks make it quite difficult."  We all had a good laugh at that.  But the real joke was that there were NO sidewalks to take a walk on.  The street lights were only set up for cars.  We did not pass ONE other person while on our mile or so (2 km) walk.  People in cars looked at us like we were nuts!  

What a culture shock for us.  Just saying, maybe we are not  as alike as I once thought!  (With the exception of our 'adoptive' sisters here, of course1) 

Touche!

Ummm, I don't like it.I am canadian and I work in health care and have seen things that can make your head spin.Including my own botched diagnosis.

Don't lump us all into one group.Thanks

AnneNYC..Ok..I finally have had a chance to read your post...and I will respond in like:

"1) The new mammography guidelines are NOT legislation (yes, I know about that paragraph stating that insurance companies will have to provide A and B level recommendations without co-pays, but the guidelines THEMSELVES are not legislation)"

The current legislation in the US Congress states that the USPSTF (the people who created the new guidelines) will decide what is acceptable for the insurances to pay for.  These two are intertwined, which is WHY I brought up and continue to bring up the bill in the Senate.

"2) This thread was started by someone living Italy for the purposes of discussion of the scientific merits/shortcomings of the recommendations. The first response was from a Canadian living in the U.S. The second response was from an Australian. These kinds of scientific analyses and recommendations/guidelines affect women all over the world."

Sorry, if I do not where everyone is from, nor most of the time do I even look.  No, not everyone has where they are from under their name.  I know a few women directly on here and I have supported more than one when other women started attacking her because of the hardship of her anger towards the cancer.  One thing which I have learned from this site is that women can be very ugly towards newly diagnosed women who are having to deal with the horrors of breast cancer and only wanting to find out more information.  

What I don't understand is why it would affect women from all over the world considering that the studies that the USPSTF used were based on the OLD mammogram machines which have been replaced with the more sensitive digital machines..so the studies in and of itself are worthless.

3) On page 2 of this thread, you posted speculation that the USPSTF was "one of 23 working groups of the North American Union" -- I don't think you can expect to post such political speculations (which to me seemed to imply Canada was a threat to the U.S.), on a thread whose stated purpose is to discuss the scientific merits and shortcomings of guidelines -- and then wonder "why are Canadians chiming in about something that is happening in the US?"

Uh...No, I never implied nor said that Canada was a threat to the US.  I implied the NAU was a threat to our sovereignty.  Canada and their people have nothing to do with that...THE LEADERS DO.  The way we keep our sovereignty is by stopping the integration which both governments are trying to have take place.  I.E. Keep the US from passing that dam health care bill would be one way to stop it.  If they like their health care, GREAT!  That is for them to decide, but I also have heard the other side of the coin.

You know what?  You win.  I have more important things to do than pound my head against the wall...like trying to recover from radiation and try to prevent my developing Mets.  Arguing with people will not aid in my karma so to speak and I have 3 beautiful kids to enjoy...so, you win.  There.  Wont hear from me again.

I am going to go and play some XBox 360 Rock Band.

There is no perfect world (although Norway sounds close and dang why didn't my husband take that offer).  I've worked in QA/RM in community and long term care hospitals in Canada, every mistake, complaint, med error, fall,  that was documented came across my desk.  Sure there were things that spin your head - actually we banged our heads.

My mother worked for decades in health care in the US, she had tales that were head bangers too.  The head banger ratio - I don't know.  I do know that on both sides of the border, and elsewhere people are trying to reduce the errors.  I also know that some will continue to occur because people are involved.

I just wish we could have one thread on this whole board that discusses these guidelines from a scientific, medical perspective.  Everyone who thinks the guidelines were politically motivated has a zillion other threads to say that on.

Personally, I think the guidelines were horribly worded -- which the USPSTF has just "fessed up to" themselves -- see here:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/12/03/panel_clarifies_mammogram_advice/

Colette, I agree with you that conclusions based on film mammography don't make much sense at this point -- unless they would have explicitly said something like "better screening methods are needed in younger women, and studies should be performed to assess the effectiveness of screening with digital mammography, ultrasound, thermagraphy in women under 50..."

You know that I have expressed my disagreement with these guidelines.  I just find that very hard to continue to do in an environment that is determined to make political hay out of this.

Let me just explain, one more time -- I work in medical research, and the publication of the three  USPSTF-related papers in the peer-reviewed medical literature means that it becomes part of the world literature that doctors around the world consult.

Sorry -- when I see something posted that I think is inaccurate, I will try to post what I consider to be a correction.

Colette - Thanks for all the info! Keep fighting - not only for yourself - but for your kids future! You have my support and hopefully I'll meet you in DC!

Thanks for that, Marilyn!

Anne

Amazing article, and understandable.  I am grateful to learn about the other countries, their medical systems and a clarifcation of all the stats we have heard bandied about over the past few months and why they are only sound bites.

As noted, stats and polls, etc., can be made to say anything a person wants them to say.  I Did have a hard time believing the US was so far down on the list re: medical care and was interested in how we got there---according to WHO and what criteria they actually used.  Shame on Michel Moore, always thought him a ______________.  Fill in the blank. 

Blundin:

I cannot tell you how much I enjoy reading your posts... and learn from them.

I was wondering if you have a non PDF link to that CATO article you posted?

 If not, would anyone be willing to post a few key snippets here? 

An aside:

Sometimes reading these threads IS like watching comedy central....  but without the irony, its more painful than funny...