As glatt stated. To protect her ass and the ass of the Obama administration.

If only 1 life is saved, it is well worth it.

I'm not quite sure that is what glatt stated, but he can speak for himself.

The fact that government commissions independent scientific studies should never imply an automatic acceptance of the findings.

Nor should ithe government set pre-determined conditions on scientific research or cover up or alter the findings if they reach conclusions that run counter to policy. Unlike the previous administration, that was not the case here.

Sebelius was interviewed on NPR this morning. They boxed her into the question. Her pregnant pause was palpable. They are covering their ass. IMHO they should have just supported the findings and gone with it. It would have been a more honest approach and set the stage for how they are going to review future recommendations for care using various boards as recomending bodies. If they want to control costs this is a start. But don't backtrack when people jump all over them. ACOG has not supported these recommendations. The majority of OB-GYN organizations have not supported them. The original study was done by a family practice physician.

IMO, to suggest that any administration should simply and unquestionably accept any or all scientific research or studies it commissions would constitute a perversion of science.

But we have diverted the discussion on the underlying issue enough.

Yet these are the very type of panels that are suppose to help guide health policy in the future.The Medicare commissions are suppose to do just this. Dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for.

Then why are we settling for just one mammogram a year after age 40? Why don't we do screenings every month after age 20? A couple people in their 20's and 30's get breast cancer too, and the cancer can develop a fair amount in a whole year. If we do the screenings every month and also start at a younger age, then we'll catch more cancers early. Sure it will be expensive, but a few more lives will be saved. It will be well worth it.

The answer, of course, is that there are limited resources. It's important to use science and medical knowledge to tell us where it's best to target our efforts so we get the most bang for the buck.

For some reason, fighting breast cancer is super popular. It's a good thing for sure, but it's not rational that it's at the expense of everything else. The number one cause of death for women is coronary heart disease. Twice as many women in the United States die of cardiovascular diseases as from all forms of cancer, including breast cancer. Why aren't women all up in arms over the fact that you don't get annual stress tests? Your heart is much more important. How much plaque is built up in your arteries? Have you ever had any kind of test to tell you that? Since you're most likely to die of that, don't you think it's important?

Probably breast cancer gets so much attention because it IS mostly a woman's issue...and historically women's issues get far less attention than men's issues.

This is why I made the Viagra crack. We've all heard of insurance companies that will pay for Viagra but not birth control.

My dad, at risk for colon cancer, was told at his last colonoscopy he could start coming in every 3 years instead of every year. My comment to my mom was "bullcrap...so at the end of year 2 something develops but we don't see it until a year later when it's too late?"

Breast cancer may be an issue we, um, hang our hat on...but that is an inroad to pave the way for, perhaps, research in ovarian cancer which is widely ignored.

Men notice our breasts, so it's a good issue to start with. They don't give a hang about our ovaries. ;)

Whoever said that's its at the expense of everything else? Its not like women just go get a mammogram and ignore all other health concerns. I am as concerned over other aspects of my health as I am breast cancer. I'm sure I'm not the only women who feels this way. And for your information, I'm concerned over my cardiovascular health, too.

Why not?

O.K. My wife just got back from a follow up from her last. She has some kind of growth that will be biopsied on 3 Dec, if not sooner. She is pretty freaked out, I'm not freaked out, but I am in Iraq. A bit far to be very helpful, even if that is just being a solid point right now. We will see where this goes.

As it stands right now I'm in favor of testing before age 50.

Because they do get an annual stress test... it's called a mammogram.

Must admit that I have not read the entire Thread, but , has anyone noted that the origina lLink doesn't work? Comes up with an Error Message.

HaHa So true Bruce! Anyone, especially a man, who doesn't realize that a mammogram IS an annual stress test, has never had his nuts placed in a cold vice and squeezed to the point of almost popping just to make sure they are healthy!

Still works for me, Minx??