Women are told to delay mammograms

I've never had a mammogram. All the years of encouragement to have one, actually "fell upon my deaf ears". Several friends that had one, said it was painful....others said it depended upon who was giving the mammogram....

Breast cancer has never been an incident in any of my family.

I check my own breasts for lumps occassionally. Or anything "unusual".

I'm not implying that I'm in perfect health, just in tune with my body. And so sick of doctors only wanting the $$$$$ !!
 
souggy said:
And who's bright idea it is to cut back on preventative care to reduce costs?

The tests are cheaper than the actual late-term treatments themselves.
Click to expand...

I bet the insurance companies had a lot to do with this! Maybe this is part of Obama new health bill! If it is should be called the "Death Bill!"
 
Here are the experts who made this decision:

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: About the USPSTF

Mammograms are not painful. The hardest part is the person getting me in the right position on the machine. It's a bit uncomfortable for a minute or two. The mammograms can detect masses before the woman would notice them.
 
I'm not saying I enjoy having my boobs flattened like pancakes, but if it saves my life one day, then I say "well worth it". Breast cancer is abundant in my family genetics and breast cancer is not just an old woman's disease. How dare they put us at risk by denying us such a simple screening!
 
All women should have mammogram regardless of age, I reckon.

To start having mammogram at 30 is more reasonable than to start at 50.

I understand not all health insurances does cover mammograms and if they do then women might be able to have mammogram done every two years.

I think Christina Applegate is a good example. Women from families with history of breast cancers should also be tested for BRCA (sp?) genes too.
 
I agree, in fact I think women should check for any cancer periodly especially if you are planning to get pregnant or you are a mother.

But this guideline basically telling people that if you are under 50's years old and have breast cancer, you are pretty much going to die anyway and there is nothing you can do about it (that breast cancer in younger ages are very aggressive).... Even if it is true, it is still risky because like i wrote, some people plan on having children and this is a bad idea to avoid breast cancer screening. If they knew they are going to die from cancer, they will take steps to prevent pregnancy. Because by the time they give birth without knowing they have cancer, the kids will be motherless.
 
Last edited:
The worse part of this for me is this:

Many women on my mother's side of the family have been diagnosed with Breast Cancer, had both breasts removed, and it still turned out fatal.

I am only 29 years old, already felt lumps and have gone to get a mammogram to check it out. Doc says it's nothing.

If they set the age to 50, and I am the next one to get it then I wont live to that age. The women in my family died before then.

Thankfully my grandmother and mother have not come up with it yet. Who knows, they say it can skip a generation and be in the next generation.

This is way scary.
 
many million women who are over 40 years old got mammograms make sure no breast cancer..

my mom went mammograms every years when she become over 40's but i dont need that till doctor tell me i would get that mammograms at 40 years old
 
DGirl101 said:
The worse part of this for me is this:

Many women on my mother's side of the family have been diagnosed with Breast Cancer, had both breasts removed, and it still turned out fatal.

I am only 29 years old, already felt lumps and have gone to get a mammogram to check it out. Doc says it's nothing.

If they set the age to 50, and I am the next one to get it then I wont live to that age. The women in my family died before then.

Thankfully my grandmother and mother have not come up with it yet. Who knows, they say it can skip a generation and be in the next generation.

This is way scary.
Click to expand...


They pretty much saying that majority of women under 50's who have breast cancer don't live long anyhow even if they caught it early (you'll just have to prepare yourself for death) . But women over 50's do. I guess it is because it's a different type of breast cancer. And all other lumps and bumps under age 50's are more likely to be nothing.
 
I can't help thinking men must have done this research. Afterall, I do wonder if they want the younger, sexual active people to keep their breast. LOL
 
souggy said:
And who's bright idea it is to cut back on preventative care to reduce costs?

The tests are cheaper than the actual late-term treatments themselves.
Click to expand...

souggy said:
To be honest, if insurances are forced to foot the bills of cancer patients, with no weasely loopholes, then you know damn well they will do anything to make sure their clients take preventative steps and cover those costs of the tests-- they will foot the bills for mammograms and pep tests just to avoid having to pay for the cancer treatments.

So someone need to pick up the slacks here.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on one thing, that the tests are way cheaper than the treatments themselves.

Working with the health insurance has really opened my eyes to see how dirty they can be. Yes, they will foot the bills for mammograms and pap tests but when it comes to cancer treatments, they will also foot the bill, however, if one has it 3 months before proceeding the paperworks or even if it is based on a emergency medical necessity, they don't even consider to cover it. Especially with the pre-existing conditions, they're automatically rejected, even if one were to have an effective date of their coverage and falls one day short of it. That's what will throw everything out of the loop.
 
Back
Top