Thats called bringing the FUNNAY!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
Printable View
Thats called bringing the FUNNAY!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
You are quite right about the study Karen, but I have to disagree with one thing you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen
I heard/saw this story reported on numerous reports - radio, tv and internet and not once did I hear anyone say/write or suggest that...Quote:
Probably some newscaster shortening the story to a 'sound bite' - they seem to like to do that, like we have a shorter attention span than a gnat.
"women under 40 do not need mammograms".
Did you?
Of course, I've never heard anyone suggest that women under 40 do need mammograms.
So what does TFYS mean?
The reports I read said this group was now saying the 40-49 age group didn't need the mammograms. I was told to get a baseline at 40 or right before 40 and then one every 2 years was what they said back then, my doctor said I don't care what kaiser recommends I want you to go every year.
They also say breast self exams were not necessary, that discounted all the other things they said as far as I was concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
I'll ask my teenagers and get back to you:D I usually prefer normal english.
Your teenagers will not know, I think they'd be smarter and more intelligent that to fall for THAT one.Quote:
Originally Posted by caseysmom
The
Financial
Yearly
Stats.
Tree
Frogs
Yearn for
Smores
Hey, You know it's all about the budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
:)
-------------------------------
Bernardine Healy, from the Nat'l. Insitiute of Health was on the tube yesterday and commented on basic yearly screening protocol.
She made an interesting comment about how, since the yearly screening guidlelines were put into place way back when, that the incidence of prostate cancer in the U.S. had dropped 70%.
I don't remember what the percentage was with BC.
IT's all a matter of economics-the more the system can pare by eliminating simple dr. visits, they beleive that it will save money.
Compare a treatable illness, caught with pre-screening protocol, with the same disease in an advanced stage. Surgery, treatment, hospital stays are way more costly that putting forth the effort to make sure those conditions are treated at the beginning.
It is all about money.:eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Richard won't spell it out b/c he would get a rap on the knuckles from
the Mayor. "The F*** You Say" according to the urban dictionary.
And they call me the rude one...:rolleyes::rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
RICHARD...this statement could not be more wrong...
What the "system" is I have no idea but insurance companies, medicare...anyone in the health care industry want to encourage preventative care - "simple" doctor visits, etc.Quote:
IT's all a matter of economics-the more the system can pare by eliminating simple dr. visits, they beleive that it will save money.
A major shift in insured products this year is intended to drive that behavior.
IBM announced there will be no co-pay for routine, preventative doctor visits in their medical plans. Many other plans - including most Blue products are having one co-pay for preventative and a higher co-pay for a doctor visits for other than preventative. Preventative care includes most screening as well.
The issues of healthcare are difficult and emotional enough without people spreading false information. It does not help anything.
Objective 1.2 Provide annual permanency planning training for all tribal child protection workers (Tribal Family Youth Specialists [TFYS]).
I guess THINK FOR YOUR SELF don't mean nothin, no more.
KNuckle rap? I am more into spanking.
There is a difference between "think for yourself" and "make up stuff that isn't true."Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
Whether you are doing the former I don't know but you are certainly doing the latter.
Those that look for the worst, will believe the worst and blame somebody else for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
10 hours of debate? ONLY? On the 'most important legislation in a hundred years.' Vote at 8pm, on Saturday night?
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...19-717535.html
Bribes to get votes? (Shocking, I know)
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/200...care-vote.html
Unreal...
Then there is the 2.5 trillion dollar question... How is it Constitutional for the Federal Government to force me to buy something or put me in jail if I don't?
This is not about health care... This is about the "redistributive change" the President has talked about in his past.
Oh, don't forget the taxes... This will be GREAT for business.
http://www.atr.org/userfiles/111809p...eid%282%29.pdf
One has to subscribe to the WSJ to read the entire article - to continue reading, subscribe now.
I wonder if Harry Reid is hurrying so much because he's afraid of leaving no legacy, good or bad, when he gets defeated next fall ;)
Thats right... Poo. I will try to get a summary up later... Gotta hit the road now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
:cool:Quote:
I wonder if Harry Reid is hurrying so much because he's afraid of leaving no legacy, good or bad, when he gets defeated next fall ;)