insurance - Jezebel

posts about #insurance more →
New Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Spark Confusion, Criticism
More Proof Insurance Companies Are Evil
How Do You Balance Your Health And Your Checkbook?
Making It Legal
Dying To Be Thin
Emotionally Retarded Hubbies Are Nothing New

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

Red-headed bookworm
11/18/09

In reply to New Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Spark Confusion, Criticism
One thing I wonder is that if they don't recommend mammograms until age 50 and above, at what age are they recommending the baseline mammogram? I'm still weirded out by this recommendation because of my mom having three instances of breast cancer BEFORE age 50 while having no prior risks for it. Shouldn't women still have a baseline mammogram at a younger age for comparison basis?
Reply

SomeAuthorGirl
11/18/09

In reply to New Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Spark Confusion, Criticism
Instead of decreasing screening, what ought to be happening is better research and treatment for what comes after a positive mammogram. Not before. One very important lady in my life died many years ago when a mammogram could have saved her life; one very important lady's life is being saved right now because of one.

Women's health is NOT the area where industry and economics need to be searching for solutions. How about we quit researching ED for, oh, say two years, and use those billions of dollars to find less radical and more effective treatments for breast cancer, hmmm?
Reply

SomeAuthorGirl was starred SomeAuthorGirl was unstarred

jleigh
11/18/09

@SomeAuthorGirl: I don't think these two things are at odds. Breast cancer gets more research dollars than any other cancer in the world.

And there has been far more controversy on the screening for prostate cancer among men. I don't think this is necessarily an economic issue and I don't think it's necessarily a women's health issue. Most of our cancer screening is far less effective than we've been led to believe and it's about time we were better informed.

There will always be stories of people who have been saved through screening. There will be many more who go through unnecessary treatment that can itself cause future illnesses and even put them at risk for cancer. Fortunately, now that we know of the hereditary links of many cancers such as breast cancer, women who know they're at higher risk can get the earlier mammograms. This is a general guideline, not a commandment.
Reply

SomeAuthorGirl promoted this comment jleigh was starred jleigh was unstarred

SomeAuthorGirl
11/18/09

@jleigh: Which is why I'm saying that it's what happens after screening that needs better research, not before. I'm open to the fact that I see danger and conspiracy against women all through the health and political systems. But I also don't think I'm off base.

Just because we scientifically know more now about the genetic screening doesn't mean it's widely available.
Reply

SomeAuthorGirl was starred SomeAuthorGirl was unstarred

morninggloria
11/18/09

In reply to New Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Spark Confusion, Criticism
The correct way to refer to a mammogram is actually "boob smashing." Plural is "boob smashings." As in "My mother and grandmother both had their annual recommended boob smashings last week."
Reply

morninggloria was starred morninggloria was unstarred

curiousgeorgiana
11/18/09

@morninggloria: May I have the country of origin please?
Reply

curiousgeorgiana was starred curiousgeorgiana was unstarred

morninggloria
11/18/09

@curiousgeorgiana: BoobSmashganistan
Reply

morninggloria was starred morninggloria was unstarred

Sev
11/18/09

@morninggloria: I worked with a woman who referred to mammograms as "getting my pancakes flattened".
Reply

curiousgeorgiana promoted this comment Sev was starred Sev was unstarred

pantsless economist...access RESTORED
11/18/09

In reply to New Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Spark Confusion, Criticism
At least from the NY Times article it appears that the 15% statistic is across all age groups (it'd be nice to see the reduction by age group, dudes)... and the vast, vast majority of that 15% reduction goes to women 50+...and it's women screened for 10 years...starting at what age?

If women are to make informed decisions about mammograms, the NY Times should at least try to understand and explain clearly the data they use.
Reply

linnyt is a walking cliché
11/18/09

In reply to New Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Spark Confusion, Criticism
I think I'd rather be safe than sorry.
Reply

TheUptightMidwesterner
11/18/09

In reply to New Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Spark Confusion, Criticism
Me and my radiologist can take care of my girls just fine, thanks. I'd rather have a false positive and get a biopsy than have them shrug and tell me it is too late.
Reply

SparklyTempest
11/18/09

@TheUptightMidwesterner: I agree with you completely. That being said, I think more women should be warned at biopsies can result in scar tissue which can feel like a lump. Not as a scare tactic, just as another piece of important information.
Reply

TheUptightMidwesterner promoted this comment SparklyTempest was starred SparklyTempest was unstarred

sydbarrettsaves, emissary of hell
10/05/09

In reply to More Proof Insurance Companies Are Evil
Go Patty Murray! She's from my state.
Reply

msAnthrope
10/05/09

In reply to More Proof Insurance Companies Are Evil
doesn't anybody understand? the goal of insurance companies is to find a way to prove everybody has something that can be categorized as a "pre-existing condition."

honestly i'd love if everybody in the u.s. just cancelled their insurance policies on the same day. now let's negotiate.
Reply

Edited by msAnthrope at 10/05/09 4:22 PM msAnthrope was starred msAnthrope was unstarred

steph3280
10/05/09

In reply to More Proof Insurance Companies Are Evil
My insurance handler told me I would be denied insurance because I was in treatment for substance abuse last year. He basically advised me to lie on my application, telling me that they wouldn't check up on it unless I had some sort of relapse. If that happened, my policy would just be voided for lying--no restitution or anything.

The really screwed up part is that if I hadn't sought treatment, I would be insured...but I would probably be almost dead.
Reply

Lymed promoted this comment steph3280 was starred steph3280 was unstarred

Lymed
10/05/09

@steph3280: Your broker makes money when you enroll. Him telling you to lie insurance fraud. I know there have been legislators looking to stop restitution, but even if there is a law against it, if you knowingly commit fraud they could probably still go after you to pay past claims.

I'd contact your state or county and see if there are any local programs for people with pre-existing conditions. Some states have insurance pools for people with pre-ex conditions but they are often very expensive.
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

traumamama
10/05/09

In reply to More Proof Insurance Companies Are Evil
Sigh. I just KNEW Oklahoma would be on this list....

As a paramedic and RN, I was required to ask patients, especially female, specific questions about domestic violence when I was doing direct patient care. Now, I see I probably just fucked up their insurance coverage forever. Nice.
Reply

Crackers In Bed promoted this comment traumamama was starred traumamama was unstarred

kittenlove
10/05/09

In reply to More Proof Insurance Companies Are Evil
I read an article about this subject over the weekend. There are actually 8 states, according to the article, which allow this to happen. One of them happens to be the state I live in, Wyoming, which has a fairly high domestic violence rate. I don't understand the insurance companies' position and think this is utterly appalling. And I can't believe I live in a state that does that.
Reply

Crackers In Bed promoted this comment kittenlove was starred kittenlove was unstarred

Schrodinger's Cat
10/05/09

In reply to More Proof Insurance Companies Are Evil
I knew this would happen! I knew it as soon as you told me that a computer model had been developed to determine how likely it is that abuse is to blame for what ails you.

Now, they'll start classifying weird injuries/ailments inside of categories in this "map."

"I have a migraine headache... can you honestly call that paranoid schizophrenia? I'm not the victim of domestic violence!!!"
Reply

Lymed promoted this comment Schrodinger's Cat was starred

Lymed
10/05/09

@Schrodinger's Cat: This isn't new. I found a study referencing insurance companies having these policies in 1994.
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

Maulleigh
10/05/09

In reply to More Proof Insurance Companies Are Evil
With that logic (bear with me here), ski accidents are a "pre-existing" condition. I have to let the insurance company know that I leave the house and engage in dangerous pursuits. I use knives to cook, too.
Reply

Maulleigh was starred Maulleigh was unstarred

Lymed
10/05/09

@Maulleigh: If you injured yourself in a ski accident then it is a pre-existing condition.
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

Aesop's Foibles. YES.
10/05/09

In reply to More Proof Insurance Companies Are Evil
*goes back to bed*
Reply

shorty63136
10/05/09

@Aesop's Foibles. YES.: Seriously. I can't even...

Just...

No.
Reply

shorty63136 was starred shorty63136 was unstarred

LaComtesse
10/05/09

In reply to More Proof Insurance Companies Are Evil
My mom sent me this news item weeks ago under the subject line "What the fuckity fuck?"
Reply

LaComtesse was starred LaComtesse was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment