NBC's Andrea Mitchell and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, herself a breast cancer survivor, talk above about one of the biggest concerns sparked by the new guidelines: that insurance companies will now choose not to cover mammograms for women under 50. Doctors say this won't happen immediately, but is certainly possible, and the National Committee for Quality Assurance is already changing its system for grading health plans to reflect the new recommendations. Because of this, many worry that the change is motivated by a desire for cost-cutting, and not a concern for women's health. Carol H. Lee of the American College of Radiology says,

The only conclusion I can come to is it's economically motivated. In this climate, when we are all paying attention to how we can decrease the cost of health care, in my opinion that's the primary motivation.

But the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which not only recommended the change in mammogram ages but also said breast self exams have little benefit, says the real issue is unnecessary screening and even treatment. Women in their 40s are 60% more likely to experience false positives from mammograms, leading to unnecessary follow-up tests and anxiety. While these risks may seem relatively minor, early screening also increases the odds that a woman will be treated for cancer that never would have sickened her — and unnecessary cancer treatment is a much more serious proposition than a biopsy. Some women, in fact, seem relieved by the new guidelines. 51-year-old Nancy Moylan told the New York Times,

Sure, I know plenty of women who have breast cancer. And I know many, many women who've received false-positives. It always struck me that most women seemed so relieved to know that they don't have cancer that they never took the next step and said, ‘Hey, why was I just put through that anxiety? I've had all these invasive tests and worry only to find out that the mammogram isn't all it's cracked up to be?'

What's frustrating for many women may be the uncertainty of breast cancer screening, uncertainty only further compounded by the new guidelines, which have already been criticized by the American Cancer Society. Liesl Schillinger writes in The Daily Beast,

The only consistent message from the scientific community to women is to be afraid. How can issues of such life-and-death importance to women-more than half the population-be so murkily understood, and so conflictingly explained? Are medical authorities playing a guessing game with women's health?

Unfortunately, when it comes to breast cancer, a guessing game still seems to be the only game in town. Dr. Donald A. Berry, a statistician on the task force, says the money spent on regular mammograms for women under 50 "was buying something of net negative value," and that with the new guidelines, "the economy benefits, but women are the major beneficiaries." And in fact, many women have long forgone mammograms because they personally feel the risks outweigh the benefits. Unfortunately, mammograms only reduce the breast cancer death rate by 15% — a big deal if you are one of the ones saved, but still a relatively small fraction of all sufferers. This statistic — and the high number of false positives associated with mammograms — shows that what women really need are better screening tools. But for now, we have to decide what to do with the tools we have, and this decision has just become a lot more complicated.

Mammograms And Politics: Task force Stirs Up A Tempest [Washington Post]
Many Doctors To Stay Course On Breast Exams For Now [NYT]
New Mammogram Advice Finds A Skeptical Audience [NYT]
Panel Urges Mammograms At 50, Not 40 [NYT]
The Great Mammogram Debate [Daily Beast]

Perhaps it's not that extreme, but at times it certainly feels that way. And as it is often discussed in the debate over universal health care, for many Americans the choice between going to the doctor and paying the rent often ends up with many people eschewing checkups in favor of being able to spend their money on other "more necessary" bills; food, shelter, etc.

Our bodies become the lowest priority, often enough, when we're faced with a choice between a doctor's office visit and a rent check; we know for certain that the rent needs to be paid, but we're never sure if the doctor will find anything, and the risk of going through very expensive testing for an inconclusive result just doesn't seem worth it. However, there's always that nagging feeling that there might just be something very wrong with us, medically, that should be looked at. So what are the uninsured/partially insured to do?

As Jill Hudgins writes in the Los Angeles Times, "I can't afford to get sick." Hudgins details her difficulties with insurance company payments—even when she was covered, the insurance company only picked up $400 worth of her medical bills after she was rushed to the hospital with a racing heart—to the tune of $5000. "I haggled with insurance representatives for weeks, asking why I should pay nearly $300 per month for a plan with as much coverage as a Brazilian bikini," Hudgins writes, 'One of them said, "It gives you the security of having insurance.'"

Hudgins now says her new plan is to, well, not get sick. Easy to say, of course, but hard to stick to, especially as flu season starts sweeping through town. I am in a somewhat similar situation to Hudgins: I'm insured, but my insurance (like most) is fairly shady in terms of what it will and will not cover. It forces me, like many others, to prioritize and make the difficult decisions between what is a must, healthwise, and what can wait. And as the debate over universal healthcare continues, it looks like many of us will continue to make such choices.

So how do you deal with such situations? Do you find yourself leaning toward home remedies? Heading to work sick? Letting go of other things in order to focus more on your well-being? For me, at least, one thing is for certain: I have got to stop checking my symptoms online. It's really not good for my SmurfPsychoLungHeadacheSnorkoliosis.

You Called 911? Without Asking First? [LATimes]

• A new study indicates that 90% of pregnant women feel stressed during pregnancy, usually over a number of "taboo" topics that they don't feel like they can discuss publicly. Among them? Nearly two-thirds worry that their partners don't appreciate how tired they are and write off any emotional outbursts as "hormonal" — ladies, having a douchebag for a baby daddy is not a taboo topic. Perhaps Britney will take your calls! [Guardian Unlimited]
  
• An Iowa Court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriages. Finally, a reason to visit! [CNN]
  
• Preliminary studies suggest that eating flaxseed can ease menopausal hot flashes. Mommy, what does a hot flash feel like? [CBS News]

• A suspected serial killer was arrested in Lansing, Michigan after he killed five women in a month. A sixth woman was attacked last week, but her dog chased the man away. Way to go Lassie! [ABC News]
• Johnny Cash's often-overlooked first wife Vivian, who died in 2005, compiled a book of letters from the singer during their relationship and had them published as a memoir, "I Walked The Line", out this week. Totally on our reading list, even though we know it's going to tarnish our image of the Man In Black just a lil' bit. [NY Times]
• Dennis Gallagher is that disgustingly pervy councilman who was arrested for raping a woman earlier this month. What's irking us in particular this morning is that the amNY article about Gallagher and other pols like him describes them as "men behaving badly" — as if raping women is similar to, say, toilet papering a neighbor's house. [amNY]
• Princess Di's ginger kid Prince Harry was the showstopper at the tribute ceremony for the late Princess of Wales. We mention this mainly because we've always wanted to make a case that Harry is the far hotter son, despite that whole Nazi uniform wearing business. In other news, ginger kids are a dying breed. [Daily Mail, KLTV]
• Something the French can't be all high and mighty about is a Rwandan commission's assertion that French troops raped women and girls during the 1994 genocide. [The Independent]
• Brian De Palma's new film Redacted stunned audiences at the Venice Film Festival because of it's brutal depiction of a real-life war crime committed during the Iraq War, in which US soldiers raped a 14-year old girl and murdered her family. Normally we're quite squeamish about violence in movies, but if there ever was a time when hitting audiences with some cold, hard reality is necessary, this it. [Reuters]
• Aside from being freaking evil, the rise in female feticide may have consequences for Indian society — the United Nations says that fewer Indian women could lead to a rise in sexual violence, child abuse, and wife-sharing. [Reuters]