353 comments

1. An interesting and spot-on article on over-the-counter access to the Pill. Incredible the Pill is still on script after decades of safe use and IMO, that’s only so they can force women into unrelated and unnecessary screening exams and tests. I think American women may see OTC access first, there is very little discussion here, possibly because you can get the Pill without forced exams, it just means inconvenient doctor-shopping or putting up with a lecture now and then.
   Not many doctors here would be stupid enough to allow a woman to leave without a script simply because she declined pap testing…but then, many women assume it’s necessary (we’ve been told that’s the case over and over) or don’t feel they have a choice, (we’ve been told we must or should test as well)…but if we decline the test and stand our ground, we can get the Pill. (or so I’m told by many of my workmates, friends etc.)
   http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-15/news/ct-oped-0616-chapman-20130615_1_emergency-contraceptives-new-mexico-pill

   • Interesting article. I like how it actually mentioned the “trouble” of going to a doctor & phrased things in a disfavorable way (“it might pain paternalists,” not needing a prescription to have sex, other countries don’t do this, it being senseless to impede something that would prevent a problem that has an unimpeded solution, etc…).

     Really would like it if they outright called it a sexual attack & pointed out that it doesn’t matter if the doctor does it or what their gender is. “Abusive situations are a barrier, since getting these pills are usually contingent on getting internal exams,” that’s an idea. Maybe throw in risks, inaccuracies, and illegalities?

2. Over-treatment in America

   • Thanks Elizabeth, this is an excellent video. I also saw one of your previous comments, in which you referred to the corrupting role and influence of Big Pharma. Here is a link to a documentary on that topic that includes one of the same investigative journalists (Jeanne Lenzer) that is in the Over Treatment video:

     http://www.moneytalksthemovie.com/

3. Click to access Making-Sense-of-Screening.pdf

   A great article for those new to Cancer Screening, what is it all about?
   Part of the Sense about Science website, trustworthy presenters like Angela Raffle, Dr Margaret McCartney etc.
   Thanks FL, I’ll watch that video now.

4. http://www.onmedica.com/newsarticle.aspx?id=cd93b34a-272c-4dc1-aaf6-e6e648ca1dc6
   If you don’t have access to the BMJ, this covers Professor Baum’s most recent article. It’s not good news: the risks of breast screening exceed any benefit when you include women who die from heart attacks and lung cancer after treatments.

   • Elizabeth, refs and ed was a great idea and provides such valuable resources for women that I have also published it in a post format.

5. “Informed consent is missing from pap smears and cervical screening”…
   http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/11/informed-consent-missing-pap-smears-cervical-cancer-screening.html
   Sorry if it’s already on this thread, but this is a rare article, a doctor acknowledging that informed consent is missing from cervical screening. The obvious is never mentioned…because it’s totally unacceptable. I’d go further, in many cases there is no consent at all.

6. Great listing. It’s nice to have all the references in one place. I don’t know if anyone has read that the American Cancer Society wants to redefine the definition of cancer to prevent over-treatment: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/20/cancer-redefinition.aspx?e_cid=20130820Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130820Z1

   I wonder with the references posted if links to medical ethical codes could also be posted. Many women do not realize that they can refuse medical tests and that coercion and denial of unrelated medical care is unethical and a reportable offense. Regardless of the prevalence of the cancer tested for an individual has the right to decline any medical test or treatment without being denied access to other medical care. Even if CC was a major killer of women a woman still has the right to decline pap testing.

7. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-18/what-if-what-you-survived-wasn-t-cancer-.html

   This is hard for people to get their heads around, all cancer is bad and life-threatening, right?
   Well, the answer is actually NO.
   This is an interesting article that tackles this “hard-to-believe” fact, it’s heartening to see more and more articles on over-diagnosis, but that reflects how serious this issue is, a problem that’s been ignored/denied for a long time. As technology continues to develop, they’ll find more and more “cancer” and in the end, we’ll all be cancer survivors.
   This is bad medicine…very bad.

8. Thank you Elizabeth. Though why do so many of these fabulously informative articles about the risks of cancer screening always seem to forget, or neglect to mention cervical screening? It’s an obvious inclusion into the over-diagnosis debate. Out of all the cancer screening on offer, screening the cervix is the most heavily pushed – there seems to be so much invested into the program that even those that could publicly question it seem hold back.

9. Si, I think it’s because some women are helped by pap testing and these screening programs claim all the credit for the fall in the incidence of and death rate for cervical cancer. Over-detection and over-treatment are huge issues though, and these procedures are not minor in nature. (as they claim) So unlike breast cancer where the number of advanced cancers hasn’t fallen despite screening, the number of actual cervical cancers has fallen…that’s the difference, so it suggests over-diagnosis in the former and that pap testing is “working”.

   I don’t believe screening is responsible for all of the decline in cc, but it probably helps some women. Those who promote pap testing don’t care about harming women with over-treatment as long as the death rate keeps coming down…and they can claim it was all their hard work.

   I’ve always questioned the ethics of screening to prevent a rare cancer when that testing means over-treating large numbers. (they know that too and that’s why informed consent is ignored)

   • Also I think hear in America they never mention risks with pap smears. how could they then demand woman have them for birth control. the way are doctors work it would mess up there greedy system. It amazes me there is never ever any thing negative about paps on the news but there was with prostate exams. woman are demanded to have them it just blows me away.

     • Keep in mind: slaves got the right to vote in America before women did. As much as they hated the slaves, they hated women more. They horrendously attacked the tribes in the area (and attacking the women was a huge part of that- the book Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide elaborates on that quite a bit), I doubt any of them were as bad with women as that country was. In fact, women from those tribes where medically sterilized when they had a baby in the hospital until the 1960s! Those monsters trained the new ones.

       It always strikes me as odd how they demonize virginity testing & legal oppression in the Middle East when the same type of things are prevalent over here- just with a different tact. Killing the female baby when one is born is wrong, but causing a miscarriage with imposed medical situations (fraud included) is fine. It’s not quite the same level, but it certainly strikes me as a similar personality trait.

       Things here are, at most, marginalized. Usually, they’re disqualified & are designated non-antagonistic, despite their properties. A situation isn’t assessed by what it consists of here- it’s simply labeled inaccurately. This applies to most things, but it seems particularly true with sexually antagonistic things.

   • Elizabeth – I was watching a lecture by Dr. Welch, and he was discussing how mortality rates are increased when it comes to screening. The actual number of survivors of the cancer itself may have had little to no change – but because more people who did not have cancer, would not have gone on to have cancer, or could have lived a healthy life with the cancer (which apparently can happen) are being treated and considered survivors, the mortality rate increases. My understanding from what I’ve read is that cervical cancer was rare to begin with. Think of all the women who are being treated – they are being considered survivors and added to the statistics. Of course the mortality rate is going to show vast improvement. I’m not saying that there haven’t been some women helped through cervical screening – I’m sure there have been. With more treatment, though, comes a higher mortality rate because it’s assumed that every patient treated would have died from that cancer otherwise. While I’m sure it has helped some and don’t want to disregard that, I certainly don’t think it’s helped to the extent that they try to sell. Here’s the lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7QNhE59s9Q. It starts discussing statistics around the 8 minute mark.

     • I found it really interesting when reading Dr Welch’s books on screening that the five year survival rates for cancers have gone up but the death rates have not gone down. And that’s because more people are being diagnosed and “cured” of cancers that weren’t really cancers or had small cancers that weren’t life threatening but were removed and their case is added to the statistics. It’s also the popularity paradox that with more screening more cancers are found or people have scares which makes it seem that cancer is more prevalent than it really is. After reading his books when I hear of someone who has cancer I wonder if they really have cancer or if they have an incidentaloma that didn’t need to be treated.

     • It’s terrible ADM, but I do the same thing, especially if they say they’ve had cervical cancer. Women often fear cervical cancer the most because this testing produces so many false positives and massive over-treatment. Many don’t realize that, so wrongly assume all of these women would have developed or had cervical cancer.
       There is a study where they ask women to list cancers from most likely to least likely, most women put bowel cancer way under cervical cancer. I think it’s outrageous and dangerous to mislead women in this way.
       We hear the most about cervical cancer and our doctors focus on that rare cancer (or the test) so naturally, you put 2 and 2 together and get 9.
       I think a bit of scare-mongering goes on too, to scare non-compliant women, i.e.
       “4 women in my family got cervical cancer and they were all in their early 20s”
       I don’t believe it, but I’ll certainly accept 4 had abnormal pap tests and were over-treated. Dr Raffle told us that 1 in 3 pap tests WILL be “abnormal” in the under 25 age range, false positives caused by a changing and maturing cervix or transient and harmless infections.

10. Yes it seems the cs program makes those claims. Though as Gilbert Welch says, cc could be in natural decline such as stomach cancer, which has never been part of mass a screening program.

11. Apparently a new study was done on negative side effects of procedures for cancer found through screening programs (which in and of itself is great). They discussed how to improve the accuracy of these programs and how to create better treatments with less negative effects. Of course, nobody discussed cervical screening (that’s what I’ll be calling it from now on as the UK article I read said it does not actually test for cancer, only abnormalities – which is true) and the over-treatment/harmful follow-ups. There are improvements being made for colon cancer screening/treatments and prostate cancer screening/treatments. Absolutely none for the cervical screening system, though. It’s very aggravating. Also, this is a bit off topic but I was curious if anyone else here has experienced hostility (I mean yelling and complete anger) when talking about not wanting to/refusing to/not ever participating in screening? I recently did and it was odd. Why are people so personally invested in cervical screening? Why do you think they get so angry? The current perception of screening is that the pap test screens for cancer (which is untrue, it only catches abnormalities which may or may not lead to anything serious), pelvic exams check for ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, STDs, and vaginal infections (I’ve read that it does not do a good job at detecting ovarian cancer, but I’m unsure about the rest. It seems likely that there would be some inaccuracies there as well), and that rectal exams needs to be done to check for colon cancer. I’m sorry, but if I’m correct, colon cancer can actually be detected through stool samples. There’s (in my opinion) no logical reason for an uncomfortable, highly invasive, and probably slightly painful (at the very least) procedure once a year when there are non-invasive alternatives. Of course they exam for breast cancer as well which after doing some reading, the breast exams seem to be fairly inaccurate as well. Anyways, perhaps that’s the reason so many women are so invested in well-woman exams. There’s an idea that it will prevent any/all of those things. Sorry this was sort of everywhere, I just had quite a bit to say.

    • Ro I don’t get how rectal exam check for colon cancer unless the tumour is in the first inch or two of the rectum. The colon is metres long so a rectal exam seems totally ridiculous to me.
      My opinion why people get so upset about not participating in cervical screening is because of the way it has been presented to us. It has never been presented in a respectful and logical way. Because the screening authorities knew women would be reluctant to participate they have had to use guilt and made women feel like there is nochoice. I was certainly explicitly told that I had no choice in the matter. I cannot believe that someone like myself believed it. I suppose they were smart to capture women when they are young. So I can imagine that some of these women who get hostile do not believe that there is any choice and they get angry that you show some autonomy because I suppose then that subconsciously they feel stupid that they are acting like children being told what to do. I suppose there are some feelings of jealousy tied in there too.

      • What? Someone actually said to you “You have no choice in this” in something along these lines? I guess that shouldn’t suprise me, given their overall behavior & directly physically forcing situations on people, but it does. I guess I kind of expected more sneakiness- figured if they directly articulated that situation it’d come off as a not-so-innocent situation. They don’t usually display these tendancies in public, though. They definitely don’t block off the potential for medical personnel to do these things (bringing up a point about having bodily autonomy or that medical quality is determined by patient satisfaction- not academic value, illegalities in a lot of the tactics they use, elaborating on some of those tactics like guilt trips & rushing people around/sequencing things on right after another so there’s no space for debate or refusal, etc…). Yet, they act like they care & are so concerned for the patient’s well-being.

        It’s odd that so many women say: “What are you talking about?” or “I’ve never had that happen” when the situation they DID have happen wasn’t at their own discretion- the situation is “You don’t get this without that” or “What we’re going to do is…” & it’s an action interjected by a third party (or there’s just simple lying about risks, inaccuracies & problems to compensate for). Same with “Our policy is…” or “We’ll stop treating you if you don’t… .” Maybe it wasn’t with a loud tone of voice, but it was still a third-party orchestration. If they’d argued with them or questioned the usefulness of anything, then I’d bet they would know exactly what someone is talking about. It doesn’t seem they do anything but match the doctor.

      • I wasn’t told that I had no choice but to have a pap and full well woman’s exam but when I requested BC a full physical was scheduled and it was only after it was completed that I received the script. It was like that every year after. When I went off BC and didn’t need the script every year I was told that I was allowed to go every 2 years. I love the language of allowed. Then when I began reading all of the information about CC and paps and the uselessness of the yearly physical in general my Dr started keeping after me to have paps even bringing it up when I went in for a flu shot with my husband. She had a look of panic on her face like I was going to drop dead of CC right there because I was overdue for a pap. Or the panic was that she wouldn’t receive her $2000 bonus that year. My new Dr assumed that I had paps and a well woman exam and looked shocked that I would go without being poked and prodded every year and allow my cervix to conspire against me unchecked. At one time I did not know that I had a choice and it was never explained to me what the well woman exam entailed and what they were checking for. No informed consent was given. There is an undercurrent of expectation in the medical profession and by other women that we have these exams and that we feel comfortable with these intimate exams with anyone in the medical profession. It is viewed as and forced on us as being part of being a woman.

      • ADM, consent is usually assumed with pap testing, I don’t think it’s ever been presented as a choice. How common is it to be scolded if we refuse screening? VERY common.
        They know if women realized it was a choice, they’d never get to 80% screened, the number that must regularly screen to stand any chance of justifying the small fortune spent on this testing.
        When women are misled or railroaded into testing, IMO, there is no consent at all.
        We still have practices here misleading women on their websites and nothing is done about it, there is a double standard at work and an acceptance of unethical medical conduct…it’s necessary to get the job done, they’re saving lives etc.
        Yet this same argument is rejected in prostate and bowel screening. It’s only women who can be treated this way.

        It amazes me what some women will accept though, one woman almost died after an excess cone biopsy, yet she didn’t want to seek legal advice, worried about the costs. It’s so rare for a doctor to be sued (or even challenged) for over-treatment, so doctors feel safe testing with no consent/informed consent. (you’re more likely to be sued if you miss something)
        Isn’t it interesting that we don’t have a hard-hitting current affairs program exposing these programs? I know everyone is afraid to touch it here, we have two excellent health reporters who work for one of our daily papers here, they’ve produced articles (over the last 2 years) on over-diagnosis in breast screening and uncertainty of benefit, but won’t touch cervical screening. I sent them my concerns with references (on 3 occasions) and got one short reply, yes, they thought our program would have been changed by now, they’ll take a look at it”…
        Nothing…was the result. That familiar silence…that keeps day procedure full of healthy women.
        So I view Papscreen and the Cancer Council as the Squizzy Taylor or Al Capone of the medical world, silencing anyone who might make waves and get in the way of their harmful business.

      • Elizabeth- Deception vitiates consent. That means that it impairs, counters, works against, whatever you want to call it. It’s not a situation of consent. Neither is someone getting railroaded into things. The action is imposed by a third party. It’s like when they say it was the woman’s choice when they back her into a corner with birth control. These actions were interjected by someone else, she did not decide that this is what goes on. She did not form the structure of the situation that way.

    • Ro, I actually had a GP yelling at me for refusing a smear test. I’d been diagnosed with a harmless condition called a cervical erosion, and while I was being checked out I’d been railroaded into a pap – ya know, ‘while we’re down here’ – and the pap came back abnormal. I know now that such hormonal conditions can cause cells to look abnormal, so I imagine either the GP was ignorant of this fact or he was just trying to reach his targets.
      Anyhoo, when I went in for treatment (if only I knew then what I know now, eh?) they perfomed a colposcopy and found nothing. False alarm.
      I developed some kind of infection shortly afterwards and went from one useless quack to the next trying to find out what was wrong. When I went back to my GP in desperation six months later, she insisted I needed another smear… for what? I knew it was a false alarm and I certainly didn’t want to be cranked & scraped again just because *the system* says I should be. Especially since I was already experiencing pain in that department.
      And when I refused the smear, the doctor screamed at me about how *important* it was, that I was being irresponsible, blah blah blah… and refused to help me with the issue I’d gone to her with. Nice, eh?
      We may not be subjected to the appalling *requirements* that doctors in the USA impose on their patients, but believe me, the screening system uses every trick in the book to *encourage* women to test. You only have to read the so-called information leaflet they provide with your invitation (summons, more like) to realise how dirty their tactics can be.

      • Alex I’ll repeat the conversation verbatim 20 odd years ago.
        Me ” I’d like to go on the pill”.
        Doctor : “You HAVE to have a pap smear”. (with emphasis on the have).
        It happened to my friends too who warned me about this so I was I was convinced that it was compulsory.

      • I wouldn’t go back to a doctor like that and I’d make a written complaint to the practice and the Medical Board. For too long women have put up with this outrageous conduct (and way beyond unethical) – the test is elective! I’m not judging women,
        I think we’ve been trained to “take it”, so often WE feel like it’s our fault for being difficult or non-compliant. We feel embarrassed, ashamed, guilty etc.
        We’re told we should test and the doctor is only acting in our best interests, right?

        No, wrong, it’s railroading women. We’re adults with legal rights, not targets.
        I doubt they’d ever scream at a man for refusing a cancer screening test.
        I really think the attitudes and conduct will only change when doctors are pulled up over their behaviour, make them an example.

        Begrudgingly, the UK screening program says informed consent is important…so why do we see a complete lack of respect at the surgery level, and how do target and target payments sit with informed consent?
        I would say to any doctor (in writing) after that sort of performance that I regarded her/his conduct as highly unprofessional. My first priority though, would be to get the hell out of his/her consult room. That sort of doctor is not someone I’d want anywhere near my precious body.

12. Ro I’ve experienced hostility from women online and off as well. Many women think well women exams are part of being a responsible and healthy woman. Women’s vaginas are screened for a lifetime; from late teens to old age, annually or every few years, and they have to steel themselves for a horribly violating exam because the general consensus claims that it’s dangerous and foolish to avoid it. It’s so firmly entrenched into women’s healthcare and feminine identity that to be told it is also harmful is just too much to take in. Many women have to find a way to survive the anxiety, indignity, and pain this exam causes and denial seems to be a common theme.

    • What’s so bad about dangerous & foolish things, then? I seem to remember hearing about women getting beat by their husbands being entrenched into female identity, too- doesn’t seem like women lament the loss of that. Interestingly, it seems they rank that as a more severe “application of influence.”

      How odd that these women have such solidity on the subject of someone having self-determination with their own self & will argue it to the point of being insulting. Perhaps insulting them for “not being able to handle it?” It certainly seems fine for them to have a “just put up with it” attitude with other people. To feed their denial, they’ll facilitate someone else being put in the same situation that they’re in denial of? That’s pretty inconsiderate (and antagonistic- if she’s going to act like an enemy, maybe you should treat her like one). I get that this an effect of an attack, but maybe an argument would convey things better than a discussion (at the very least: when you get a “what’s your problem?” response, the answer can elaborate on a lot of things). If you’re more aggressive, it might be less easy for them to stampede you point, as well (it seems some people go after the one with the conscience, figuring it’s an easy win- stupid, considering they may not even be in disagreement with them to begin with).

13. The pap test became a feminist icon too, so no matter how outrageously women were treated, many women’s groups were silent, they were in bed with the program.
    Incredible some feminists could not see what they were doing was a shocking abuse of our rights and bodies. They fed into the hands of the medical profession, and women were exposed to danger with doctors encouraged and protected to behave unethically, bullying and coercing women into testing. The only objective was coverage and targets. (and target payments)
    I know the program felt if they got women “into the habit” when they were young, they’d just do it without questioning what was going on..everything was designed to neutralize resistance. The propaganda also, encouraged others to attack non-screeners…scare and guilt them into compliance.
    Dr McCartney has two interesting articles on her website, one dealing with the futility and risks attached to the NHS wellness checks. Also, she copies a letter to her forum where the bowel screening program urge doctors to encourage their patients to be screened. Dr McCartney will discuss risks and benefits and focus on informed consent, they won’t be happy about that…these programs have no right interfering with the doctor-patient relationship.

14. ADM – I find myself questioning as well if someone actually has a disease or not. I feel terrible for questioning it, especially when the person has gone through a lot of treatment but it seems like literally everyone is diagnosed with cancer these days. I’m curious to know, though, 50-100 years ago before all of the screening started, what were the actual number of diagnosed cases of cancer that led to death or serious problems? Even though cancer was more prevalent then as it has had a natural decline, I’m leaning towards the idea that there would have been less cases even then.

    Mary – That is a really good point. Apparently, doctors tell patients that the rectal exam is to check for colon cancer. I don’t know how that got put into place, but that’s the idea that’s being sold. That’s a good idea as well – that the presentation of the program is to blame. Social engineering as Alex has referred to it. I’m sorry you were told that you had no choice. It’s awful that women are being told they have no choice. When I was younger, in my mid-teens probably, I was told that it was something I would have to do when I got older and that there would be lots of things in life I didn’t want to do but would have to. I love how they lumped it in with things I wouldn’t want to do. However, there’s a huge difference between not wanting to do something that isn’t fun and not wanting to do something because it can have very harmful physical and psychological effects. Furthermore, even without those factors, it is still invasive and intimate and no one should ever be forced to participate in something that is either of those things.

    Kate – I’m surprised! I’ve heard quite a bit about the UK’s programs and they seem to be the most relaxed aside from Finland and the Netherlands(from what I’d heard before). I’d heard that they don’t do regular pelvic exams (apparently some women go their whole lives without one and it’s considered normal!) and only use a call and recall system (which is annoying and still wrong, but not as confrontational). I’m sorry to hear you had to go through all of that. Why don’t doctors treat patients rather than bombard them with everything except for what they need? THAT’S what’s irresponsible if you ask me. You’re right – the invitation is definitely more like a summons. Here, in the US, I don’t even think it’s presented as an invitation to screen. You’re told that it’s time to go and there’s nothing invitational about it. Just that you must.

    Si – I do believe there’s a lot of denial as well. Furthermore, after giving it some though, I realized that misinformation is probably a big part of it as well. It took me a good week or two to filter through all of the campaigns and actually find honest information online. Nothing is published very publicly (at least not in the US), and most women just listen to their doctors. When they search for honest information, it takes quite awhile to find it. Of course, doctors will go on about how you can die without screening and that you’re putting yourself at risk and not being responsible so that’s what women take away from it. That anyone who does not screen will probably die from whatever they aren’t being screened for.

15. I read that when fiminits were pushing for the pill to come out they said pap smears should be lumpt with the script. I think it was to get doctors to agree and make extra money. they said it was to get woman to take there health serusly. really now woman are not supose to have a right to decline we all sould want paps. thats how it seems. its so disrespectful

16. were all supose to accept it. thats sick

17. Here is some fantastic news in regards to the pharmaceutical industry in the US. It sort of sounds as though there may be a few loopholes, but at least the fact that there is close relation between pharmaceutical companies and doctors is being exposed. It’s a step in the right direction. http://t.money.msn.com/now/sunshine-act-is-making-doctors-nervous

    • That’s great. Thanks, Ro. I wonder how this clashes with that thing about not typically being able to sue pharmaceutical companies? Maybe that’ll get canceled.

18. http://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2013/04/30/eb-2012-101216.full

    Interesting article: specialty medical journals were much less likely to print the Cochrane Review of Breast Screening or they omitted the conclusions on over-diagnosis and effect on mortality.
    There was also, an article recently that highlighted the problem of vested interests sitting on panels that determine screening/medical/drug recommendations. I’ll link that one too…
    It certainly IMO, largely explains why mammography and over-screening with the outdated pap test are fiercely protected here. (not women)

    • This isn’t exactly related, but you’ll all probably find this very interesting: go to “Buckeye Surgeon, Sir I need to place a finger in your anus.” Shows complete disregard for the patient’s consent & well-being. This discussion was on the allnurses forum, too. The story being referenced is that guy who had a rectal exam forced on him when he went to the hospital for stitches on his head.

      Shows you really can’t trust the general environment in a hospital. Something can be very general at the start & turn into an ambush- it doesn’t have to be an emergency situation (which is no excuse for victimizing the patient- their argument is that they have no time to not rape someone?). Them acting like time is a factor is false, simply because it would take less time to NOT do something.

      They also treat the patient like a human shield to guard against lawsuits. It’s not acceptable for them to detriment the patient to protect against possible lawsuits & they are now liable for what they have DONE. It goes from maybe to definitely. How do they figure that iatrogenic detriment is something they are not liable for? This is in addition to the fact that this is not a viable method of detecting most things (in this case spinal injuries, internal bleeding, & pelvic fractures)- so they have time for useless things, apparently. Wonder what other things they waste time with?

      There’s not enough time to register someone’s refusal & adjust their behavior (which they shouldn’t be doing, anyway)? They can certainly absorb the situation of someone refusing well enough to figure out ways to counteract it- which takes up more time & causes detriment for the patient (the point of the whole endeavor, to begin with). They think someone getting injured invalidates their state of inviolability? Their schooling doesn’t entitle them to attack the patient & it doesn’t warp the properties of the situation to make it non-antagonistic.

      Their sense of self-esteem doesn’t change things, either. It certainly seems like they think if they don’t agree, something isn’t that way. They don’t value someone’s reasons or refusals, they’re insubstantiated. Or they don’t “trust” the patient (they don’t believe their refusal). It’s like they hear somethng & decide whether they support it or not (with anything). What happens in every other situation where someone “re-thought” someone else’s refusal of a situation? I figure if they had some “aggressive reciprocation” applied to them, maybe they wouldn’t do things like this. Certainly, they need to be in danger or else they’ll do these kinds of things. It’s not their natural inclination to bolster a hospitable situation. They don’t make assessments based on extant circumstances, they base them on arbitrary interpretation.

19. http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/15/4/105

    Speaking generally, it’s interesting that some defend breast screening like it’s a friend being bullied in the schoolyard, and the major concern seems to be that women might be dissuaded from screening with articles coming out putting over-diagnosis at 30% to 50% of screen detected breast cancers.
    I don’t agree with most of this article and will take my information from the Nordic Cochrane Institute, an independent medical research group.
    The author says he has no conflict of interest, but he’s affiliated with the radiology department at UCLA, isn’t that a conflict of interest? Radiologists make a fortune from breast screening.

20. The use of celebrities is another dirty tactic used by screening authorities and of course, guilt, “tag the people you love on Facebook as the reason you screen”…
    Of course, there is no interest in the reasons why the majority of us choose NOT to screen.
    This is a desperate campaign as more women make informed decisions to decline breast screening, fewer than 50% of women aged 50 to 70 are having mammograms. That means the program, jobs, profits, commercial interests etc. are under threat, they need more women to feed into the program, to hell with the evidence and informed consent.

    These people are lower than low, to keep plotting and manipulating women and pushing for a target when we should be urgently reviewing this program. I firmly believe the serious risks with screening exceed any benefit. (if there is any benefit)
    Thankfully, these programs don’t work on informed women, and more and more women are making informed decisions to walk away from these programs.
    http://www.theridgenews.com.au/story/1739436/breast-screening-critical-to-survival/

21. Using statistics to scare and mislead women is standard practice in medicine, especially with screening. This article may help cut through the spin.
    http://www.dslrf.org/mwh/content.asp?CATID=35&L2=1&L3=9&L4=0&PID=&sid=132&cid=614
    We see the claim that cases of cervical cancer have dropped 70% or 90% (pick an impressive number, you won’t have to justify it) since screening began (we’ll assume all of the reduction is due to screening, there are no randomized controlled trials, but who cares, it’s convenient for these programs to grab all of the credit. The truth is screening may “partly” explain some of the fall)

    BUT, when you look at the lifetime risk of cervical cancer before screening started and now, the numbers are small – rare is rare, to think we spend millions to possibly achieve this result, causing carnage along the way to huge numbers of women…the same or a better result could have been achieved without huge over-treatment. Even evidence based programs like the Finnish program still lead to over-treatment, the pap test IS an unreliable test. The new Dutch program though will slash over-treatment rates, only 5% of women will be having pap tests.
    Their claims “sound” impressive, but Dr Raffle tells us that 1000 women need regular pap tests for 35 years to save one woman from cervical cancer. Now that doesn’t sound impressive at all, so it’s never mentioned to women.
    The deliberate misleading of women playing with numbers is a disgraceful way to sell screening. If screening is such a great deal, there would be no need for trickery, pressure or anything else.

    • Maybe more cynical statistics would be useful. Estimating numbers of women detrimented & focusing on the problems caused might be pretty damn interesting to people. These woman that were “helped” might have had treatment for a non-existant problem, anyway.

      Throw in the possibility for diseases through “error” (incompetance or deliberate action, either way). Maybe the harm of someone causing pain & injury (like when someone tells them to stop & they don’t listen) and/or the sexual detriment of this being forced on them to begin with (maybe it was also taken in a “datelike” direction). Malicious fraud is a good word to use for the scams & misinformation (just learned it recently).

22. I posted on the website of Deborah Hutton, (model and TV presenter) the title of the article got to me,
    “Don’t be a statistic – get screened”.
    She was gracious enough to respond and is going to do some research. I was pleased she didn’t resent my post or attempt to censor it at all. She seems to understand what I’m saying, that’s a good result. Breast Screen is desperate and are using celebrities here to increase coverage. It’s way beyond culpable given the state of the evidence. I believe they are using these celebrities….when you have to resort to these sorts of tactics it shows you’re not confident to rely on the evidence. I was also, sorry to see Jo Hall promoting breast screening.

    I’d have no problem with people presenting a balanced overview promoting and respecting informed consent, which might be a NO, thank you…but take issue with these simple messages that are so unfair and disrespectful, “Get screened, it might save your life”. (and plain wrong)

    There is risk both ways with screening, the individual is the only person who can say the risks are worth it…not a celebrity, your doctor or anyone else. On the evidence as it stands, IMO, the risks with screening exceed any benefit. Other women may feel the same way if they had access to balanced and complete information.
    Professor Baum in his excellent lecture: Breast cancer screening: the inconvenient truth (on You Tube) says quite clearly, Does breast screening save lives?”
    NO…
    You can’t get clearer than that and from one of the leaders in the area. I’d take his advice any day over Breast Screen. Always look behind those who defend screening: do they have a vested or political interest? Do they understand the evidence? (the survivor stories) etc. I always view with suspicion anyone who aggressively and emotively defends and promotes screening, that always makes me dig in my heels. Let’s take a closer look at the subject…

23. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/claims-of-breast-cancer-screening-success-are-dishonest-say-critics-6128737.html
    The Nordic Cochrane Institute keep challenging the breast screening program and the motives of those who vigorously defend the program.

24. This is another great article by Peter Gotzsche from the NCI
    http://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/17/1957
    Take note of some of the articles in the footnotes, free access, some gems usually safely locked behind pay walls.

25. I have a question: does anyone know what exactly is going on with the whole Obamacare thing? I’ve heard different conflicting statements. I’ve heard that there’s less coverage for screening programs, so they aren’t going to be used or enforced as much but I’ve also heard that under Obamacare screening programs are mandatory for both men and women. Does anyone know the truth about it?

    • Just posted that question in the Psychological Harms thread. Did you see those commercials on Youtube? I thought those were very interesting.

      I’d be worried about it, though- “provide access to” seems to mean “force.” I’d also wonder if these things that are being “provided” are being paid for- if the government pays for them like those incentive programs, you may have real risk. They’ll just be trying to get paid by the government instead of the patient (although, the people pay taxes & are maybe footing the bill anyway). Also, everything’s illegal now- so maybe this gets integrated into a prison or juvenile situation?

      • Alex – Those commercials are what made me start to question what exactly is happening. Very interesting, indeed. However, after a google search, I found that many people were complaining that preventative services were being cut back so I was very, very confused. There weren’t really any clear lines. However, I checked out the Women Against Stirrups site as I do from time to time and someone shared a link there about Obamacare. I checked it out and the copay for preventative services and screenings is $0 – meaning there is none. For actual care, the copay can get pretty expensive. In my opinion, that’s backwards and wrong. For people who really need medical attention, they aren’t benefitting greatly. They still have to pay quite a bit out of pocket. Also, I’m not sure if it’s this way in the area you live or not, but I know in the area I live they offer free mammograms and pelvic exams/pap smears already. So free “wellness checks” aren’t anything new. The government has been paying for those programs for some time. Could you clarify that last part? “Also, everything’s illegal now – so maybe this gets integrate into a prison or juvenile situation?” It was a bit confusing and I wasn’t quite sure what specifically you were referring to. Oh, and here’s a quote taken directly from the link posted over at Women Against Stirrups: “…ensure that each enrollee has a preventative health and wellness visit during the first year of enrollment”. That certainly sounds a bit like preventative exams are being enforced. I wonder, though, if someone were to refuse the exam what would happen? Would they literally be forced into it or just have their coverage taken away?

      • Well, on the Psychological Harms thread I asked Talktome about if she ever runs into the same problems with law enforcement stuff as she does with medical stuff. That explains it more than this, but what I mean specifically is that Obamacare might blanket prisoners of all ages with the enforced situations if there are any. In those kinds of situations, somoene may or may not have a legally supported option to refuse things of that nature & it may or may not functionally go that way.

        It does sound like they’re interjecting their own decisions into the situation with that. Like adding a drop of poison to the glass of water. Remember when I said about attaching riders onto things being a common tactic? It makes it more camoflauged, because all the other shit divides focus. I’d certainly square away whatever citizenship you can get your hands on (don’t know what nationalities you are, but you can get citizenship in other countries simply by your heritage- no worrying about things expiring).

        I do wonder if they’ll just start mandating things left & right with that. They get pushy with vaccines & there’s all kinds of enforcing of impressions with that alone. People get their kids taken away for refusing C-sections, vaccines, and every damn other thing under the sun- maybe it’s a risk if that occurs, too. Maybe it’s grounds for taking someone’s kid away if they don’t put them through that.

      • Alex – I understand what you were saying, but isn’t it already that way/been that way for years in regards to prisoners? I might be wrong, but as far as I know there have always been certain impositions.

        Can you get citizenship in other countries based on heritage even if you don’t have a direct heritage link? What I mean by that is that the most recent ancestor lived there 5 or 6 generations back. I still don’t necessarily think it’s something they can directly force. For example, they could never force anyone to have a surgical procedure or anything of the sort. If someone outright refuses and stands their ground, surely they cannot actually enforce it beyond that point, can they? I don’t know much about how all of it works, but from a logical standpoint I don’t understand how they could truly FORCE people into it. Coerce, yes. Push, yes. But actually force? I don’t know.

        The sad thing about vaccines is that they’ve found some of them have a link to autism and yet the continue forcing those vaccines. I can’t believe people get their children taken away for those reasons. It’s not endangering anyone – so why? That’s really messed up.

      • Depends on the country. Italy seems to be great-grandfather as the limit. Not entirely sure if there’s a general theme, but you can look it up on the websites for that sort of thing (the embassy of that country, for instance). That far back, I’m not sure & you might very well have to consult an immigration attorney (somethimes there’s an issue with people renouncing citizenship when people come to America, but then they may not have understood that situation- it IS kind of odd & not everyone speaks the language). You might be able to do some kind of maneuvering- even if the law is one way, maybe making the point of your ancestors getting scammed or treated unfairly would be helpful. So many things can get spun all kinds of different ways with courts & lawyers.

        This brings me to my next point: you’re always dealing with actions, never laws. Anything in the world can be made legal or illegal & I really don’t think they’d be against using physical force (after all, they’re okay with using situational force/coercion, trickery, taking liberties while someone sleeps & directly forcing things of that nature in the emergency room). They usually do have “What? That’s not an attack, so what’s wrong with forcing it?” type of attitude. They (law enforcement & medical personnel) outright rape people all the time (conventionally, unconventionally & through other people).

        As far as prison goes, there’s nothing to say that this isn’t a MEANS to imposition (getting around the rights a citizen might have by making them a prisoner). I truly figure there’s just the simple goal of imposition of this nature, like if someone wanted to go on a shooting spree & used the military to do it on a larger scale. The personality traits of those in command would most likely manifest themselves in their occupational behavior. Things CAN go all kinds of ways in prison & laws may or may not support them (even IF someone did get nailed, that doesn’t undo whatever happened). It puts someone in a position of accessibility & of low preventative capacity. Similar things can occur, even if it’s with a different tact that actual prison.

    • Ro
      ”……..screening programs are mandatory for both men and women.”???!!! What? MANDATORY screening? In the US? Did I read well?! What about so called ”freedom of choice, or the inviolability right? No, I don’t believe it.

      • Jola – I don’t know if that’s true, but that’s a rumor going around and it seems fairly plausible. However, it is not mandatory in the sense that it’s an actual requirement for people to participate in screening or for all people to participate. Rather for those who would rely on Obamacare as opposed to select insurance companies, they would have to participate in screening programs in order to be insured by the program. As far I as I know, Obamacare is mainly being set in place to benefit those with lower income. So people will probably feel like their backs are against the wall because they rely on that insurance for their medical needs. The question at this point is what happens if you outright refuse preventative screenings under the program. Honestly, I hope that isn’t the case. I hope people are given a choice. Like you said: “freedom or choice or the inviolability right”. Both of those still exist and need to be respected.

26. Ro, thank you for your reply.

27. Dr McCartney has written another great article which appears in the BMJ this month, this link offers free access to the article. The topic: what’s the evidence?

    Dr McCartney is talking about the free preventative health checks being offered every 5 years to all UK residents aged 40 to 73. It’s a huge mistake to allow politicians to dictate screening, they can be influenced by vested interests or put huge and scarce resources into a vote-winner. (like extending breast screening to women in their 70s). Screening can and does harm us, it should only be “offered” after randomized controlled trials establish a benefit and it’s considered the benefits exceed the risk. Even then informed consent is paramount….we all know what “offer” means in women’s cancer screening, read: coercion, harassment, deception etc.
    http://margaretmccartney.com/2013/10/02/nhs-healthchecks-whats-the-evidence/#comments

    WE waste so much money on screening, when this money could do so much providing services for the elderly, better mental health support etc.

    • Elizabeth, don’t even get me started on the money… look at these from the UK:

      http://www.curran.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/cytology.htm

      Click to access 25-Cervical-Screening-programme-service-specification-121018.pdf.pdf

      “More than 100,000 people are involved in running the NHSCSP cervical screening.. ..There are currently 102 laboratories in England providing cervical screening at an estimated cost of £175 million”

      £175 million pounds to hurt, humiliate and damage women for no proven benefit, as this testing was introduced without randomised controlled trials. If one scratches the surface, one can see that the screening rates are way below 80% already (personally, I do not buy it about screening being the case for reduced mortality rates, why should correlation assumed to be causation?) so the struggle is NOT for keeping up the target AND keeping the mortality rate down, rather more likely about not rocking the boat. Imagine the sort of scandal the dismantling of this screening programme would entail, and the loss of careers, jobs, prestige and investment on all fronts. I would LOVE TO see it happen, and no ifs and no buts, it should happen, but it is more than unlikely. If someone wants to have it, they should have it offered, after all the NHS should take responsibility for decades of brainwashing and fear-mongering (no-one after all will go and ask to have samples taken from for example their mouth and looked at on a pathology lab) but women should be finally left alone with the call-recall system, the automatic opt-in, the scaremongering media campaigns, the patronising brochures, and of course doctors opportunistically seeking their targets. The NHS is a sort of holy cow for many, and political activists who are busy campaigning for saving the NHS will of course be unlikely to not think strategically and go against an NHS initiative, even if the recents cuts (affecting among other things A&E departments, mental health services, antenatal and postnatal care, types of drugs prescribed and waiting lists for surgeries) make this sum of £175 million even more infuriating.

28. “Almost half of the new cases of cervical cancer in the UK occur in women who have never had a smear test, although only 15% have not had a smear in the last 5 years”.

    So, based on the statement above, (www.curran.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/cytology.htm) am I correct in assuming that in OVER half of women that are diagnosed with cervical cancer, it was not discovered by screening?

29. That sounds about right Mint. Half are not screened and a third are actually missed by screening (false negatives), so this really does bring down the screening benefits considerably. Oh and let us never forget the thousands treated and harmed unnecessarily (false positives), its shameful! Its a rare cancer but they state estimates of how many are apparantly “saved” but these really are guestimates. It is also stated that they do not know which abnormal tests would become cancerous……hey ho………..lets treat them all. Shocking!

30. I don’t understand how any woman can be “shocked” that they must participate in screenings if you choose Obamacare. My God the feminists having been hailing Obamacare because all “women’s wellness” will be covered. What that means is more bullying and coercin. And in that brochure it does say that if in the program, the provider must ensure that the enrollee has had a wellness exam. If your a woman get ready the the entire pap, pelvic, breast exam. Obama talked over and over and over when campaigning for his first term how he admired medical systems where “doctors were rewarded for keeping you well.”

    Yes doctors won’t be able to push tests on you with the government having a say so with these new guidlelines, but the tests they are referring to are things like MRIs and CAT scans that Obama himself said are “prescribed too frequently”. But as far as women’s screenings, the feminists have made sure with their marches on Washington with their “Stop the War on Women” signs that the almighty gyn exams are securely in place.

    • Well, it had been a concern of mine & I guess it’s true. I’m still shocked how women can see something of this nature being directed by someone else is anything other than an attack! It’s a penetrative situation instituted by an outside influence. This is on top of all the other problems with risks & inaccuracies. Do they think a medical version of a kick in the belly is help?

      I wonder if this will wind up being aimed at girls in school? Maybe they decide to say “These are our requistites” and that’s, apparently, that. It’s weird to me how a woman will fight back & leave her husband if he starts beating her, but being pushed around medically is something she doesn’t take action against. No worrying about it this is pushed on her daughter, either? That’s a wonderful woman right there! Great father if he doesn’t take an interest in what happens to his family, too. I guess assessment of situational composition is an unmanly activity?

31. Another thing: “Obamacare” is not a type of government care. It is the government regulating the insurance companies. Insurance companies that want to participate on the exchanges promoted by the government must meet certain criteria. That criteria is outlined in individual brochures per state.

    However, even insurance companies not in the exchanges have to follow certain criteria, like providing women’s wellness for free, which feminists feel is the biggest victory for women. Like I said, that will mean even more bullying and coercin. With doctors now required to computerize their offices (even my own GP had to do this), whether or not you participate in screenings is only a click away. Gone are the days of “oh I had a pap test last year somewhere else”.

32. Many naturopaths on Ontario will do Pap tests and send them to labs in the United States so the results are kept confidential.. All Pap tests processed in Ontario are automatically put into cytobase and no woman can ask to have her data removed. Once in cytobase, no escape.

33. Yes Moo – Exactly right.

    I really like my current GP. After having a female doctor that kept promoting a pelvic and pap and breast exam before anything else, I decided to switch. My current GP is a male, that I obtained through my friend who is in management at a major hospital center here in Chicago, Il. I am currently taking a medication that requires a 6 month blood work up to asure that my liver and kidneys are handling the meds well. This med is prescribed by a specialist, and although I would normally share this info, I really don’t want anyone telling me there is another alternative since that is not the reason I am posting. After over two years of simply doing a blood work up, this last visit about 4 months ago came with all kinds of questions and of course “gyn and pap” questions. When I reminded my GP of why I chose him over the other “quack” that couldn’t focus on anything other than my vagina, he commented that it was a new requirement by law that all medical records are computerized. He respected my desicion, but he had to provide the info.

    There used to be a guy on Blogs critics who warned about this, since he knew people working in the industry. I think his name was Ron or Rob. So many people like that one named Diane, laughed and went on and on about how “obamacare is not about that”.

    Again, if you have to deal with the companies in the exchanges, they have been told what to do for you to enroll. There has also been an expansion of Medicaid, so that if you are very poor, you will “get the best care possible”. Hey poor ladies! Guess what that means!

    I also very strongly think that the Blog critics website was shut down by the government.

    • I wonder what happens when they don’t enter that information into the computer? Maybe there needs to be a worse threat as a deterent? It certainly sounds like this is getting to be a more aggressively pursued situation (it already WAS pretty onerous, apparently). If they’re trying to get things more advantageously aligned toward that sort of thing, then that’s an indicator in itself- like someone winding up before they throw a punch.

      I guess having that information computerized makes it easier for them (whoever they are) to access & then base whatever decisions on. It’s like scamming a woman into thinking there’s a problem- they would need to have something there to base this “deduction” on, since they can’t just say “I arbitrarily presume this” or “I want more money” or “I want to cause you problems, that’s why.” So they arrange for a test to occur, maybe camoflauging it as safe & reliable (never mind that it’s an assault to impose something of that nature in the first place). It seems that there’s a belief that “altruism produces ownership” over here, too. It’s like you’re wrong to go against anyone else applying influence on you in any way if they so much as claim to have charitable intentions.

    • I come to this site because it (a) contains a tons of accurate and helpful information that isn’t easy to find anywhere else, and (b) is a safe haven from misinformation, propaganda and fear-mongering tactics.

      Lynne, are you presenting your opinions about what you think/fear will happen under the Affordable Care Act, or are you presenting factual information for which you can provide links/references? Either is fine with me, but I’m just hoping for clarity on which category your comments fall in.

34. Go into any government based website concerning Obamacare. Go into your state’s exchange list and read what the insurance companies in the exchanges in your state require. As far as everything being computerized, that is something that has started well over a year ago. Ask any doctor. Someone here provided the brochure for California. Just check out that brochure to read what criteria each of the providers must meet in order to qualify to be on the exchange.

    If you want to believe that I am “fearmongering” so be it. I’m used to all the pro Obama supporters telling me I’m wrong. My fear was that my husband’s company would drop spouses from their plan and spouses would have to go on the exchanges, so I started to check them out in my state. Many companies are doing that since insurance costs are going up for them. Thankfully we just received a letter telling us all spouses will continue to be covered.

    No I’m not telling you what I think will happen. Just go into your state’s exchange list and check out the insurance companies. Some insurance companies requiring a complete physical is nothing new. It’s been like that for decades. However some insurance companies with higher premiums would sometimes just let you answer health questions. This is a fact since about 15 years ago my husband was between jobs and we puchased our own health insurance.

35. The brochure for California was provided by someone in the “Women Against Stirrups” website. On the home page, click on “Gyn Exam and Gyn Industry”. Someone labeled the discussion “Forced pap smears under Obamacare”. Read the brochure provided.

    A similar brochure for my state also lists that the insurance companies in the exchange must “ensure a wellness exam” the first year of enrollment.

36. Lynne,

    Thank you for replying, and for providing some references for why you came to your conclusion. I disagree with your conclusion, but I think I can see how you could come to it.

    First, I checked out the material on the “Women against Stirrups” site. In my opinion, labeling a discussion “Forced pap smears under Obamacare” is simply providing a title to an opinion piece unless there is evidence provided to support the claim. It is also a form of fear-mongering if there is no evidence behind it.

    Did you read and critically examine the back and forth between the two writers? The final comment on the topic comes from someone who had, just like me, asked for evidence. That person had been given a link to a brochure. After reading the brochure, they replied “Where exactly in this booklet does it say they are necessary? I only skimmed it but I didn’t see anything.” This was the end of the exchange between the two. The person who made the original claim didn’t come back to support their emotionally-charged assertion, and that was the end of that.

    Other readers who want to read the entire exchange and form their own opinions can find it at:
    Read more: http://womenagainststirrups.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=questionnaire&action=display&thread=172#ixzz2gluhVhKo

    I have also read the information in the brochure that you referred to , and like the poster on the above forum, I didn’t anything that requires/forces women to have a pap test. If I missed it, can you provide the exact material that says that women will be forced to have tests without their consent? If there is something that could have this impact it will be important to identify it and to mobilize against it.

    Is it possible that the insurers are being required to pay for the tests according to the recommended guidelines, NOT that women themselves are being “forced” to take the test? Perhaps “mandatory” applies to the insurance companies having to cover 100% of the cost of the test when it is done according to guidelines?

37. No I never said it states “HEY WOMEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PAP TEST” but it does state that insurance policies who wish to receive subsidies from the government have to abide by certain rules.
    \
    Did you not see “Ensure that participants will recieve a wellness exam in the first year of enrollment?”

    What do you think ensure means?

    You know I remember mentioning to women in a liberal website about what “rewarding doctors for keeping you well” meant. I told them that in countries like the UK women are nagged to death with postcards. I got so many “LOL” and the LMAO” that I couldn’t count them. i remember one poster telling me that in NO CIVILIZED COUNTRY ARE DOCTORS GETTING PAID EXTRA FOR PAP TESTS.

    Yup they wanted proof, and when I pointed them in the direction of blogs critics, they informed me that these were obviously Pro Republican candidate women.

    You just keep drinking that Kool-Aid. I don’t have to provide proof. You will see it soon enough.

    • Lynne,

      “You just keep drinking that Kool-Aid. I don’t have to provide proof. You will see it soon enough.”

      Ahh, so your strong opinions are your proof. No wonder you are so afraid.

38. Go into http://www.obamacarefacts.com You will have to do a lot of reading. There is even a section about how to keep your costs down, and that “the extra pound or two or starting to take up smoking again” can result in your costs skyrocketing.

    I don’t have the time to pinpoint exactly where I found it for you, but it is in there. How do you think they will determine what you weigh and if you smoke? By you giving them the answers?

    I just thank God I can afford any health plan I want without having to go through this crap. And again, if you think I am looking for others to think as I do, you go right ahead. I did my research to help myself.

39. Also, I am not basing my comments on the Women Against Stirrups piece. I have mentioned many times before that I have a very close friend in management at a large medical facility here in Chicago. But when I mention that, I would get (at Blog critcs) the “Oh if people in the medical community don’t want it it will be postive change”.

    Those people have the facts and they know how the exchanges will work. Make some phone calls, go into the exchanges, call about the plans. Please don’t take my word for it.

    • Lynne, I had posted this comment under the discussion forum but I’ll put it here as well:
      Apparently part of the reason for the lack of clarity about Obamacare is due to doctors’ reluctance to discuss the changes. Obamacare threatens to have a negative impact on doctors. Doctors will be paid less under Obamacare, and they will be paid based on the quality of their work. The incentives to perform unnecessary tests will be removed. Consumers of health care will have more control and will be given more of a voice regarding what constitutes quality care:

      “Under Obamacare, doctors will be paid based on the quality of their work. Currently, physicians are paid per service, regardless of performance. About $1 billion in federal health care payments will rely on patient-satisfaction surveys, according to the Wall Street Journal.

      “Supporters say paying for performance removes a lot of bad incentives in the current system. It removes the motivation to do unnecessary tests and hospitalize people who don’t need it,” Wall Street Journal added.
      – See more at: http://madamenoire.com/284659/most-say-doctors-arent-talking-about-obamacare-leaving-patients-without-critical-information/#sthash.F32MBwCm.dpuf “

      Lynne, you seem to have your mind firmly made up on this issue and there are probably many others who agree with you. I think though that regardless of what we anticipate happening under Obamacare, we are all on the same page in regards to wanting the right to choose – and women’s right to choose has never been respected by most physicians.

40. But again, what do you think “Doctors based on performance” means? Everyone here wants to, and hopes that it means no more nagging or no more conization or LEEP for abnormals in pap smears. Simply go into “Women’s wellness” in the site I provided. All women’s wellness and the horrid procedures that follow are protected. What do you think the feminists were fighting for? Less pap smears?

    Again when Obama would talk I would listen and do research. Doctor’s performance doesn’t mean “Hey he didn’t push a pelvic exam on me”. It means he got you to comply with what is perceived as “wellness care”.

    Are you now going to say that Obamacare doesn’t have its roots on pushing wellness care? if you don’t think it does than there is nothing more I can say since you are really off the mark.

    Yes I VERY MUCH appreciate this blog FWEO, and am happy to be a member, but just think of how many times so many of us would go into the “pap happy” sites and be turned on like we were an injured wildebeast and they were a pack of hyenas. If people don’t want to believe something they just cover their ears.

    Again I urge anyone to make phone calls, especially insurance companies on the exchanges about what is required for that policy. Right now if you have insurance and your company isn’t looking to dump you (I hope to God all of you DO realize that it is happening with many companies), you are okay. I’m not looking to frighten anyone. I’m just seeing that once this takes off, it is only a matter of time before there are even more regulations required of all insurance policies, in addition to the ones already in place.

    • Lynne, making phone calls to clarify what will be required is a good idea. Also, Obama stated that no one is being forced to buy insurance. You will be required to pay a penalty if you don’t have insurance, but if you refuse to pay the penalty the fine for refusal is not that much, at least not to begin with. Plus I doubt if they will spend the money necessary to track everyone who hasn’t paid. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/1001/Obamacare-101-What-to-know-if-you-opt-out-of-buying-health-insurance

      The situation as it currently is allows for physicians to coerce women into pap tests as often as they can; annually or even biannually – and insurance will cover it. Under Obamacare insurance will only pay for pap tests once very three or four years. If women have to pay out of their own pocket for a pap test I doubt that it will go over too well. Physicians will have to explain that pap tests are only paid for once every three years because research evidence has deemed annual pap tests to cause more harm than good.

      • Annual pap tests in Ontario are no longer covered by insurance: http://www.citynews.ca/2013/02/26/ontario-women-pay-for-annual-pap-tests-under-new-rules/ Women wanting annual pap tests will have to pay out of pocket. I bet physicians don’t much care for that.

    • I don’t get what “exchanges” are. It seems like this is the government steering insurance, which will steer the doctor’s actions. It’s either a chain reaction or direct/single-step imposition. This is if it’s directing anything at all (because the description is vague & the reality might very well be different, regardless of the description).

      I think people are forgetting background motivations for things like this. General pervyness or cruelty can both be influences with this subject. If a dictator were to want to be sadistic & attack people, that dictator can only do so much on their own- gettting the police and/or military involved would amplify things, however. It broadcasts effect, basically.

      Same deal with being pervy (which applies to males AND females, don’t forget). There’s a lot of urge for infliction, as well (“power” I don’t think is the right word & it doesn’t necessarily mean “against momentum,” anyway). These people have a massive trait of “thinking by adjucation” (and whether they actually think that reality is whatever they say it is or not, they definitely act in a manner befitting a different circumstance). I know I get a bit comlicated with the psychological stuff & I don’t always know how to phrase things, but they have a real “I’m overturning things by acting like things are aligned differently” style of acting. They definitely prescribe a lot of things as if they’re safe, for instance.

41. Again PLEASE look into what is required under “Women’s wellness”. If someone (like me) hasn’t had a pap smear in years (in my case never) that every 3 years goes out the window. And again in “Women’s wellness”, in the Obamacare facts website (provided by the government) it states that women will be “kept healthy” as to not require serious intervention in the future. What do they do now? Send you for cone biopsies, LEEP, colposcopies etc. to make sure you “don’t get cancer”.

    You know my friend in management here in Chicago is just like me. She hasn’t had a pap or pelvic since her last child was born over 20 years ago. She’s the one who suggested her GP which is the one I have now. Obamacare won’t effect her pay at all. She’s not a doctor. Don’t you think these people know what they are talking about?

    When Obama was running for his first term, she told me then that his plan which was described in black and white but not in terms that the average lay person would catch on, was that the government would regulate the insurance companies. Even though she and I think alike I thought she was exaggerating.

    All women’s wellness exams, and one has to be paid for from every insurance company not just the ones on the exchanges every year has to be paid for. That is the yearly pelvic and breast exam. Don’t believe me? Go into the Obamacare fact website and read everything (and the links provided therein) completely.

    If you believe this is only optional if you enroll on one of the policies on the exchange, then why the ‘ensure EVERY enrollee has a wellness exam” as the first requirement? And again, please explain to me how they are going to determine your payment “based on the enrollee’s assestment”. What do you think that means? How will they assess you? And I’m not talking about whether or not you qualify financially, I’m talking about the discussions clearly outlined regarding how people of a good weight or non smokers will get to pay less. Do you think they are going to take everyone’s word for it?

    Please anyone who disagrees with me, you give me your proof, and I’m sorry but one article from Madame Noir isn’t proof. No disrespect.

42. Also – Everyone if you don’t believe that the doctor will be paid by performance means compliance for wellness testing, YOU give me YOUR links to prove otherwise. And no I am not being sarcastic.

    Believe me, I wish I were wrong.

43. In regards to all of this talk about Obamacare, I don’t think we’ll really know exactly what the requirements are until people start participating and comment on their experience themselves. As for the required wellness exam, I’m almost certain that is referring to blood samples, blood pressure check, etc. Just a normal non-invasive physical that most Americans have every year. Furthermore, a yearly wellness exam was required by my previous insurance company. I was not yet old enough for them to ask about a pelvic/pap, but they wanted to do a breast exam and I declined profusely, leaving no room for argument. My insurance was not taken away nor was any other action taken. Things may be different under Obamacare, but as it stands, no matter how much paps/pelvics/breast exams are being pushed, those are not part of a normal yearly physical. Those are (or at least should be) considered extra testing for those with concerns or who want to participate. I know that they are marketed very differently and considered to be absolutely necessary by most, but the truth is that they are very different tests from just a normal physical. Anyways, I wanted to discuss something I read which I thought was ironic, and not in a good way either. The feminists fighting to get free women’s wellness care used the argument that being a woman is not a pre-existing condition so women should not be charged for their exams and procedures. If being a woman is not a pre-existing condition, then why do women without systems or risk get over-tested and over-treated? I don’t know. I just found it to be a counter productive statement.

44. For Women’s Eyes Only – You are right in that no one will be forced to buy insurance. If you don’t have it, you will pay a penalty. The amount varies according to your income.

    If you check out insurance on the exchange in your state, and you don’t like the requirements, you can shop elsewhere. The difference will be that a private plan will be more money.

    My insurance company is on the exchange, but our plan differs from the exchange plans and therefore does not have the requirements of the subsidized insurance plans.

    As far as collection of the penalties; questions regarding your medical insurance will be on your tax return. Our accountant informed us about this last year when she did our taxes.

    I remember Joe Biden doing that stupid laugh of his when someone asked about the IRS collecting the penalty. He roared and roared and said that the IRS “doesn’t have time for that”. Actually he wasn’t lying. The IRS won’t be the ones collecting the penalty, but the information will be provided to whatever agency will be responsible for collection of the penalties. Again this is menitoned in the Obamacare facts website.

    • Lynne, I agree there is really no actual proof for either of us to support this debate, and it is largely based on opinion. Again, the search for information and clarity via phone is a good idea. I do know that if I lived in the U.S. I would be very afraid if the Republicans were in control of women’s health care:
      “According to recent polls, Barack Obama is trouncing Mitt Romney nationally among likely female voters, and many have pointed to the supposed Republican “War on Women” as the reason for Obama’s lead. Those who argue that the war is real cite examples like the strong Republican opposition to Obama’s proposed contraception reform and the extreme pro-life stances of people like Rick Santorum—who has said that abortion is wrong even in cases of rape and incest—as instances of lawmakers wading too far into women’s issues. Republican efforts to redefine rape to reduce access to abortions, cut funding for Planned Parenthood, hold a hearing on contraception without any female panel members, and (in South Dakota, at least) make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions have not helped their case with some women, either.” http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-there-a-republican-war-on-women

      It seems the Republicans don’t have a good track record in regards to protecting women’s rights, and no matter what might be on the horizon under Obamacare it is most likely far less horrifying than anything the Republicans might have cooked up.

    • Applying a penalty is forcing someone into something- whether it’s effective or not, it’s an attempt. It seems like those fees would eventually get up to several hundred dollars, too. No idea what happens if you don’t pay these fines. Maybe it’s one more thing to get locked up for if there’s an issue with records- like if someone actually paid their parking tickets, but it didn’t get registered that way or maybe they get inaccurately considered to have tickets they didn’t pay. Don’t take your daughter in to get whatever tests that work whatever way, that’s grounds to have your children taken away? Maybe locked up for child abuse (or suspected of it- look at that case with the 11-year-olds in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania)? There’s a lot of pretending to be the hero while actually being the villian.

      More & more, it seems companies treat people as their slaves. Like they comport their employees” lives. These are the kinds of things people got killed for, but now it’s like some kind of charitable donation to permit this or like they don’t want to be an oppressor. It doesn’t really matter what the angle is- if it’s coming at you, it’s a problem. I figure an exception would be if someone did something along these lines & deserves it, but other than that it’s someone attacking you. It’s some shape or form of someone else orchestrating that these things happen to you.

      I was just reading about this company that had the audacity to have a no-smoking policy for their employees outside of work! They fired someone because their system tested positive for nicotine. This is detrimenting someone’s livelihood & infringing on their autonomy, thus an act of oppression. It’s not like it’d be hard for them to say “Well, we’re doing drug testing & someone’s going to watch you pee.” It seems the military already does that (as in: watching the stream leave your body).

45. I disagree. You are in Canada, right? No president no matter what his stance on abortion has the sole right to put it into law. They are presidents, not kings or dictators. As a Republican I can tell you that a LOT of what was thrown out there about Romney was not only exaggerated, but down and out false. And why is it that people STILL talk about him? If you wanted Obama, you got him.

    As far as what goes on in individual states, as you mentioned South Dakota (and no it is not legal to kill a doctor in that state – more hysteria), states and the government officials within have the right to challenge laws, have their own state laws and regulations regarding a multitude of items (no not just birth control) but gun laws, policies, marriage and divorce laws etc. That is one of the things that I feel makes our country great.

    our congressmen, Senators etc. represent us in Washington. We have a say so.

    As far as the Republicans (cooking up) things for us, I want to let you know that even within the Republican and the Democratic party, we have those members who are very left or right within the party. Although I consider myself a Republican and conservative, I do believe in abortion rights, and believe me I am not the only Republican who believes that way.

    Our system isn’t perfect, but it has worked for many decades with both parties having turns in the presidential seat as well as both parties making up the other bodies of our government (house of Representatives etc).

    Obama is one of the first presidents to sign something into law (Obamacare) with no say so from the rest of the system.

    To me as an American, THAT is the most horrifying thing so far. And we have three more years of him.

    • Lynne, yes I’m Canadian and an outsider looking in. My main source of information is media, and we know it is not always exactly “true”. My understanding though was that Obamacare was in fact approved by the rest of the system.

46. FWEO – The link you provided was before the election written by a liberal site. Certain organizations are either “left” or “right”.

    The entire War on Women to many of us was a joke. Romney could in no way abolish the right to abotion on his own without a bill going through the proper channels of our government with support. I always felt that the women who fell for that b######t were the same women who thought they would die without their annual paps.

47. F.L. check out http://www.Obamafacts.com There is a lot of information and LOTS to read. It took me almost a week to read every category and sub category. Another useful tool is to go into any search engine and simply ask “What is performance based medicine?”, or “How is a doctor paid in performance based medicine” etc. Lots of sites which will explain what this means.

    And sorry for the ‘drink the Kool-Aid comment. It was rude. I think all of us here have a lot more in common than we think.

    No I’m not “afraid” as fortunately I can afford any insurance I choose. But I do feel for anyone who gets dumped on the exchanges.

48. Ooops! I meant http://www.Obamacarefacts.com

    • Could you please put which category this information is in? Like you said: it is a lot of information & I figure you could find it faster, since you found it before.

      I just found something about forced home inspections under obamacare. It seems there’s a provision about them going to people’s houses & determining if they’ll “intervene” in the situation (medication, vaccines, foster homes, etc…). It doesn’t seem to matter a whole lot what the background is, but it seems to apply to homes where the mother is under 21, if there’s a “tobacco user” in the house, if the kids are getting bad grades, and there was also something about gun ownership (it’s considered a possible risk factor for the children). Sounds an awful lot like the government would be steering how kids are raised & how people live there lives, in general.

      I also saw something about information about gun ownership being attached to medical records (and in one place it was attached to social security information). Keep in mind that any of these situations can be interpreted in whatever way & can also be fabricated or inaccurately assessed. There’s more & more things for them to base decisions on, whatever they happen to be. There’s also a lot of personnel in official fields acting in extralegal, but factual, ways- not that it matters if something is made legal if it’s a problem to begin with (calling “not it!” legally doesn’t matter). Anything at all can be legally sanctioned (look at Romania during Causescu) and it seems most of the large-scale, horrendous things were perfectly legal with somebody.

49. Add to My Library
    Print

    Downloads
    International Innovation(112K PDF)

    One target of reforms to reduce health care spending and improve quality has been the fee-for-service payment model, long criticized for creating incentives for providers to increase the volume of services, rather than improve the quality and efficiency of care. Alternative payment models have gained momentum in the U.S. and abroad to align providers’ incentives with value rather than volume.

    One such alternative is pay-for-performance reimbursement, which rewards providers for meeting designated targets. Rather than replacing traditional payment methods, pay-for-performance approaches can be combined with them to provide incentives to improve. For example, a primary care doctor may receive an extra payment if a certain percentage of his or her patients receive all of their recommended screening tests. Accountable care organizations are another, far more sophisticated, example; in such organizations the target is to provide high-quality care while reducing costs and the reward is a portion of the cost savings.

    Many countries have experimented with pay-for-performance models in recent years. These experiences offer examples and lessons for using incentive payments to encourage improvements.

    I’m not too good at the copy and paste thing – LOL! However I did find this definition of “Pay per Performance” I’ll try to get the website.

50. http://www.commonwealth.org This is where I found the definition above. It was in their list of puclications. Pay per performance is the screening target system with incentive payments.

51. http://www.commonwealthfund.org. It is is the publications. Sorry about the above error.

52. What info are you looking for at the site? The thing to remember too is once you click on one of the links on the left side, that will also take you to even more links.

    And yes I know the site I provided is in the U.K., but the definition remains the same. Obama always commented on how he wanted doctors to be paid for “keeping you well”. This is why I fear that more hounding is in store for women.

    • The thing that said that the “enrollees” in obamacare would be forced to get “wellness checks.” It sounded a lot like that with the forced home inspections that I mentioned earlier (which you can Google that way & get right to it). It started talking a bit about “maternal health” & “children’s health,” which I read to mean that they’ll impose various exams/procedures on someone & connect the dots to say that it was helping them. Maybe it’s managing the medical situation directly (“we think this is best or just say that we do, so this is your situation”) or it’s saying that “this isn’t a safe environment for the child because the mother might die,” “the child isn’t receiving adequate health care because they haven’t had these tests,” or whatever else.

      More & more cops enforce whatever comes to mind- their’s or someone else’s. I figure demonizing something that wasn’t a problem & angelifying something that was is the status quo around here. Keep in mind: all of these things (and more) can be an imposed situation in a jail/prison/juvie setting. Possibly the nuthouse, too- I guess that’s something that runs the same lines & maybe all this will be considered a mental health issue (like when docotrs suggest that a woman get counseling for not letting them self-electively probe her).

      Pretty scary potential all around, especially considering what things have been already & how people seem to have no concept of decommisioning someone else’s actions, particualrly physically. The whole idea of physically making a situation not take place is, apparently, abhorrent!

53. That is mentioned in the insuance brochures. You can access that by following the directions in a previous post. This is done through the insurance companies. It states that each plan in the exchange (and this is for anyone using the plans in the exchanges, not every insurance company) that the plan will “ensure a wellness exam” within the first year of enrollment.

    However, others on this forum believe that “ensure” means that it is simply available. Since the definition of “ensure” means to “make certain”, I believe that it is a mandated exam. How invasive that exam will be is subject to debate.

    The only way to find out for certain is wait and see what happens once people start to sign up.

    And I read about the company that won’t hire smokers as well. I remember after the story reading the comments and one person sarcastically wrote “Hey fatties your next”. When you think about it, if a company can choose not to hire smokers, its not a stretch to say another group could be next.

54. Someone here also said that it will be next to impoosible to impose fines and its doubtful that they will have the resources to be tracking people down. Right in the Obamacare fact site, which was set up by the government, it mentions that the penalty is actually a “tax” as it was deemed by the Supreme court’s decision. Proof of having insurance is going to have to be listed on our tax returns. Again this is not my opinion but a fact stated right on the government site.

55. http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&drKey=1072&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenagainststirrups.proboards.com%2Findex.cgi%3Fboard%3Dquestionnaire%26action%3Ddisplay%26thread%3D172%23ixzz2gluhVhKo&v=1&libId=53dc7430-544b-4f85-bfb2-d70887270fb4&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coveredca.com%2Fnews%2FPDFs%2FCC_Health_Plans_Booklet-rev1-8-6.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fforwomenseyesonly.com%2Freferences-and-education%2F&title=Women%20Against%20Stirrups%20-%20Obamacare%20Mandatory%20Pap%20Smears&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coveredca.com%2Fnews%2FPDFs%2FCC_Health_Plans_Booklet-rev1-8-6.pdf&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13810736537839

56. Alex that’s the brochure. Read page 9. All states have similiar brochures. Keep in mind these plans are being subsidized by the government so they must meet certain criteria. I also find (again on page 9) the “identify and assess” high risk enrollees and be “proactive” in their treatment. How do they plan to “access” the enrollees?

    I don’t want to argue with anyone here, especially Sue since she has done aa outstanding job with this site and I thank her, but the way I see it they want to manage the enrollee’s life through these plans.

57. I’m wondering if anyone here is familiar with what happened in I believe 2009 at the AmeriGas Propane Inc. company located in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania?

    In order to keep health costs down, that employer mandated a physical exam for employees, and anyone not participating would lose their insurance coverage. The women were mandated to have pap smears and mammagrams.

    This was deemed “legal”. Those are the kinds of things that really frighten me.

    • Lynne, you have posted 25 times and each time you have failed to provide any proof to support your claims. You are instilling fear without evidence to back your claims – similar to how pap propaganda works. I’m not certain what your agenda is, but I hope you follow your own advice and start to actively seek real information and clarity via phone calls or lived experience. The example of mandated paps you provided took place before Obamacare was introduced.

58. I NEVER said that had anything to do with Obamacare. I am simply pointing out that this type of mandate can take place in this country and be legal.

59. Sue – I provided the brochure to Alex, and even commented that there are others here who disagree with what the wording in the brochure means.

    Please tell me what other information for which I am not providing proof? You yourself provided an article from Madame Noir which states that doctor’s will be paid per performance. I provided info from a UK health website to clearly state what that means.
    I thought this was a place to share information. That is my “agenda”. I also provided a website provided by our government detailing items like the fact that your penalty is a tax. They admit on the website that Obamacare is responsible for mandating that all medical information be computerized. I encouraged Alex to determine what “ensure” a wellness visit, “assess and enrollee” meant, to think about how a doctor is to be “proactive” for the enrollee.

    Apparently since I don’t think Obamacare is something positive, you want to dismiss any points that I am making, and I clearly am asking anyone here (and you too), what do YOU think these statements mean if you think I am incorrect. Instead I am chastized for trying to spread fear.

    Sue I still have the deepest respect for you and again although we disagree I thank you for starting this website. What you are doing is a service to all women no matter what they think or how they interpret the language in these websites or brochures.

    No need to count my posts. There won’t be anymore.

    • Lynne I have no issue one way or the other with your opinion of Obamacare. What I have issue with is the instigation of fear based on opinion. Nothing instills fear more than the thought of mandated pap tests amongst a group of women who have been harmed by paps. To mandate an ineffective, invasive, penetrative exam would be a crime against all women. If paps were made mandatory, other exams such as prostate exams would also have to be mandatory, as would breast exams and other exams. Where would it end? Do you see men putting up with mandated prostate exams? I honestly do not see that happening.

      You see your comments as informative, but the effect they have been having – from my perspective – is cruel. I am sorry you won’t be making any further comments because we are on the same team after all. And thank you for your positive and kind comments about my site.

    • I can’t comment about Obamacare, I simply don’t know enough about it.
      Talking about mandating pap tests etc. How many already believe pap tests are compulsory or something we “must” have regularly our entire lives? How many have faced and medical coercion for years (unnecessary or optional exams/tests in exchange for the Pill or medical care) and now accept screening tests/exams are “must have” exams? Women have always been misled and manipulated, apparently, “for their own good”. How many women see screening exams and tests as a choice they can reasonably decline?

      I know Germany considered mandating screening exams and tests, and those who refused would be denied medical cover if they later developed that disease. It didn’t get over the line, legally there are lots of hurdles, informed consent, over-treatment, over-diagnosis, uncertainty of benefit. If you want to keep down health costs you’d immediately organize an evidence-based HPV testing/self-testing program (like the new Dutch program) and scrap breast screening…or wind it back and only provide it to those who make an informed decision TO screen. Get rid of the waste/excess.
      Of course, many in the medical world and elsewhere would not like that idea, excess equals high profits.
      I don’t think we should let politics, religion or anything else distract or divide us…we’re all as one when it comes to informed consent and evidence based screening.

60. Ok I’m still here. YES we are on the same page.

    Sue, I NEVER had a pap smear. I have told doctor after doctor that I “had three or four in my 20″s”, and after obtaining more knowledge (which is true – the knowledge part), decided not to have any more. Yes I know that women are afraid of something like that being mandated. Don’t you think I am? My fears and trauma started when I was a kid, and many genital exams were done as part of a physical. It was one of the things that i shared on the Blogs Critics site. I was horrified and yet at the same time relieved that other women had the same thing happen to them.

    Torrance was a contributer to that site, and she had similar things happen to her.

    Sue believe me I don’t want to be cruel or scare anyone, but I do think that we have to be alert when anything changes in our society.

    One of the things that I learned (for the first time actually) after doing searches on the pay per performance model is that there have been hospitals and medical centers experimenting with this “model” of care since they were aware of what Obamacare was about. One of the things that struck me was that this guy who used to comment on Blogs Critics (again I think his name was Ron or Bob or something) would get hassled about all kinds of preventive care. I do remember he lived in one of the Carolinas. Sure enough, one these huge medical facilities was in the South.

    For me it is about connecting the dots with things I’ve read or heard from a variety of sources, and then trying to find out what else is out there.

    My God believe me I am not trying to scare anyone. Hey I’m scared of what changes might take place down the road. My husband has several health issues, even though his is slim, doesn’t smoke, is not a drinker, and we both exercise together. I hear a lot about rationed care for the elderly. I can’t find any hard facts yet, but believe me I worry.

    One of the things which now has to be included free of charge in all health plans is the annual “pelvic exam” which this country’s medical system truly believes in. Again, this is listed in the “recommendations” in the Obamacare facts website. This can leads to a lot of invasive procedures, which again, Obamacare promises to take care of with no cost to you. A pap every three years might be one recommendation, but that pelvic exam can also get any woman on that gyn Merry-go-round. And Sue, I have known many women in my 56+ years that had that happen.

    Again I truly apologize if you thought that I was trying to instill fear in the followers of this site. All I want is for them to ask questions about what things like pay per performance. assess the enrollee, the doctor being proactive actually means etc.

    • Lynne, thank you, I was happy to see you because I was feeling awful about the whole thing. Women who question the pap propaganda are worthy of respect because it isn’t easy to buck the status quo. I agree it is wise to be on full alert when anything changes. The situation as it is currently is not free from coercion: women unable to access health care without a pap; women unable to obtain prescriptions without a pap; women unable to seek prenatal care without a pap. My hope is that now insurance will only pay once every three years for paps, rather than annually, it will help to slow the excess over-diagnosis and over-treatment. In the meantime maybe more women will see the propaganda for what it is.

61. I felt the same way. I don’t want to lose the support that this site provides, and in the future I will be sure to document any info the best way I can. My computer link skills have a lot to be desired. Can we agree to share ALL info on Obamacare on this site? I think that will be a good thing. I did say this before, and I hope I’m wrong on a lot of things.

    Please encourage anyone on this site in the US to provide all info.

    • Lynne, yes definitely we can agree to share all info on Obamacare on this site. I also think that would be a good thing.

    • So maybe this would institute these things going on every three years? Still bad & could lead to more, but I figure it’s a reduction in the attempts- if that’s how things go. This home inspection & intervention thing is a major concern. Never mind if they start getting dictatorial in a disaster or other “state of emergency” (which they could always declare arbitrarily as a means of facilitation for whatever things go on next).

      It also seems that a bunch of different agencies are gearing up & might be involved in enforcing these things (I’ve heard about the IRS being in charge of health care, for example). It makes it harder to mentally follow when unrelated groups, titles, or inapt phrasing are involved (something is worded one way & functionally means another or a group that’s affiliated with one thing being connected with something totally unrelated- a strategy of diversion & camoflauge).

62. The IRS is only responsible for collecting the penalty, and that is in the Obamacare fact website. The penalty is a tax.

    • If that’s true, there’s nothing to say that they don’t try some stormtropper tactics to get these “taxes” or that people don’t get other issues aimed at them over this. Maybe they “just so happen” to get locked up for not paying this fine (which they DID pay, but just mysteriously didn’t happen to get registered that way). Maybe not participating in this situation is considered grounds to act against them.

      In a de facto sense, all kinds of things can be imposed, whether they legally call “not it” or not. I’ve noticed that the law seems to reserve more & more “rights” for itself on numerous levels. I’ve also noticed the concept that someone doesn’t have the right to do what’s not right escapes a few people over here.

      Elizabeth- That thing with Germany, when was that? I remember hearing something along those lines in Poland, but it seems that was specifically attached to work.

    • Lynne, I hate to say it but you might have been right – in terms of doctors being able to use the health insurance form as a means to coerce women into paps. See the comments from Ashley:https://forwomenseyesonly.com/2012/12/06/three-ways-to-combat-doctors-bullying-you-into-unwanted-pap-tests-and-pelvic-exams/comment-page-1/#comment-16766

63. Doctors will use anything to push a woman into a pap and pelvic. I wonder if that poster would share what exactly was on that sign up sheet?

    The bullying never ends.

64. Great news, the sessions at the Over-Diagnosis Conference held at Dartmouth in September, 2013 are now on YouTube. I think Peter Gotzsche from NCI spoke better at Oxford in March, but then he often receives an openly hostile reception in the States, mainly from the breast screening zealots and VERY powerful vested interests, that’s no doubt why he didn’t want to answer lots of questions from the audience on mammography.
    Listening to these talks really is a great healthcare decision.

    • Thank you Elizabeth for this wonderful news. I was having difficulty with the video as it wasn’t playing for me. If others have difficulty here is the link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZL195_ASbg&list=SPPDZ9rcIfxyMKZUNa4Ytjqtpps2r51JMY I like how Peter Gotzsche handled the audience – he managed to stave off the zealots and keep it civil and lighthearted. You can tell he is far from lighthearted about it though.

    • Very cool! He hit it pretty much spot-on. They make any situation out to be a problem! Any characteristic is demonized & aimed at. It really is like they just see life, in general, as a disease.

      Also, the term “irresponsible” implies quite a bit- namely, that it’s not up to someone what they do medically. Like they’ve somehow been “loaned” something. It’s not just “risky,” it’s “irresponsible.”

      By-the-way: Did you see that commercial (maybe it’s just in America)? Where they’re saying “this is bad” (I think that was with smoking) and that “this is good” (and they were definitely talking about mammographies). It’s interesting: if someone advocated smoking for white teeth or something on a commercial, all hell would break loose- But if someone says good things about mammographies, in spite of problems caused by them directly or by ramifications of them (misdiagnosis, overtreatment, risks from the tests in themselves, etc…), that’s somehow okay.

Comments are closed.