Cancer Confusion: Scott Hinkley

I like to think of myself as only a 'light' conspiracy theorist, but bear with me as I put on my tinfoil hat. I think that the action being taken to reduce the overall number of annual mammogram and Pap is the byproduct of back-room dealings with insurance companies. This seems like an extremely cost-saving piece of advice for the health care industry. In one fell swoop, the American medical community has granted insurance companies a pass when it comes to covering these tests. The implications are huge. This isn't a change in policy for a minority-subset of those with health-insurance, "all women" is a large constituency.

I have tried to find reasonable advice regarding why these tests are no longer being considered necessary, and all I could find what a lot of double-talk about how just because we have been testing doesn't mean we have been saving lives, and that overall it would reduce the rate of subsequent "unnecessary" testing. I can't imagine anyone in this country who is willing to consider their personal health to be a slave to the statistics. I feel that until we know an awful lot more about cancers, deciding that we are overly caution about testing half of our population for one of it's biggest health-threats seems like we are jumping to conclusions. I don't mind paying a tax on my health care to provide others with coverage (my interpretation of the current approach), but sacrificing preventive care because you aren't sure if it is preventive enough seems like too much forest and not enough trees.

Email Scott