advertisement
Click Here
On GameSpot: Facebook, Twitter, Last.fm on Xbox 11/17
Sign up | Log in

Log in to post and mark posts as watched.

refresh »

  • [-]Does anyone think it is odd that the healthcare reform passes congress and all of a sudden we have new guidelines for cancer screening?The government is now flipping the bill actual correction, taxpayers are paying and they are establishing new rules for cancer screening. So sad.

    17 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
    11.20.09, 07:38 AM [ Flag ]

    • I don't think it's odd. The govt. isn't efficient enough to have coordinated this.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 07:41 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

    • I think it's strange that no one on the committee or advising them appears to have had half a brain about the political implications of what they were announcing and how it would play out in the mass media. But otherwise, no, it's not odd or at all connected.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 07:43 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

    • I agree the timing seems suspicious but it doesn't make sense for the gov't to do this. If you don't catch cancer early its more difficult and more expensive to treat so whoever is footing the bill should be in favor of screenings as early as they'd be meaningful. This is just from a $$ perspective -- I don't expect anyone to be on the lookout for our health but ourselves.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 07:44 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

    • The new guidelines are based on scientific information. The old screening was based on "feelings". It's actually a good thing to use science to make these decisions, which, by the way, come from the medical community, not the government. By the way, I got cancer in my 40s and I could feel the lump but it did NOT show up on a mammogram, only ultrasound. Unfortunately, with younger women, cancers often don't appear on mammograms because of dense breast tissue. Don't you think that's important to know and consider?

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 07:45 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

      • Then don't you think the panel should have recommended no mammograms before 50 but sonograms after 40? My dr always has both done for his patients, btw.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.20.09, 07:47 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

        • Yes, I do, if it is the case that cancers are picked up by sonograms. I know that currently studies are being done about MRIs -- there is thought that they might be good for women with high risk factors, although not useful for everyone (too many false positives).

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.20.09, 07:51 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

    • i think too many ppl on this board are so blinded by obama's charm that they refuse to look at this with a clear perspective that maybe it is a little troubling.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 07:46 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

      • ??? The group that put out the guidelines has nothing to do with Obama. They weren't appointed by him and they started the work that lead to the recommendations long before he was president. I think you're the one that lacks a clear perspective - like maybe the difference between politics and science?

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.20.09, 07:47 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

      • Wow, what an intelligent comment! You are correct, the guidelines for cancer screening were changed because Pres. Obama decided to hell with mammograms, they are just too expensive. We would be far better off if our country was run by rational people like Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly, who use reason and intelligence to make every decision.

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.20.09, 07:49 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

        • I agree 100%. People are so blinded by Obama's eloquent speaking that they don't realize he is driving this country into the ground. Trillions of dollars being spent on healthcare reform and it the new cancer screening recommendations is only a "conicidence". Yea right.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.20.09, 07:56 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

          • Of course! Obama really wants to make sure those trillions go right in the pocket of insurance companies because that's what he's all about. He does NOT want to make sure people who don't have insurance can get it -- that's just a lie he says in order to make sure insurance execs get lots of dough! If we had President Sarah Palin, she'd definitely make sure every woman, rich or poor, got a mammogram at age 40 because she believes with all her heart in spending taxpayers money to make sure even the poorest women get great medical care!

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.20.09, 07:59 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

            • wow

              [ Reply | Options ]
              11.20.09, 08:02 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

              • It's possible you missed the sarcasm above!

                [ Reply | Options ]
                11.20.09, 08:03 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

                • ^^^but, I do love how people can believe Obama is both a socialist and also only interested in giving money to big business. It's takes a certain ability to believe two contradictory ideas at the same time, and I guess I'm just lacking it. However, posters like the above and people like Palin and O'Reilly have that special ability to argue two contradictory things are true! It's quite amazing!

                  [ Reply | Options ]
                  11.20.09, 08:06 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

    • Do you honestly think the government is this coordinated? And I work for the government!

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 07:55 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

      • Of course she believes this! She believes that the government is fantastically coordinated and yet completely inept at the same time!

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.20.09, 08:08 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

        • No...Obama isn't a socialist. He is eliminating bonuses, firing ceo's, creating healthcare system controlled by the govt....let's see what else....but no he isn't a socialist. Oh I forgot he is telling oil speculators what the true price for oil should be, because you know he pretty much knows everything.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.20.09, 09:02 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

  • [-]3 1/2 yo ds will not be potty trained. I am wohm and have a decent nanny. If I have to change another diaper will scream! What do I do?

    7 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
    11.20.09, 06:27 AM [ Flag ]

    • Shouldn't your nanny be able to do it? My nanny is "pre-training" DS by having him used to sit on the potty so that when he is old enough to be trained, he won't scream from having to sit on the potty.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 06:42 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

    • Why won't he be? What role are you taking in it? This is one area where I did not let my kids tell me when they were ready. Just before age 3, I told them both they were too old for diapers, we threw them away, and we were done with them. It was as much a mental shift for me and their caregivers as it was for them. But sooooo worth it.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 06:46 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

      • Currently potty-training a boy and I agree it's really hard! Wanted to chime in that this boot camp approach does work sometimes -- my SIL did this with her ds when he turned 3 and it actually worked within a couple of days!

        [ Reply | Options ]
        11.20.09, 06:54 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

        • I have tried boot camp on the w/ends with him and he just pees all over the house and waits until bed to poop.

          [ Reply | Options ]
          11.20.09, 07:19 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

          • You need more than a weekend (we needed 4 days) and you have to prep him and you mentally. Find 4 days when you can deal with being 10 feet from the bathroom and NEVER leave his side. I loved the three-day-potty training method (you can find it online).

            [ Reply | Options ]
            11.20.09, 07:24 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

    • i am a wohm and my nanny would sit him on potty a few times a day - but really i did it over the course of one weekend - he was not ready until 3 1/2 either.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 07:19 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

    • We "gave the diapers to the babies" and we "weren't allowed to buy more because the babies need them." It worked. Lies. All lies.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 09:00 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

  • [-]Is Clomid 50mg usually the first thing doctors give you after you try for a few months? I am 39 and have been trying only for 2 months but doc said to try Clomid this cycle, given my age. WWYD?

    8 replies [ Reply | Watch | Options ]
    11.20.09, 05:52 AM [ Flag ]

    • After having taken Clomid for six cycles I read that more and more literature suggestst that Clomid fixes certain things -- e.g., if you are not ovulating or if have pcos -- but doesn't do much for unexplained infertility. Yet it has become standard 'first line of defense'. If I was you (and I was) I would waste no time, find out what the underlying problem is (if you can) and use the most direct means to address it.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 06:06 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

    • Agreeing with the post above, though I'm not BTDT, it seems that more and more ob/gyns are leaping to try it before doing a real assessment of the fertility issues. Via friends who have gone that route, I'd encourage you to really read up on it because while it can fix certain specific problems it can also create other obstacles (lessen cervical fluid, etc.). I'm almost 39, so I know the sense of urgency, but two months of trying also really isn't that long. Are you doing all the "cycle tracking" you can (temp, OPKs, cervical fluid, etc.)?

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 06:12 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

    • I hope you are seeing a fertility doctor and not a regular ob/gyn. If you are seeing a RE (fertility) clomid and IUI would be the first step. If that doesn't work, they could introduce injectables to help you produce more eggs (with iui). If that doesn't work, given your age, I would go straight to IVF and not waste time. Good luck.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 06:12 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

    • op: I have an appointment with an RE for next month but obgyn prescrbied Clomid and I am wondering I should use it this cycle while I am waiting to see RE. Thanks for all your responses.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 06:38 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

    • I used Clomid 50mg only 1 time and became pregnant with my son. My OB suggested we try 3 cycles before being referred to fertility doctor. I also highly recommend using ovalation kit. Good luck

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 06:52 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

    • BTDT - also 39 when we started trying, after 6 mos, OB then RE tried us on 3 rounds of 100mg Clomid/IUI without success. First IVF cycle = 1 DC, 2nd IVF cycle = 2 DCs. I would agree with previous posters that I wouldn't waste a lot of time on Clomid, particularily if your infertility is unexplained but after only 2 mos, you probably don't even know if an issue exists. Glad you are going to an RE for a full work-up so you'll know how best to proceed. In the meantime tho, I don't see the harm in doing Clomid. Good luck!

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 07:27 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]

    • After having unexplained infertility for FOUR years, I determined on my own that I had a short luteal phase. I had no idea Clomid would be helpful for this (because I was ovulating each month like clockwork), but after doing my own research on medical websites, I discovered that Clomid was known to help with this. I went to my OB, took 1 round of Clomid, and got pregnant. I have another friend who got pregnant after her second round, and then lots of others for whom Clomid was the "gateway drug" to IUI, IVF, etc. So you never know.

      [ Reply | Options ]
      11.20.09, 07:42 AM [ Flag | link to this post ]
refresh »

Your settings

Stages
Regions
Select all

Log in to save selected filters as your default.

Numbers in parentheses are the number of posts in that category.

advertisement

Most Watched Posts

Most Popular Topics

advertisement
Click Here

UrbanBaby Asks...

Are you or your partner ever naked in front of your children?

Already voted? View Results

See previous polls »

Boards Help

Abbreviations
More Boards Help


Flashback