A Doctor and a Scientist Explain how Obamacare wastes Money and Hurts Women

There is a brilliant new article at Mercola health that explains exactly how Obamacare hurts women while wasting Billions of our hard-earned dollars.

One particular area of concern in women’s health is from breast cancer, and Mercola explains that Obamacare forces our nation to spend billions of dollars needlessly in an effort to combat the deadly cancer.

Trending: W. Doubles Down During Kavanaugh Debacle with Words of Wisdom

The author uses the excellent research of Dr. Andrew Lazris and scientist Erik Rifkin to underline one (of many) reasons that Americans should dump Obamacare for better healthcare answers.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

 

More from Mercola:

1 in 1,000 Women Are Saved by Regular Mammogram Screening While 10 Undergo Cancer Treatment for No Reason

Incredible as it may sound, the 20 percent mortality risk reduction touted by conventional medicine actually amounts to just 1 woman per 1,000 who get regular mammograms. How can that be? As explained in the video, for every 1,000 women who do not get mammograms, five of them will die of breast cancer. For every 1,000 women who do get mammograms, four will die anyway.

The difference between the two groups is 20 percent (the difference of that one person in the mammogram group whose life is saved). On the other side of the equation, out of every 1,000 women who get regular mammograms over a lifetime:

  • HALF will receive a false positive. So while they do NOT have cancer, about 500 out of every 1,000 women getting mammograms will face the terror associated with a breast cancer diagnosis.
  • 64 will get biopsies, which can be painful and carry risks of adverse effects.
  • 10 will go on to receive cancer treatment for what is in actuality NOT cancer, including disfiguring surgery and toxic drugs or radiation. Surgery, chemo and radiation are all risky, and dying from the treatment for a cancer you do not have is doubly tragic.

Billions Wasted on Ineffective and Harmful Breast Cancer Screening

Last year, just in time for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, researchers published an analysis of U.S. cancer statistics collected by the government in order to estimate the effectiveness of mammography.12,13,14,15,16,17

Comparing records of breast cancers diagnosed in women over the age of 40 between 1975 and 1979 — a time before mammograms came into routine use — and between 2000 and 2002, they discovered that the incidence of large tumors (2 centimeters or larger) has declined, from 68 percent to 32 percent.

While this may sound significant, in absolute numbers, the decrease in large tumors was actually rather small — a mere 30 tumors less per 100,000 women. Meanwhile, the number of women diagnosed with small tumors (81 percent of which did not actually need treatment) increased from 36 to 64 percent, and the incidence of metastatic cancer, which is the most lethal, remained stable.

It should be quite clear by now that findings such as these are no fluke. At least a dozen studies18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30 have now reached the conclusion that mammograms harm more women than they help and, in the end, have no impact on overall mortality rates.

According to a study published in Health Affairs in 2015, the U.S. spends a whopping $4 billion each year on false-positive mammograms and breast cancer overdiagnosis among women aged 40 to 59.31 All things considered, is it really a wise use of health care funds to continue pushing for routine mammograms? I would argue that the answer is no. I believe that money can be spent in FAR better ways.

 

Tags

Constitution.com 🇺🇸

I am the supreme law of the United States. Originally comprising seven articles, I delineate the national frame of government. My first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it. I am regarded as the oldest written and codified constitution in force of the world.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.