AudiOn19s Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 RIP. Her story is my worst nightmare. My wife's diagnosis earlier this year came at the same age as Speilman's did. The thought that she'd no longer be here with me in 10 years time crushes me...literally just made me cry at my desk Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sciongirl Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 very sad news indeed... i cant imagine what Chris and his family is going through Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceGhost Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 RIP. Her story is my worst nightmare. My wife's diagnosis earlier this year came at the same age as Speilman's did. The thought that she'd no longer be here with me in 10 years time crushes me...literally just made me cry at my desk Andy I understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwashmycar Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 best wishes to her family. going to be tough but im certain theyll continue all the great work theyve been doing! Really is inspiring Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrblunt Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 So let me ask you this, say a 35 year old woman asks her doctor for the test, he says no because your not "old" enough. You then call your insurance company and they say no because your not old enough for the test. You request a letter stating this and get one. Every news article I've seen on this has stated that doctors are saying to disregard the recommendation. Again if you feel like something is wrong your doctor isn't going to say no. The doctor is worried about the patients well being. Our insurance company doesnt cover mammograms when my wife called for coverage. I can guarantee that if we feel something is wrong with her I'm not going to say sorry its not covered your S.O.L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Better safe than sorry. With breast cancer very common, there is no reason to increase to age 50. So let me ask you this, say a 35 year old woman asks her doctor for the test, he says no because your not "old" enough. You then call your insurance company and they say no because your not old enough for the test. You request a letter stating this and get one. 6 months - 1 year goes by and said woman ends up with the begining stages of breast cancer, should the woman be able to sue the insurance company? I say yes. Insurance companys suck when it comes to saving your lives. It merely just a statistical answer, and should be chosen based on the doctor patient relationship, case by case. Trust me no one likes the insurance company's including me. And this only gives them more ammunition to block care, in a time when our government is trying to reform the insurance system...Good ole Nancy strikes again! I agree that pre screening can be effective at saving lives, but the argument currently happening in American medicine is to what extent is it effective, and again unfortunately the data seems to suggest we spend a lot more time chasing our tails then finding breast cancer. To me its similar to the war in Afghanistan, yes we are making positive ground but at what expense, and I don't have that answer. It is a shame is has to ferment to this theory, but what is the 1 life worth saved, due to all the expense used. I know if my mother is the one life, then to me its at all costs, but you also have to assume a larger picture, which is the current argument in the medical world. Also typically in self examinations the lumps are around 1cm or larger which indicatives the cells have long been growing, typically for well over a year, so self examination really is not going to prevent anything, per say, the damage or growth has already accumulated to dangerous levels by the point of touch. Bill it is not the insurance company job to save lives, that is the doctors. Sadly you are right though, they play with the power of life far to often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 There was a prayer vigil last night outside of their house...lots of support. Terrible news about a true fighter. I don't think people can really appreciate what fighting cancer for 12 years does to a person physically, mentally, emotionally...she really did FIGHT for so long. As someone close to breast cancer cases every day, I truly feel for the Spielmans and their friends and family affected by Stefanie's loss. Also, I am insulted at the gov't guidelines for mammograms being raised to 50 years of age. Fucking idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrblunt Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 It merely just a statistical answer, and should be chosen based on the doctor patient relationship, case by case. Trust me no one likes the insurance company's including me. And this only gives them more ammunition to block care, in a time when our government is trying to reform the insurance system...Good ole Nancy strikes again! I agree that pre screening can be effective at saving lives, but the argument currently happening in American medicine is to what extent is it effective, and again unfortunately the data seems to suggest we spend a lot more time chasing our tails then finding breast cancer. To me its similar to the war in Afghanistan, yes we are making positive ground but at what expense, and I don't have that answer. It is a shame is has to ferment to this theory, but what is the 1 life worth saved, due to all the expense used. I know if my mother is the one life, then to me its at all costs, but you also have to assume a larger picture, which is the current argument in the medical world. Also typically in self examinations the lumps are around 1cm or larger which indicatives the cells have long been growing, typically for well over a year, so self examination really is not going to prevent anything, per say, the damage or growth has already accumulated to dangerous levels by the point of touch. Bill it is not the insurance company job to save lives, that is the doctors. Sadly you are right though, they play with the power of life far to often. Well said sir. I seriously don't understand why everyone is so full of piss and vinegar over that panels recommendation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudiOn19s Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Well said sir. I seriously don't understand why everyone is so full of piss and vinegar over that panels recommendation. To be honest a year ago I would have been right there with you guys. Seeing medical insurance costs raise and cost me money got on my last nerve. Put yourself in my shoes. I'm a year older than you are now and on the other side of the fence watching my wife struggle to fight the disease. I actually feel like shit because I played off my wife's lump as nothing and discouraged her from initially getting her mamograme. While the statistic of 1 in 1300 mamogrames actually results in detection makes them seem like a waste, the stat that might be more alarming is 1 in 8 women are likely to develop breast cancer at some point in life. The younger you are the more serious it is no matter what the staging is. I'd argue it'd be a good idea to lower the age they start screening knowing what I know now. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritas Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 So many things people are lacking common sense with this past year has been made painfully apparent to me. The age should be 21 for females to get covered for their females parts period. The earlier you can detect something the better. Some people will not make it to 50, as the case with Mrs. Spielman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 To be honest a year ago I would have been right there with you guys. Seeing medical insurance costs raise and cost me money got on my last nerve. Put yourself in my shoes. I'm a year older than you are now and on the other side of the fence watching my wife struggle to fight the disease. I actually feel like shit because I played off my wife's lump as nothing and discouraged her from initially getting her mamograme. While the statistic of 1 in 1300 mamogrames actually results in detection makes them seem like a waste, the stat that might be more alarming is 1 in 8 women are likely to develop breast cancer at some point in life. The younger you are the more serious it is no matter what the staging is. I'd argue it'd be a good idea to lower the age they start screening knowing what I know now. Andy Well said. I'm right there with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiumss Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 So many things people are lacking common sense with this past year has been made painfully apparent to me. The age should be 21 for females to get covered for their females parts period. The earlier you can detect something the better. Some people will not make it to 50, as the case with Mrs. Spielman Exactly! In the long run, it's far cheaper to do a test every year than do treatment for Cancer and hope you live a long life. Even though it is a recommendation, there will be so many doctors that will accept it and many women will get screwed. This is no different for us guys with Prostate cancer. We should be checked earlier than recommended as well. You gotta catch it before it gets out of control... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotCarl Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 I didnt hear this until Rimmer made an announcement during the CBJ game, sending out their condolence's. Sad day, I just heard Spielman on the radio yesterday I hope it was a recording god know's i wouldnt work just after my wife passes. Sad day, she/they did alot for the community especially breat cancer awareness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Exactly! In the long run, it's far cheaper to do a test every year than do treatment for Cancer and hope you live a long life. Even though it is a recommendation, there will be so many doctors that will accept it and many women will get screwed. This is no different for us guys with Prostate cancer. We should be checked earlier than recommended as well. You gotta catch it before it gets out of control... All at what cost, you think your insurance is expensive now, add in 20 more years of breast screening... Again we have to be rational, and yes you can save some lives with very early screening, but you can just as easily save as many lives with more drunk driving enforcement. You have to think about this with the mindset of statistics, and the best information available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulo Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Hats off to the Spielmans. It really puts things in perspective. Chris giving up so much that he knows and loves to help and support what is really most important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinisterSS Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Her son also works with me at Saturn. I created a collection to help Nick out during his unpaid time from work, someone did it for me last year when my mom died of cancer. wow small world, I didn't know you worked at that saturn dealership Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye1647545503 Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 rip they are good people, sad to hear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiumss Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 Again we have to be rational, and yes you can save some lives with very early screening, but you can just as easily save as many lives with more drunk driving enforcement. Thats indirecting saving lives. I have a wife and daughter thats why I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.