Diana Raabe's Comments

The Future of News Summit Intro by Julia Schrenkler

Nov 19, 2009 | rating: 10 | comments: 10

Diana Raabe Nov 19, 2009, 1:12pm EST

This was a fascinating discussion and a valuable way to engage. I hope we see more like this in the [near] future.

Open discussion: The new mammogram guidelines by Julia Schrenkler

Nov 18, 2009 | rating: 10 | comments: 13

in reply to a comment by KittyMommy2u W.

Diana Raabe Nov 18, 2009, 7:42pm EST

I think the guidelines are a long way's away from adoption. Plus, if you are high risk they won't apply anyway.

I hear you on the insurance company problem (thousands upon thousands of dollars later). Don't get me started.

Open discussion: The new mammogram guidelines by Julia Schrenkler

Nov 18, 2009 | rating: 10 | comments: 13

in reply to a comment by KittyMommy2u W.

Diana Raabe Nov 18, 2009, 6:40pm EST

Kitty: That is unfortunate and it's my understanding that genetics play a great role (albeit not the only one) in determining cancer risk.

So, according to AMA guidelines, the women in your family should be getting mammograms by the age of 30 (half the age of the relative at the time of their diagnosis) - is that correct?

Is that an appropriate guideline? Should it be earlier? Would you want to be tested more rigorously and at a younger age?

LEFT OF THE RIGHT: How Does The Right get Away With Stupid? by Devin Barber

Nov 17, 2009 | rating: 9.6 | comments: 79

in reply to a comment by Diana Raabe

Diana Raabe Nov 18, 2009, 6:28pm EST

I'm not apologizing for any party - but perhaps I could've done more during the last election cycle to keep Bachmann from getting voted in again. For that, I'm sorry.

No more little monkeys jumping on the bed!!! by Molly O.

Apr 6, 2009 | rating: 10 | comments: 56

Diana Raabe Nov 18, 2009, 3:29pm EST

*ouch*

The Toll - 11/15/09 - Govt. Reports Spotlight Afghan Problems by Dave McGill

Nov 16, 2009 | rating: 10 | comments: 45

in reply to a comment by Dave McGill

Diana Raabe Nov 18, 2009, 2:57pm EST

I just can't imagine the American public putting up with that (and not just because of the monetary cost).

Another Reason For Socialized Medicine: "Study Finds Cancer Diagnosis Linked to Insurance" by Dan H.

Feb 19, 2008 | rating: 9.7 | comments: 32

Diana Raabe Nov 18, 2009, 2:41pm EST

Health care reform is not socialized medicine. To suggest they are one and the same is truly ignorant. Do some reading, people!

Government Task Force Issues New Mammogram Guidelines which Brings Confusion to Many Women by Lady of Lake Merritt ...

Nov 17, 2009 | rating: 8.5 | comments: 17

Diana Raabe Nov 18, 2009, 2:37pm EST

This has nothing to do with the white house. It is not a government-sanctioned mandate of any kind. There is a lot of misconception out there about these new guidelines. You need to educate yourself by hearing both sides of the debate. For one thing, mammography is providing a false sense of security in the medical community. As consumers of health care, we need to demand the BEST methods of detecting and curing breast cancer - and all other cancers, too. Just because mammography is available and, up until now, may have been (MAY have been) the best tool out there, this should not preclude researchers, physicians and scientists from finding a better way - a safer way that does not put us at risk for other cancers - to detect breast cancer.

Did you know that mammography has become a mandate? That's a different discussion altogether - but one that should be addressed.

Regardless of this new debate and irrespective of any "guidelines", please use common sense: If you find a lump or any other sign of cancer, see your doctor immediately.

LEFT OF THE RIGHT: How Does The Right get Away With Stupid? by Devin Barber

Nov 17, 2009 | rating: 9.6 | comments: 79

in reply to a comment by Devin Barber

Diana Raabe Nov 18, 2009, 2:23pm EST

Like brainwashing? Why else would so many people vote against their own best interests - especially considering that their own best interests take precedence over anyone else's?

LEFT OF THE RIGHT: How Does The Right get Away With Stupid? by Devin Barber

Nov 17, 2009 | rating: 9.6 | comments: 79

Diana Raabe Nov 18, 2009, 2:21pm EST

Devin, you're right; it's utterly baffling. As a Minnesotan, I am truly embarrassed by Ms. Bachmann - time and time again - and I apologize to the rest of the country. I'm not in her district, but close enough to be working harder on behalf of her opponent. And I will.

How she ever got through law school is a mystery, indeed, except that I know an awful lot of stupid lawyers. Really stupid. There must be another way to get those passing grades than earning them through smarts and good study practices...

Open discussion: The new mammogram guidelines by Julia Schrenkler

Nov 18, 2009 | rating: 10 | comments: 13

Diana Raabe Nov 18, 2009, 1:52pm EST

I think there are some misconceptions about the new guidelines. First, they are not a "government" thing; they are a "medical professionals" thing. Secondly, as Tom pointed out, the new guidelines are only for NOT AT RISK patients. This phrase has been largely left out of the conversations I've heard. Third, there is medical evidence proving that repeated exposure to radiation is harmful and, in fact, puts you at a higher risk of getting many cancers (if not all of them). Fourth, it was a government panel who formed an opinion largely based on politics that decided annual mammograms the "gold standard" for all women. Fifth, the false reliance on mammography is keeping the medical community from researching and finding a better way to deal with breast cancer. Sixth, the decrease (3%? - not sure) in deaths due to breast cancer being cited by the AMA is due to better chemotherapy, not earlier detection, according to Dr. Susan Love ("The Breast Doctor") who has sanctioned the new guidelines.

Having said that, this discussion should never be about saving money; it should be about saving lives and the value of life itself. If one life is worth no more or less than another (and it's not!), let's talk about the safety of women who want/need abortions and can't get them.

I'll just add that common sense should always prevail: if you feel a lump (or notice any other warning signs of cancer), get it checked out - period.

The Toll - 11/15/09 - Govt. Reports Spotlight Afghan Problems by Dave McGill

Nov 16, 2009 | rating: 10 | comments: 45

Diana Raabe Nov 17, 2009, 10:43am EST

40,000 troops at $40-54 Billion/year? But for how long? If they sent 85,000 troops for one year or less, but were able to knock out the infrastructure of the enemy (not physical infrastructure), could that end up being less expensive and less taxing (in more ways than one)?

I think there is no answer; we need to redefine the mission.

Going Rogue – Substantive Policy Book? by Chuck L.

Nov 16, 2009 | rating: 6.9 | comments: 113

Diana Raabe Nov 16, 2009, 7:45pm EST

By the way, you can pre-order the other Palin book, "The Lies of Sarah Palin: the Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power" by Geoffrey Dunn now. It hits the shelves in April 2010.

"Pre-order Price Guarantee! Order now for $17.15 and if the Amazon.com price decreases between your order time and the end of the day of the release date, you'll receive the lowest price. Here's how (restrictions apply)."

Going Rogue – Substantive Policy Book? by Chuck L.

Nov 16, 2009 | rating: 6.9 | comments: 113

Diana Raabe Nov 16, 2009, 7:33pm EST

Limbaugh's statement only makes me wonder what kind of books on policy he actually has read.

It was interesting that while on a major book tour/campaign junket, Mrs. Palin - traveling without her baby - made a point of chastising Levi What's-his-name for playing the media darling instead of spending time with his son...

Bill Maher: Vaccination: A Conversation Worth Having by Johnice R.

Nov 16, 2009 | comments: 55

Diana Raabe Nov 16, 2009, 5:11pm EST

Jonas Salk would certainly be rolling his eyes about now if it were possible. Johnice, you are correct about the likely price of these vaccines if big pharma were taking "credit" for them. The vaccines are being distributed in a way that is much different from the way drugs like antibiotics or viagra are. That's one major reason why we get them the way we do.

If consumers are so worried about "untested" or "young" drugs, why is viagra so popular? Or anti-depressants? Or osteoporosis drugs? The CDC is very clear about the dangers, efficacy and origin of the H1N1 vaccine on its website.

Aside from that, this is still a free country. If you don't want the d*** thing, don't get it.

40 Years Ago - A Time We All Need to Remember by Sheryl O.

Jul 14, 2009 | rating: 9.7 | comments: 92

Diana Raabe Nov 15, 2009, 7:06pm EST

That was a wonderful time (and this is a wonderful piece!). I think we'll make it to Mars - someday - and it will be grand.

By the way, I think we had a Galaxie 500, too.

HOLLYWOOD POV: "Precious: Based on the Novel PUSH by Sapphire" by Digital Dogs

Nov 14, 2009 | rating: 10 | comments: 12

Diana Raabe Nov 15, 2009, 5:36pm EST

Great review, DD.

the contrarian - Sarah Palin Wins Top Award by Dave McGill

Nov 15, 2009 | rating: 8.5 | comments: 69

Diana Raabe Nov 15, 2009, 5:35pm EST

As they say on DWTS, "10!"

Opinions are NOT Created Equal. by Chuck L.

Nov 15, 2009 | rating: 7.4 | comments: 148

in reply to a comment by Marilyn M.

Diana Raabe Nov 15, 2009, 2:43pm EST

Marilyn - sorry about your son. Autism (which represents an umbrella for a wide variety of conditions and depths thereof, including "Asperger's" for which the diagnostic criteria is changing and will ultimately be eliminated as a separate medical condition in and of itself) presents a number of difficulties. So I'm sending some empathy your way.

Exactly which of all the shots do you believe caused the Asperger's in your son? You make it sound like there were several administered around the same time.

Personal About Politics: Stupak Creates Sticking Point for Health Care Reform with Abortion. by Cheri Cabot

Nov 13, 2009 | rating: 9.4 | comments: 99

in reply to a comment by Diana Raabe

Diana Raabe Nov 14, 2009, 1:15pm EST

Furthermore, they don't seem to understand that the kind of society that would restrict all abortions is the very same kind of society that would demand them.