if changing the oil in your car every 6000 km is good, then changing it every 4000 is better, and every 2000 better still. So why not every 1000 klicks? there is certainly a point of diminishing returns, where you're better off spending your dollars on something else. only determining where that point lies is open to debate.

when and how often to get a mammogram is a judgement call, the point is, do you make that decision based on the combined research of the legitimate medical agencies that were contracted to do that study, or do you rely on on the advice of those who are in the mammogram marketing business (radiologists and the cancer industry). as far as "centralizing" the decision making process, what's the diff between the government and an insurance company doing the rationing? when the private sector economizes, its prerogatives are fiercely defended by its supporters, but when the government tries to do it suddenly it's herr doctor mengele.

all procedures handled on a risk/benefit basis (such as at what ages should colonoscopies be scheduled, or different prostate treatment strategies be initiated, fellas) are handled by guidelines arrived at from statistical studies. insurance companies use actuaries (who take into account profit and loss calculations as well as strictly medical probabilities).

the fact remains, if you still want to send your pre-pubescent daughters to get mammograms, that's your call, no one's putting a gun to your head and telling you you can't pay for it yourself.

this "death panel" obfuscation strategy reveals the total lack of conscience of the right on this issue. they bitterly attack the government for even considering tactics they insist the private sector must be guaranteed the right to use as it sees fit. its like spreading the rumour among the aged that the government wants to pay for health reform by gutting medicare.