That usually gets both men and women’s attention.
In light of the healthcare debate today (oy vey), there’s a piece of the legislation that is clearly indicative of the whole piece of crap. In the socialist nightmare that is the healthcare bill, there are “recommendations against mammograms for women in their 40s.”
Now, as a 38-year old woman who is approaching this 40-something milestone and who has already had three mammograms in her life combined with a biopsy on a benign thing in at least one of her breasts (at age 34, mind you), this information made my ears perk up a bit. And rightly so. And if you’re a woman with fabulous boobs that you would like to keep healthy without having someone tell you when it’s “appropriate” to do so according to age (and bureaucratic red tape), your ears should be perking up, too.
It’s called rationing, people. Or at least the start of it.
And Republican women, at least, are actually calling it what it is:
“One of the real dangers, I think, that we are talking about with this health care proposal that the Democrats have put before us is the concern about rationing,” said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) on Friday, calling the mammograms recommendations “a peek under the curtain, if you will, of what we can anticipate with a government-run program.”
“This is how rationing begins,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said Tuesday.
“This is the little toe in the edge of the water. And this is where we start getting a bureaucrat between you and your physician. As we have gone through this health care debate over the past several months, this is what we have warned about.”
Of course, the Dems are calling the Republicans actually taking heed of this crap, well, “bizarre” and “outright low,” blaming our irrational beliefs on fear of cancer.
Um, DUH. Fearing cancer is a BAD thing now? WTF?
See, the White House is using this thing called “comparative effectiveness research” to reduce health care costs. Because health care, in their minds, is about economics. Not health. Or innovation. Or HUMAN FREAKIN BEINGS. Regardless of what they spew to the masses who think they’re doing this to help everyone get medical care.
I call major B.S. on that. It’s NOT going to lower the deficit – it’ll just add to it, and if you have any common sense whatsoever, you know this. It’s putting a bureaucrat in the way of you and your doctor. And it’s putting people like Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in a position to tell American women to “ignore the new guidelines” that the medical community puts forth on things like breast care and mammograms.
And the debate on this monstrosity is today.
And guess what, clever and competent readers? This is just a TINY, itty-bitty portion of the massive, craptastic bill that’s being debated on today.
Can I get a YAY for democracy? Oh yeah.
They also cut back the recommendations on PAP smears. I noticed the party of the feminists threw women under the bus rather quickly.
Mammogram, schmammogram. Did y’all see where they say that breast self-exams are not only unnecessary, they should not even be taught?
While I love boobs as much as the next guy, maybe more since they were the primary source of nourishment for all of my seven children, this is about lives being more important than proving costs associated with Pelosi/Reid/Obama care will save money.
I’m sure Pelosi and Hillary will still receive theirs.
Punky – that’s because they won’t have to actually HAVE Obamacare. Last I heard, all of Congress won’t be subjected to it – that whole “great for thee, but not for me!” phenomenon. Go figure.
funny….i didn’t hear a word from alan grayson (“republicans want people to die”)
maybe alan just wants females to die early.
As someone who has had breast cancer three times and has been on both a statewide and a national board – I have to tell you how wrong you are in your opinions that this is “rationing.” Those of us fighting the breast cancer wars have long known how ineffective current methods of detection are in actually extending lives following a breast cancer diagnosis. Let me give you a clear example – my Virginia breast cancer organization used to spend thousands of dollars every year on shower cards teaching and reminding women about monthly breast self exams. Guess what was determined – the expense of these cards in no way improved mortality and so we stopped producing the same. This does NOT mean women should not notice changes in their breasts through knowledge of their own bodies it just meant that it was a waste of money to produce these cards and that money could have been spent better elsewhere. Your knee jerk reaction that this was the first step of rationing under the Democratic healthcare plan is so not supported by evidenced based data. Please, please raise your level of discussion. It is a complete disservice to all of us in the breast cancer wars who have been fighting for years to find better methods of detection – and not hold on to outmoded ideas which have been determined to be ineffective.
Proud independent -
Please tell me, then, how this plan will HELP people with breast cancer. Specifically, what is in it that you believe will save more lives? In fact, how will it help everyone with every kind of cancer? Because, while yes, my response may have been knee-jerk, I don’t see how, if you look at it logically, this plan will help with increasing OTHER methods of detection if they’re already saying that mammograms won’t be necessary. If mammograms aren’t deemed necessary by the bureaucrats in charge (that aren’t doctors, mind you), then what other methods of detection won’t be worthy, either? And do you feel as though a bunch of glorified lawyers and out-of-touch government heads are capable of making these types of decisions for you?
Let’s raise the level. I’m listening.
I am sorry, but I don’t even know what you are asking me. The bureaucrats are not the ones that changed the recommended screening guidelines with regards to mammograms – it was the scientists reviewing the data. Research is continuing all of the time to find newer, better methods of detection. Mammograms are all we have but extremely ineffective for younger women with more dense breast tissue (I had a mammogram that missed two tumors so I know of what I speak). What we in the breast cancer world want is money to be focused on additional research to find a better way of detection. As can be expected, I have been following this issue closely for years – not just the past week – and know that the new guidelines recommended this week are something that has needed to be put in place for a long time.
As an aside – what this blog has written about this whole breast cancer issue has depressed me greatly. Your whole point was totally and completely partisan and so off base as to the facts. How can we have a serious discussion about important issues related to healthcare if this is the level of discourse?
OK – so to rephrase my question – do you believe that this plan will increase innovation and research and better detection methods? How so?
The way I see it, the Government is recommending when a woman should have medical testing. Or in this case not have it. That is the problem. The government has no business making any recommendation on when anyone should or should not receive medical treatment or tests. Everyone is different and not just a number on a stat sheet. I can understand that a lot can be missed on younger woman but it is still better at this time than nothing. A mammogram is no guarantee to find everything on older woman for that matter. As far as the scientists’ recommending waiting for an older age, I have no problem with and that information should be passed along to the medical industry (Doctors) as I’m sure it is. Then the woman’s doctor can evaluate her personal case and coupled with the latest scientific data, make a determination if he thinks a mammogram would be of benefit to her based on her age and condition. A determination made by the woman and her doctor without any government pressure or interference. The way it should be. Why does the government feel the need to recommend something across the board instead of case by case. It is not their business.
Too bad Proud Independent went away. I was looking forward to her response.
Now, I will agree with her about the fact that Daisy’s response is a little Knee-Jerk.
To call this a slippery slope to rationing is a little unfair. Rationing is a good thing. The opposite of rationing is unlimited access and that’s the BIG problem with the sociali…errr universal model for healthcare. That’ll mean crazy big lines for any program. So, rationing is actually good. Although, it’s best if it is self-imposed rationing.
So, rationing is not all bad. Rationing imposed by govt is well…fascist, I think.
The word that jumps out at me is “scientist.” You know those money grubbing prostitutes that sell their souls and the essence of true science, at the government trough. I am especially skeptical that the “scientists” have chosen this week to come out in support of suggested governmental guidelines on this imminently personal matter. It is not merely convenient, it is pandering in the grossest sense of the term – they (the government and their sycophants in the media and academic communities) are so over the top in their contempt for the citizens it is unbelievable.
I’m still waiting for a response as well. As much as I may be knee-jerk in my response to this (and I’ll fully admit that based on the successes of government-run crap throughout history), Proud Independent’s knee-jerk reaction is to tell me how wrong I am in thinking that – yet there is absolutely no data to tell me why this new plan will far surpass all the other failed government-run things of the past.
I won’t hold my breath on the answer.
Proud Independent is not so proud after all. Bottom line is mammograms are currently all we have and those same mammograms are detecting breast cancer in younger women. CHECK THE STATS! I did, and I also talked to a few medical professionals, including my own doctor, who pointed out that government guidelines, for good or ill, are always used for the determination of what is supported and payed for, even by the private sector. Where in the heck do you guys think the old phrase came from “If it’s good enough for the government, it’s good enough for me!”?
Until another better form is put forth that can better detect breast cancer, a mammogram is a woman’s only hope. Take away the mammogram and you take away the hope.
Happy to hear that you all missed me! Sometimes a girl has got to sleep and go to work. Daisy has asked how the new healthcare bill will save women’s lives – the answer to that is easy. I have many, many friends and know of many other women who CANNOT get health insurance because of their breast cancer – which is a huge pre-existing condition. I also know of women who have lost their health insurance following diagnosis. If this one change is in the proposed health care bill – the impact on a women’s life with a breast cancer diagnosis is huge. For all you free market advocates out there – of which I am one – think of this: What if I wanted to start my own business? (I now work for a large corporation and will not leave until I am 65 because of health insurance). I could not because I am uninsurable and will not put my family’s financial future at risk if I was diagnosed again. Think of all of the people all over the country who would love to start their own business – which are the drivers of employment – but cannot because they are tied to their health insurance.
I also want to emphasize that these guidelines were not set by the government, but by
cont.
healthcare professionals. I just listened to the foremost breast cancer expert – Dr. Susan Love – in this country on Dr. Oz and she is completely supportive of these new guidelines. Again, what I objected to in the initial blog response to this issue was the knee jerk reaction that this was some sort of a Democratic plot to ration healthcare. So far from the truth. Majordawg is correct – the reality is that we cannot afford every single person getting every single test anytime they want it.
Again, what I am looking for is reasonable discussions to complex issues.
Just re-read Daisy’s questions and realized she was asking whether or not this current plan will create more incentive to find new and better treatments. I think you are combining two issues. Insurance companies currently do not drive how research dollars are allocated – and I cannot imagine under this new bill that will change. The payment for health insurance services has always been separate from the research. What I am sure you don’t know is how involved the government currently is in research – and how effective this research has been. Since 1990 the amazing strides that have been made in improving the treatment for breast cancer have been astounding – and the majority of these changes have come about by government funded research. Every December there is a huge medical conference devoted solely to breast cancer. Year after year new advances are announced at this conference. Today, 75% of all breast cancers are cured. This is an astounding percent. I know most reading this blog believe government cannot do anything right, but in this instance, every one that has a mother, sister, female friend, should give thanks for all the excellent government funded research that has brought about these amazing statistics.
Here’s perspective from another breast cancer survivor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeiyUn2iNEE&feature=player_embedded
And another from a husband of one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8-J2LDRSO8
Oh yeah – and that whole notion of this legislation being the almighty answer to insurance reform/improvement?
Not so much (and this is a Democrat talking here, mind you):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OhX4FOEf1Y
Again, just because a panel of experts on breast cancer who have been studying and researching this issue for years, recommend that current screening methods are inadequate does not equate to the rationing of health care. I am happy that treatment guidelines have changed over time. If I had been diagnosed 15 years ago, my mastectomy would have encompassed taking almost all of my chest muscle and 15 to 20 lymphnodes. I would have been grossly disfigured and left with lymphedema in my arm. New treatment guidelines are a good thing. I am still appalled that this has been used for partisan political purposes. It just depresses me that our political discourse has been reduced to this.
Proud Independent – More partisan crap to digest. Seems as though a large majority of people in this country think this plan is a bunch of B.S…
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/81-disagree-with-new-government-rationed-mammogram-rules/