Via Instapundit, HHS Secretary Sebelius is trying to do some damage control on the recent ’suggestion’ that women stop getting routine mammograms before they’re 50:
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, meanwhile, told women to ignore the new advisory recommendations for now.
“The U.S. Preventive Task Force is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations. They do not set federal policy and they don’t determine what services are covered by the federal government,” said Sebelius in a written statement.
“Our policies remain unchanged,” she said of the federal government. ” Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action.”
A statement that is very comforting… until you remember that the Democratic party’s goal is to establish governmental control over the health care insurance industry. Who here thinks that an insurance company already grimly aware that they exist on governmental sufferance might feel the need to ‘change its mammography coverage decisions’ to reflect current state medical policy? Particularly if there are consequences for not being in compliance with all the laws, regulations, rulings, and opinions that bureaucracies generate more or less automatically. And if the government doesn’t like the idea that people are going to instinctively assume that said bureaucracy is willing to ‘encourage’ ostensibly-private entities to follow bureaucratic dictates, then perhaps the government might like to consider reining in its bureaucrats. As publicly as it can manage.
I’ll end by noting that this is all an inevitable by-product of the health care rationing bill; it is, in fact, why I call it that. More people covered, better service, lower costs: in the best-case scenario, pick any two. In the scenario that we’re going to get, if this passes? We’ll get the first one, and the current ruling party will muck up the second while flagrantly ignoring the third. That’s because the first one is easy, and can be done by lazy people. The other two require work to accomplish.
Moe Lane
PS: Ed Morrissey reports that there are no oncologists on the task force that made the ‘recommendations.’ I really, really hope that this isn’t actually true.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
Moe Lane
bs
Caleb Howe
Dan McLaughlin
Vladimir
Death Panels you can believe in...(WAKE UP AMERICA)
louesc Thursday, November 19th at 3:46AM EST (link)This is there plan they want to dictate to us what they think is best for us. When it comes to our well being in life or death I don’t want the Govt telling me that they want to save money so my mom can’t get the test and she is not worth the extra cost. There nuts! if you don’t believe the article you just read check out the link below and hear it from Obama’s own mouth.
Reject Tyranny and Defend Liberty!
https://www.americanpatriotsprevail.com/Obama_says__just_give_grand.html
Reject Tyranny and Defend Liberty!
Those death panels are now call The Commission...
JadedByPolitics Thursday, November 19th at 6:27AM EST (link)If you are going to wake up America you have to tell them what they are looking for! it is on page 1279 of the Senate version and as I said in another comment LABOR UNIONS are part of The Commission!!!
Whoever has his enemy at his mercy &
does not destroy him is his own enemy
ObamaCare establishes the Commission as the deciding voice
monstermom Thursday, November 19th at 9:24AM EST (link)in what procedures will and will not be covered by the public option. I may have misunderstood this, and base my comments on Dr Healy’s statements on Beck, but Healy said that under the public option the same appointed commission which just said women under 50 and over 75 don’t need mammograms, is the commission which is tasked with grading medical procedures. Only those with an A or B rating will be covered by the public option. Those with C, or lower, ratings will not be covered.
Healy said that the commission’s pronouncement lowered the rating for mammograms for women under 50 and over 75 to a C. That means that the public option will not cover mammograms for women under 50 or over 75.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
Yep, and here's the link to the video
The_Gadfly Thursday, November 19th at 10:43AM EST (link)http://video.foxnews.com/11361166/the-future-of-medicine#/11721905/on-the-road-to-rationed-care/?category_id=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749
Note that Dr. Healy is a former head of the HHS. As for the current occupant of that office, there are basically three options:
1) She’s being disingenuous with her current statement.
2) She is a bald faced liar.
3) She is completely incompetent.
Dr. Healy noted that there are three publishes studies linked to the recommendation, and that this report has to have been in the works for a long time. Too long for Sebelius to be unaware that it was in the works. So I think I’m going with option 3 instead of option 2, and I’m not in the mood to be magnanimous and consider option 1.
We’ve been called racists enough now that it shouldn’t bother us any more.
-AChance, http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/11/03/what-men-may-do-we-have-done/#comment-24463
If NY23 was a beat down for Conservatives, what do you call what happened to Progressives in NJ and VA?
inspired by ColdWarrior, http://www.redstate.com/hooah_mac/2009/11/04/ny-23-the-agony-of-defeat-not-so-much/#comment-156
You can throw that "Save the TaTas" t-shirt away now...
Amy Miller Thursday, November 19th at 6:51AM EST (link)This is cute, especially considering that for the past however many years, we’ve had stats shoved down our throats about how important these checkups are! The fact that there are no oncologists on the panel proves that this is just smoke and mirrors…
A mentor and great friend of mine just lost his wife to breast cancer, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let some bureaucrat insult her memory for the sake of is own agenda.
~A
Tweet Me, It’s Trendy!!!: @amy_m_miller
“Ah, yes, it’s the apocalypse alright. I always thought I’d have a hand in it.”
Ration the TaTa's just doesn't have the same ring to it. :) nt
mschmitt Thursday, November 19th at 6:57AM EST (link)FYI...
mschmitt Thursday, November 19th at 6:58AM EST (link)I posted that without noticing your second paragraph; I didn’t mean to minimize or mean any disrespect.
No, you're absolutely fine mschmitt
Amy Miller Thursday, November 19th at 7:04AM EST (link)I don’t think the administration realizes that these are fighting words. This is a Pandering to Women FAIL. I mean, I’m not a feminist in the most negative sense of the word, but after hearing for years and years that even in spite of my lack of insurance, and the cost of procedures, doctors ENCOURAGE women to have these tests even if they have to save up for them because it could be a matter of life and death…it’s just a little hard to swallow. It’s insulting, and it’s scary, because it shows exactly what their priorities are: they don’t want to take care of people, they’re just worried about the bottom line.
Hopefully, the rest of my peers, and the rest of the country, will WAKE UP!
~A
Tweet Me, It’s Trendy!!!: @amy_m_miller
“Ah, yes, it’s the apocalypse alright. I always thought I’d have a hand in it.”
great quote Amy :)
mom2oneson Thursday, November 19th at 7:49AM EST (link)“I’ll be damned if I’m going to let some bureaucrat insult her memory for the sake of is own agenda”
Complete with typos...
Amy Miller Thursday, November 19th at 8:01AM EST (link)It shows my humanity???
I mean every word
~A
Tweet Me, It’s Trendy!!!: @amy_m_miller
“Ah, yes, it’s the apocalypse alright. I always thought I’d have a hand in it.”
Nobody has coffee yet and they won't be noticed. :) nt
mom2oneson Thursday, November 19th at 8:25AM EST (link)So the federal government sets policy at odds with what docs/scientists say now?
Crowe Thursday, November 19th at 7:28AM EST (link)(Granted, it appears there weren’t any oncologists on the panel, but since that didn’t seem to matter when the government first issued this, it doesn’t matter for my point…)
So there’s a commission of doctors and scientists (i.e., people who should know what they &$#!@# they’re talking about) who makes a recommendation about something ostensibly within their area of expertise and somehow within their authority as a commission to make such recommendations.
And then there’s a government bureaucracy (i.e., a bunch of pencil-neck paper pushers, some of whom are political appointees, none of whom need to have any medial knowledge whatsoever) that feels the heat when the aforementioned commission makes a recommendation that is viewed as absurd or worse.
So the non-medically-trained bureaucracy throws the commission of doctors and scientists under the bus along with their recommendation to save face.
“Those doctors and scientists don’t set government policy,” Secretary Sebelius says, without giving the follow-up, “pencil-neck paper pushers who feel political pressure do.”
My question: who the heck does or will set government policy w.r.t. healthcare if not those who actually, you know, know a stethoscope from a beer bong?
Where’s that clip of Obama talking about how much he loves science? Did he whisper, “unless it makes my administration look bad,” into his sleeve?
“We sleep soundly in our beds only because
rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harmDear Leader Obama gives us leave to do so.”It's not the science so much as the resulting value judgment.
Uma Richie Thursday, November 19th at 9:02AM EST (link)From the Task Force report’s abstract:
“Initiating biennial screening at age 40 years (vs. 50 years) reduced mortality by an additional 3% (range, 1% to 6%), consumed more resources, and yielded more false-positive results.”
The Task Force has decided that decreasing breast cancer mortality by 3% is not worth the resources needed to give 40 to 49 year olds routine mammograms every other year, or the psychological stress caused by the approx 1125 false positives that would result for every 1000 women, or the pain and scarring caused by biopsies, or the risks associated with exposure to additional radiation.
Whether or not they are correct, requires more information. For example, if decreasing breast cancer mortality by 3% comes at a cost of increasing mortality even more from other sources such as radiation or a rare complication that arises during biopsy, then I’d agree with them.
The problem is that the Task Force put the bottom line of “consumed more resources” ahead of “false positives.” Because of that, I don’t believe anyone is out of line for concluding that it is a money issue.
Link to the USPS Task Force’s report:
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanart.htm
……………………………………………………………………………..
“We hold our heads high, despite the price we have paid, because freedom is priceless.” -Lech Walesa
Oh. So it's a recommendation to ration care, then.
Crowe Thursday, November 19th at 9:50AM EST (link)Whew. Relieved.
“We sleep soundly in our beds only because
rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harmDear Leader Obama gives us leave to do so.”You have to think of it this way
mschmitt Thursday, November 19th at 9:55AM EST (link)Under George Bush, hundreds of thousands of people died of cancer. If you want to have hope that you won’t get sick, you need to change the failed policies of the past, such as “prevention” and “treatment”. That’s the status quo, and the status quo is unacceptable.
(that was snark) But while I'm at it...
Crowe Thursday, November 19th at 9:57AM EST (link)I realized after hitting ‘Post’ that my snark has been missed before. So lest there be any doubt, that was snark.
No, I’m not relieved that it was simple rationing. Just shows that some gov’t panels aren’t waiting for a government-run health plan to recommend rationing as a means to cut costs…
…AND it shows how feckless politicians are to make the unpopular decision based on the recommendations of doctors and scientists.
Dems’ healthcare reform is supposed to make doctors and patients responsible for healthcare decisions. Here’s one where the government told the doctors to shutup, even though their recommendation is intended to save money while only marginally reducing care.
To be sure, I don’t think the government has any place making the recommendation that the task force did in the first place, nor has any place pooh-poohing such recommendations when they become politically dangerous.
Expect many more and much more heated such debates down the road should the Dems healthcare takeover pass–what politician wants to have granny not getting her meds just to save money on their resume when reelection comes? Buh-bye fiscal discipline OR hello death panels. Either way, government shouldn’t be involved.
“We sleep soundly in our beds only because
rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harmDear Leader Obama gives us leave to do so.”Nope, came through loud'n clear. :) nt
mschmitt Thursday, November 19th at 10:00AM EST (link)That's my take on it. nt
Uma Richie Thursday, November 19th at 10:17AM EST (link)nt…
……………………………………………………………………………..
“We hold our heads high, despite the price we have paid, because freedom is priceless.” -Lech Walesa
MAObama's Minions Play The Game On Both Sides
Ausonius Thursday, November 19th at 7:40AM EST (link)Sebelius was on CBS this morning, saying basically that Oh, the government isn’t saying you can’t do what you want. If you still want to get mammograms at any age, go ahead. Blah Blah Blah. We’re just saying that studies are showing now that it isn’t all that necessary Blah Blah Blah.
Mrs. Ausonius - a usually non-political lady - zeroed right in on what they are doing: “This is just to get everybody ready for cuts in care when they take over!”
Exactly!
CBS then brought in a lady gynecologist who -amazingly for CBS - was also highly skeptical, and used the three-letter warning “yet” in her comment: women are not being prevented from getting mammograms when they want one…yet.
Ausonius: 310-395 A.D. Teacher, Poet, Consul, General, Farmer.
Personal Tutor to the future St. Paulinus of Nola and to young Gratian, heir to the throne during the turbulent final years of the Western Roman Empire. When his former student Gratian was assassinated, Ausonius threw up his hands and retired to his farm in Gaul. Rome was captured by barbarians 14 years after his death.
Is this is a way for big brother to get what they want?
readmeat9 Thursday, November 19th at 7:58AM EST (link)Yesterday my wife’s company announced that they were extending dependent medical benifits to age 25 with conditions. I believe that this is in the house version of the healthcare bill. I don’t understand why her company would go out of their way to do this without a law being passed. I know they do have some government contacts, is it possible that they want to keep the feds off their back? We have a 21 year old that is in her last year of college. She was about to lose her current benifits when she graduated. Her fist job in the field she has chosen will probably not offer healthcare benifts, so this is a good thing for her. But I wonder why my wife’s company would want to go to this expense or think that they owe it to their empolyees. Her company has never been evil but I don’t see them giving away things for nothing.
Probably because it doesn't cost much
GT350 Thursday, November 19th at 10:14AM EST (link)I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. If anything, allowing dependents to stay on parents’ health plans might be favorable to the insurance company. Bringing a bunch of healthy 20-somethings into the insured pool will probably help subsidize older insurees, who are much, much more likely to have recurring, expensive health problems.
If anything, there might have been a state insurance commission (not a law) finding that permitted dependents to be kept on their parents insurance.
26yr old Dependents
GT350 Thursday, November 19th at 10:27AM EST (link)I did a quick internet search. Lots of states (NJ, UT, etc) are indeed permitting “dependents” up to 26yrs old, regardless of support and whether they are in the household. This is a state-by-state thing so far. This is a big deal, since it turns on its head the definition of a dependent as 18 or younger old OR receiving support and living in your household OR a student.
Again, I think it’s probably a win=win for everyone. More people covered under favorable terms, and lots of healthy adults diluting the insured pool. And it doesn’t cost the government anything. This is the kind of insurance reforms we should be pursuing, instead of $1 trillion+ bureaucratic abominations
War on Breasts - hills worth dying on
E Pluribus Unum Thursday, November 19th at 10:12AM EST (link)[what, I was gonna resist saying THAT?]
They really, really slipped up when they let THAT one reach the public before health-care rationing becomes law. We conservatives know the Dems do not for a second have the best interests of Americans in mind. By blabbing outloud something like this, they’re proving to the public what the conservatives already know.
Don’t mess with women and their breasts.
Leave that to the experts.
Carthago delenda est
Do your conservative t-shirt shopping at EPU Gear. Save the conservative muse, save the world.
I couldn't agree more
earlgrey Thursday, November 19th at 11:10AM EST (link)Perhaps it is in the long run cheaper to let a few women die, and cut off the breast of other women, than it is to screen large numbers of women and give them some say in their own care.
It isn’t just about women. These kinds of decisions will be made for all of us. You know women are getting breast cancer at earlier ages now. Also women are having kids at later ages. How wil this affect young children and families? More deaths of women from breast cancer with young kids. How heartbreaking really. I am deeply saddened by it.
Of course the CBO did say this will cut the deficit so what the heck.
USPSTF is convened and funded by HHS
Mandy P. Thursday, November 19th at 11:12AM EST (link)http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm
Just for those who may be inclined to believe our HHS Secretary when she claims the USPSTF is not affiliated with the government and is a completely private entitiy, check out the second section on the page linked.
“Public Law Section 915 mandates that AHRQ convene the USPSTF to conduct
scientific evidence reviews of a …broad array of clinical preventive
services, develop recommendations for the health care community, and
provide ongoing administrative, research, technical, and dissemination
support.”
Who is the AHRQ? The Agency for Health and Research Quality. Also known as a division of the Health and Human Services Department. So, the AHRQ, part of HHS, is mandated to convene the USPSTF and to PAY FOR ITS RESEARCH and even PROVIDES ITS STAFF.
But other than all that, no the USPSTF is in no way affiliated with the federal government. Whatever gave you that silly idea?
Mandy P.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
-Thomas Jefferson
Darn transparency.
Uma Richie Thursday, November 19th at 11:16AM EST (link)Nice catch.
……………………………………………………………………………..
“We hold our heads high, despite the price we have paid, because freedom is priceless.” -Lech Walesa
How will we regain freedom
blacknblue Thursday, November 19th at 11:22AM EST (link)I am just about past the point of civil, past the point of using my vote to move these Socialists.
What is next?
Freedoms can be lost at the ballot box but can anyone point to a time that freedom is regained at the ballot box? History shows freedom is won back in a different way. Scary to think about but that man standing in front of a tank in China could be coming our way.
they also ignore
sertelt Friday, November 20th at 9:48AM EST (link)The abortion breast cancer link, despite new studies like this: http://www.lifenews.com/int1379.html