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.

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?

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.

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.

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

If anything, there might have been a state insurance commission (not a law) finding that permitted dependents to be kept on their parents insurance.

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.

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.

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.

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

I mean every word