Former Red Cross chief: Feds’ new mammography policy is “a shocking thing”
posted at 10:19 pm on November 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
The White House website already has a “reality check” up about the mammogram uproar, but from what I can tell, the reality there is “selective.” For one thing, they lay the controversy at the feet of Fox News (of course) when in fact it was WaPo’s story that generated the most heat online. For another thing, while the White House strains to minimize the task force’s role under ObamaCare, WaPo notes that “under health-care reform legislation pending in Congress, the conclusions of the 16-member task force would set standards for what preventive services insurance plans would be required to cover at little or no cost.”
Beyond that, though, even if the panel’s role is small now, why would anyone trust the feds not to expand it over time as rationing became more urgent to limit costs? Everyone understands that the program will end up costing vastly more than the early projections indicate; there’s no reason to think that inertia towards growth wouldn’t also apply to agency responsibilities. (On the contrary, the former begets the latter.) Republican women on the Hill are using the mammography buzz to warn of it:
“This is how rationing begins. This is the little toe in the edge of the water,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “This is when you start getting a bureaucrat between you and your physician. This is what we have warned about.”…
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) said today that she feared health insurance companies would change their policies. Furthermore, she said, she feared that such studies would be used to set policy in the national health insurance exchange that would be set up and run by HHS if Democrats are able to pass their health care bill.
“The rules of what will be required to go into the exchange have yet to be written,” Schmidt pointed out. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated about 30 million Americans could receive their coverage through the exchange.
Here’s the clip. I described Healy the way I did in the headline because that’s how most people know her, but her medical credentials are rock solid. Click the image to watch.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Death Panels.
jimmy the notable on November 18, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Saw this. You’re dreaming if you don’t think this mammogram “recommendation” isn’t a sign of the enormous rationing efforts to come.
We are continually at war with Eurasia.
John the Libertarian on November 18, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Luckily those in the private world will not listen to this stupidity. Now those in the governmental insurance …will you have a “choice”. Dang I love that word./
CWforFreedom on November 18, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Breast Panels?
Geochelone on November 18, 2009 at 10:24 PM
ohhhhh no! RATIONING!…oohhh lawdy lawd…
ernesto on November 18, 2009 at 10:26 PM
The best (or worst, I suppose) part about this is that it’s the same group that was concerned about a drop in mammograms less than a year ago. It begs the rhetorical question of why the sudden reversal?
BadgerHawk on November 18, 2009 at 10:26 PM
I can just hear Kathleen Sebelius now, “Marsha! Marsha! Marsha!”
WashJeff on November 18, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Trial balloon. No doubt about it.
Ah, Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio)…I remember her well! She’s the one that called Jack Murtha a coward on the House floor, which sent the democrats into a fake rage! Bwahaha! GOD LOVE HER!!
SouthernGent on November 18, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Bill Clinton is pushing the Senate to nominate him to oversee these panels…
On, a serious note, I’ve known too many people that got Breast Cancer when they were younger than 50. I really hope there will never be Breast Panels in the country!!!
MeatHeadinCA on November 18, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Soon to be changed to: We have always been at war with Euthanasia.
anuts on November 18, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Amazing how Orwellian our politics have become in just the last year, isn’t it?
If you haven’t read 1984 since high school, now would be a good time to re-aquaint yourself with it.
billy on November 18, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Remember odd-day and even-day gas rationing anyone?
Now this.
You are only allowed to get to your LEFT breast checked on ODD days and your RIGHT one examined on EVEN days.
So says Dr. Gubmint.
Geochelone on November 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM
It does not matter. We are a society are better off if a small set of people set rules and guidelines for us. How can we and the people we trust know what is good for us?
I wonder where my daily e-mail is from HHS with what I am supposed to feed my family?
WashJeff on November 18, 2009 at 10:30 PM
I’m gonna have to agree. I had 4 aunt’s. I buried the first 3 years ago. Out of the 3 I have left left they have 1 breast between the 3 of them. History is they were taken off and chemo took care of the rest of them.
At 25 I had already had 2 mamograms and 4 lumps taken off.
I think it’s Spec fing tacular that I should wait another 10 years to get rechecked. Im 40 now and fear for my life
proudteadrinker on November 18, 2009 at 10:30 PM
Well,that settles it then. When the Palin and Beck ticket takes the Whitehouse, she can be first choice for Sec of Health.
canditaylor68 on November 18, 2009 at 10:32 PM
People with familial histories need to be way more vigilant than this new relaxed attitude the gubmint is foisting on us.
Geochelone on November 18, 2009 at 10:32 PM
No woman should be prevented/restricted from having a mammography. They should have a choice in their health decisions. I wonder if BHO thinks along the same lines?
MeatHeadinCA on November 18, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Yes they do.
MeatHeadinCA on November 18, 2009 at 10:33 PM
So anybody else think that this “conclusion” was released as a way to kill filthylyingcowardCare?
I can think of no rational reason why anybody would reach the conclusion that mammograms were only necessary once one reaches 50. By making such a statement, it is pointing out the perils of rationing under state-owned healthcare. Was it by accident that it was made about a disease that has its own ribbon, wristband, and cadre of stars? And, BTW, makes utterly no sense when you look at the medical data about who gets breast cancer.
highhopes on November 18, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Question: Why should mammograms be covered under insurance anyway? I don’t have a strong feeling one way or another as to the necessity of having them, I just don’t see why this is an insurance issue. It would be like having your auto insurance pay for oil changes and tuneups and other preventative measures.
PackerBronco on November 18, 2009 at 10:34 PM
The fact that Dems want to kill off HSAs says a lot on how they view choice in Healthcare.
WashJeff on November 18, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Actually I tend to post reactionary without thinking about what I read or taking time to compose a PC post…..
When will the recomendations for big asses and overbites come out? Or will it matter? Glamour woman of the year has both…
proudteadrinker on November 18, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Are you thinking that this 16 member panel was undermining ObamaCare?
WashJeff on November 18, 2009 at 10:36 PM
I can’t remember where I heard this yesterday but apparently there isn’t one doctor that specializes in this type of cancer on the “panel”. God help us all.
txag92 on November 18, 2009 at 10:37 PM
It amazes me that Obama and his fellow progressives talk about not limiting a woman’s right to chose to have human material sucked out of her when it comes to Obamacare, but not a peep when it comes down to woman detecting something that they have little control over.
MeatHeadinCA on November 18, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Part of the equation is also who pays for it. If by prevented/restricted you are suggesting some new government entitlement I’ll disagree with you. It is not a role of government to pay for everybody’s healthcare.
That being said, I think the opposite is the bigger threat at this point. Government deciding that women don’t need to worry about mammographs until they reach the age of 50 as a cost-cutting measure. There is little doubt that if the filthy lying coward seizes the healthcare industry that women will not be allowed to get mammographs the way they do now. I also think this was intentionally released now to spike the drive toward Obamacare.
highhopes on November 18, 2009 at 10:40 PM
In a functional free market for insurance, mammograms should not be required of insurance companies. Though, forcing mammograms on insurees could save the insurance company money…and maybe not. Let the insurance company make that decision.
When I hit 40, one more year to go, I plan to start getting some level of screening regardless if my insurance coverage. You know what, I want to see my grandkids grow-up too. I pay the money to increase my longevity.
WashJeff on November 18, 2009 at 10:42 PM
In a way you are right. Someone with a hacking cough should pay for the tests to see if lung cancer, someone who can’t pee should pay to see if it’s their prostate, someone who can’t breath should pay to see if it’s CHF, someone who is dizzy in the morning should pay to see if it’s diabetes.
What the hell is insurance for?
proudteadrinker on November 18, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Someone needs to share this with the Whitehouse
Early detection saves lives.
canditaylor68 on November 18, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Less burden on SocSec and Medicaid?
WashJeff on November 18, 2009 at 10:43 PM
This has to be the result of a bet.
“I bet if we gave people a taste of rationing, you’d never get the health care bill through.”
“Oh, yeah? You’re on. You announce any wacky rationing scheme you want. If I lose, I’ll bribe any three members of congress you want to support your next bill.”
Daggett on November 18, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Most. Sexist. Administration. Ever
nyx on November 18, 2009 at 10:45 PM
You would be right to disagree with me, if I was saying that. I’m not ;). What bothers me is that Obama is working under the (his) claim that all Americans deserve healthcare (notice, not access to or ability to buy). Then he goes on to say that he doesn’t want to restrict a woman’s right to chose (we’re talking about funding abortions with tax payer money), but he has nothing to say about “Breast Panels?” Nothing? That is extremely disgusting. I would disagree with him wanting to fund mammograms for all for free, but at least his intention would be to actually HELP people. Obamacare is starting to look less and less like a well intentioned disaster.
MeatHeadinCA on November 18, 2009 at 10:46 PM
It could be a bet for one dollar.
WashJeff on November 18, 2009 at 10:46 PM
That momentarily came to mind, but who would want to kill off 40yos? I mean, shouldn’t the women of/for empowerment be up in arms about this?
We should hand out condoms from NYC to Zimbabwe, but the government can recommend pushing back the check up 10 years?
MeatHeadinCA on November 18, 2009 at 10:48 PM
In a word: Yes. I’ve not heard one health professional that says this makes sense.
From a political standpoint this is insane. All those “race for the cure” events, pink magnetic ribbons on cars, pink wristbands, special yogurt lids, pink ribbons on packages, and decades of preaching early detection is essential. A whole culture has grown up around the idea that this is a disease that isn’t limited by age. By suggesting that those under 50 do not need mammographs is taking on the whole breast cancer industry.
Who would willingly do that on the cusp of the final drive by this administration toward healthcare reform that would have demographic data decide who is “entitled” to mammographs?
highhopes on November 18, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Sebelius has come out and contradicted the “breast panel” in saying, no–women should get mammograms at 40.
Enoxo on November 18, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Here’s Barry enforcing this debacle.
BKeyser on November 18, 2009 at 10:49 PM
In general, insurance is to provide coverage for catastrophic events that you would not be able to pay for under normal circumstances.
But to have to insurance pay for a routine screening like a mammogram is not what insurance is designed to cover. Now I agree with an earlier post that insurance companies may find it financially beneficial to provide coverage for such services and in a free market it may be profitable for them to do so.
However I do not see the necessity to make such screenings a part of insurance and it should be up to the individual to either pay for it out of pocket or to pay for higher premiums to include that coverage in an insurance policy.
PackerBronco on November 18, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Wasn’t this the same Whitehouse that hung a gigantic pink ribbon on the portico to symbolize its commitment to breast cancer awareness?
billy on November 18, 2009 at 10:51 PM
One ironic item I saw in the CNN column:
D W-S is, I think, a Dem deputy whip in the House. She was all over the news pushing health care the other week.
She doesn’t have to go with the health care they’re trying to foist on the rest of us.
INC on November 18, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Yeah, Sebelius said, “oh, nevermind” today b/c of this uproar. This was definitely a trial balloon. This administration is so full of them and SH*T!
JAM on November 18, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Yeah, it was.
billy on November 18, 2009 at 10:54 PM
I see what you’re saying, and I 100% agree with you. Here’s the thing that’s frustrating from my point of view. The left gets to smear insurance companies for being mean and evil, yet the left essentially regulates insurance companies (for our good). Then, the left says, “OK, time to ditch ‘private’ insurance and go for socialized ‘healthcare’,” oh and at the same time, the government essentially tells insurance companies, “Hey, why pay for mammograms that are unnecessary.”
It’s truly a vicious circle and it’s fueled by government regulation/intervention.
MeatHeadinCA on November 18, 2009 at 10:54 PM
On his radio show, Sean Hannity played a clip from the July stump speech on Obamacare where the filthy lying coward in the White House stated that one of the goals was to offer women even more opportunity to get mammographs because early detection would reduce costs from treatment when detection happened later on. Now this whole idea that mammography isn’t all that important until after a half century of life.
Rationing mammographs reduces the bottom line for healthcare. Does anybody honestly believe that there would be more mammographs if Obamacare passes?
highhopes on November 18, 2009 at 10:56 PM
For some unknown reason,while the Administration and Media
are discussing mammograms!!
I remembered when they were orgasmic over this,jus sayin!
(sarc).
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tY0lk3YC0Es/SVHl–kIikI/AAAAAAAAA_I/Yxk2UBvfiYc/s1600-h/Obama+%26+Beach+Moobs.jpg
canopfor on November 18, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Well, in all fairness, the White House is well above the age of 50.
highhopes on November 18, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Exactly and I’ll add to that the other shoe which will drop, namely that under government-controlled health care you would be prevented from paying for such screenings out of your own pocket since that would set up a “two-tiered” system in which the rich opt out and bypass the system.
So then we would have the insane situation in which the government is forcing you to buy things in your insurance which you don’t want or need and prohibit you from paying out of pocket for things that you do want and need.
PackerBronco on November 18, 2009 at 10:58 PM
I guess it shows how absolutely shocking this new policy is to all women. If this strident lib is outraged, it’s huge.
There isn’t a woman alive who doesn’t know or is related to someone who has experienced breast cancer. If this administration thought this news was going to fall on deaf ears, they are crazier than I thought.
sherry on November 18, 2009 at 10:58 PM
+1
Who would want to turn in claims to your auto insurance when you have a burnt out headlight? A tear in your car seat? To give your engine a diagnostic? Emission testing?
Routine maintenance is part of the game and not something you would want to have an insurance company pay for otherwise you end up where we are today with high cost of insurance policies to pay for something that should be paid out-of-pocket.
Electrongod on November 18, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Somehow, discussing mammographs and the White House lost all humor once Bill Clinton left office.
highhopes on November 18, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Well then, that clears that up.
Forget I mentioned it.
billy on November 18, 2009 at 11:04 PM
It really rocked her. I’m from Florida and although she’s not my Rep, I’m thinking I might call her office and ask about this and mention those 11 times the Dems in the House refused to sign up for Health Care themselves.
INC on November 18, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Today as a convention preventative/early detection measures are part of standard coverage. Because if you test and detect early you have greater chances of success. Oh and treatments are costly. Very costly. I was diagnosed with diabetes in a routine exam one year ago. I am glad I got that test done. I am glad I am able to keep that under control before it could start damaging me slowly.
Early detection is key to keeping healthcare costs low and saving life.
BTW you have a choice to not buy insurance. At least until now.
Auto insurance and health insurance are completely different beasts. There is no reason to compare them.
antisocial on November 18, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Insurers pay for mammograms for three simple reasons:
1. The groups/individuals that purchase insurance from them asks the insurers to include this in their insurance policies.
2. The government makes them.
3. Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers…
Mammograms are extremely important after 40 years old, especially in women with a strong history of breast cancer in their families.
But I’m sure the gubbymint knows best.
mjk on November 18, 2009 at 11:16 PM
As an OBGYN, I know that “failure to diagnose breast cancer” has lept to the #1 or #2 most popular lawsuit basis for my specialty in the past ten years. I have not changed my recommendations at all (yearly after age 40) and I am curious what effect this will have. I just read yesterday in a journal about a successful suit against a physician settled in the TENS OF MILLIONS for a refusal to order a mammogram in a patient with breast cancer diagnosed in her 20s. Of course, malpractice reform has nothing to do with anything, don’t you know.
Marcus on November 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM
That’s the key, really. Alot depends on your own genetic history.
It’s surprising to read how ineffectual mammograms can be in detecting early breast cancer.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 11:19 PM
You missed the most important reason. Breast cancer is a bona fide cause complete with all the trappings of ribbons, races, and Hollywood stars. Because of this status (compared to some disease that only afflicts a few thousand a year) insurance cares about mammogram coverage, Congress pays attention, and lawyers circle to find malpractice.
Nobody but the afflicted and their families care about diseases without ribbons.
highhopes on November 18, 2009 at 11:24 PM
AnninCA,
Don’t you think it is worthwhile if it saves 1% of lives. Also isn’t this a choice of insurer? If doctor thinks it is necessary why should anybody else except the patient argue against it. Insured can reject the recommendation.
antisocial on November 18, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Wasn’t there a similar report about the inefficacy of prostrate screening in men a couple of years ago. But it only applied to men, so, of course, no outcry at preemptive rationing for men.
Dhuka on November 18, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Certainly. But, I have read the studies, and mammograms aren’t as effective as many people think. Neither are self-breast exams.
Probably, any woman with history of it in her family ought to be getting them more frequently. Others may not need them nearly so often.
But women should decide that with their doctor based on their family risk factors.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 11:30 PM
This is how it starts!
The Future Of American Health Care — “Just Boil It and Reuse It!”
LifeTrek on November 18, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Not necessarily. It depends on the cost of the screening compared to the prevalence of the condition. For example, let’s say that we mandate that everyone get screened for disease X and the screening costs $150. Now if we have 1 million people undergo the screening the total cost is $150 million.
Okay, now let’s assume we don’t mandate the screening and the prevalence of disease X is 1% and the cost of curing disease X, is $10,000. We would then have out of 1 million people, 10,000 people with the disease and the cost of treating them would be $100 million.
So, mandating nation-wide screening would actually cost an additional $50 million over having no mandated screening.
Obviously there may be other factors to consider, but I’m only pointing out that one cannot assume that screenings are a cost-saver.
Obviously they’re different in how society treats them, but I don’t see where they are intrinsically different. I go in for a physical every year whether I’m sick or not. I take my car into the shop every few months to do regular maintenace whether my car is acting up or not. Why must one be covered by insurance and the other paid for out of my pocket?
PackerBronco on November 18, 2009 at 11:30 PM
I remember a few years ago it was reported that surgery doesn’t save any more lives than just leaving prostate cancer alone.
I guess this is the problem with treatment options. Statistics versus that 1%.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Dearest AnninCA, EVERY SINGLE CASE of early breast cancer is detected by a mammogram. If it is detected by a physician or the patient, it is not an early case. True, MRIs of the breast can be more sensitive and pick up early breast cancers missed by mammograms, but cost hundreds of dollars more.
Do you know people who have been treated for “early breast cancer” who were not picked up from a mammogram? I’ll answer: you do not.
Marcus on November 18, 2009 at 11:35 PM
I think there could be a case for changing recommendations on mammogram frequency – emphasis on the could, depending on solid research findings – but I have a serious question about the coming rationing:
What about the lefty-darling, highly questionable “alternative” treatments that even some insurance companies have begun to cover in recent years? Like chiropractic, acupuncture, etc.?
Numerous well-designed studies over the years have failed to demonstrate these types of treatments’ effectiveness. Will the Democrats’ Obamacare pander to their irrational, fantasist Leftist base that so wishes these things were legit?
My guess is that it will, because even in the face of all this negative evidence, “everybody knows” the jury’s just not in yet on whether getting poked with needles relieves your depression/infertility/diabetes/whatever. But just one paper indicating yearly mammograms may not be necessary will be plenty enough to get them to cut off funding.
Kinda like global warming hysteria for healthcare. Focus on fantasies instead of facts. I hope I’m wrong about this…
Gilda on November 18, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Yes, of course, I knew that. I probably worded it wrong. I was just surprised at how many times women have had annual check-ups and still ended up with cancer. I take it depends upon timing.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Well, the timing of this couldn’t have been worse for the HCR debate.
I don’t think it’s about rationing, though.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 11:52 PM
As a Canadian, I would advise you not to try to make sense out of this matter. There is none! What you are witnessing is the functioning of your very first crypto- “Death Panel”. Do not be alarmed, under government control of health care, both the British and Canadian public have come to accept such panels with all the calmness of despair. After all, where do you think the leftist scum in Washington get their ideas for government medical care?
John Adams on November 18, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Then there should be 2 different types of insurance sold- catastrophic coverage and a routine health coverage where the individual or family could design the healthcare coverage that they feel they need.
But I would like your opinion. I am a stay at home mom and my husband works for a small company (under 50employees). Our health care insurance costs over 600$/month and it has been as high as 800$/month. And we have a 20$co-pay. Each of us sees the doctor about 1 a year for a physical. Don’t you think that my mammogram should be covered by our insurance? We don’t have asthma, diabetes, cancer, heart problems though there is some history on my husband’s side of the family. We can’t carry any of this money we spend yearly over to cover a catastrophic injury. There is nothing on our statments that says we are building a nest egg of money to be used for a catastropic illness. Why then would I not have my insurance pay for routine checkups if I am getting nothing out of it down the road if I need it? I haven’t heard of any stories where someone was in an accident or had a heart attack and they say “whew, glad I paid 600 a month for my insurance for the last 20 years because I had 144,000 banked up. Do you? It works more like the Bible story about the vineyard owner agreeing to pay a certain wage- to the ones who came in the am and the ones who came in the pm. If we have insurance at the time of my catastrophic injury my family is covered as long as we keep paying the premiums. And 144,000 is a drop in the bucket for most catastrophic injuries or illnesses. If you were only allowed to use what you paid into your policy noone would be able to afford anything beyond a broken bone being reset.
2nd- I don’t think of mammograms as routine. My OB/Gyn used to do them in his office but because of the cost/risk of lawsuits if it was misread he stopped providing this service. That means for me to have a mammogram (I turned 40 this year) I have to go to a 24 hour treatment center and get it done there, then have them read and the results delivered to him and that alone has me delaying the whole ordeal. One person’s routine is another person’s phobia.
journeyintothewhirlwind on November 19, 2009 at 12:10 AM
This reminds me of the great debate over hormone pills, too. For awhile, you were told they extended life, yadda, yadda. Then they discovered that they caused problems in some.
Now, it’s back to commonsense. It depends on your genetic history.
AnninCA on November 19, 2009 at 12:14 AM
A short tirade from a recently retired MD:
The dirty little secret is that there already is a little rationing. At present, the insurers individually provide most of that chokepoint, sort of a soft-rationing. (And this is a crucial difference from ObamaCare, where decisions would be rendered by government apparatchiks.)
In point of fact, you can’t afford to screen everyone for everything – it’s just too expensive for any system, private or public, particularly in our current economy. It’s not the cost of screening, so much as the cost of the necessary follow-ups to resolve any tests with questionable results.
For example, the cost of the mammogram is nothing compared with the subsequent cumulative costs of additional views, maybe an ultrasound and an MRI, then perhaps a stereotactic-localized needle biopsy, and perhaps even an open biopsy, to (hopefully) prove that the original test was a false positive. The bean counters will tell you that it’s money badly spent in some populations. And on paper, in a bloodless, statistical world, they’d be right.
Here’s the rub: you can try to justify monetary savings from tests denied across a population sample with statistics, but ultimately you’ll run up against the disconnect between numbers and flesh… skipping a test that only yields one positive case in ten-thousand doesn’t sound like a bad choice, UNLESS YOU’RE THE ONE CASE! Then, for you, it’s 100%. Even dummies can usually understand that logic. Liberals, not so much…
bofh on November 19, 2009 at 12:16 AM
So the new \”Healthcare initiative\” is to keep 40-something women from getting mammograms? Can someone tell me that the largest healthcare cost is mammograms for women in their 40\’s?Hell, I\’ve known at least 3 women who have had breast cancer while in their 40\’s, and one even in her 30\’s.But hey, let\’s go full speed ahead on erectile disfunction meds! Woohoo – as long as the guys can get it up, that\’s all that matters. No matter if the women have to get their boobs cut off.
Intrepid on November 19, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Intrepid: This is just an early step. There are lots of additional “savings” to be generated by the government’s rationing process. We will learn about it incrementally.
GaltBlvnAtty on November 19, 2009 at 12:25 AM
It’s not really a secret, is it? I guess people talk as though that’s not happening, but surely people really get it.
AnninCA on November 19, 2009 at 12:27 AM
That was a great segment. Healy is brilliant.
Buy Danish on November 19, 2009 at 12:30 AM
The insurance companies do not ration health care. They define as well as they can by contract what is convered and what is not covered. If they do not approve a particular treatment there are clear and expedient appeal processes. Further, in California there is a government agency to which an aggrieved member can appeal, just by forwarding documents, and the insurance company is bound if the government agency says the treatment should be paid for. That appeal process is frequently granted in favor of the member, and it is free to the member.
Good luck if you think the federal government would be capable of running such a system.
GaltBlvnAtty on November 19, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Gosh, we have several major pending class-action lawsuits, don’t we in CA over slimy insurance co practices?
AnninCA on November 19, 2009 at 12:38 AM
That’s up to you and your insurance company. If you want to purchase a policy that includes it and pay for the premiums that go with it, fine. As I wrote above, I believe in a free market and that includes a free market in which you can make choices about what you want covered and what you want to pay for.
But the other side of the coin is that I should be free to purchase insurance policies that don’t cover mammograms if that’s what I wish. Do you have a problem with that?
PackerBronco on November 19, 2009 at 12:40 AM
There are class actions with lots of allegations. There are not any members who were denied care if the state agency said it was a covered service under the contract.
GaltBlvnAtty on November 19, 2009 at 12:41 AM
As I said earlier you have choice not to buy insurance. Until this fraud legislation passes. You have a choice not to see a doctor. You can reject your doctors recommendation. Health Insurance is a private business(not entirely). If a panel decides(based on pie charts and cost reduction to fund additional voters) then its going to be messy. Who deserves a costly treatment and who doesn’t.
Note: You must have lived in a country that implements such systems to understand how bad it is. I have lived in such a system. Trust me you don’t want it.
antisocial on November 19, 2009 at 12:42 AM
canopfor on November 18, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Somehow, discussing mammographs and the White House lost all humor once Bill Clinton left office.
highhopes on November 18, 2009 at 10:59 PM
highhopes: Gotta agree with you on that!!:)
canopfor on November 19, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Do you have a problem with that?
PackerBronco on November 19, 2009 at 12:40 AM
AnninCA on November 19, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Yes, it called economics. As Thomas Sowell wrote in his economics textbook: Economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources that have multiple uses. By definition, that means anything in which demand outstrips supply has to be allocated and thus is controlled by economic factors. We “ration” BMW’s, vacation homes, and the latest and greatest gaming system.
The question is whether that rationing is done by individuals through a price mechanism that reflects both the supply and demand for a particular product or service, or that rationing is done by fiat by some “all-knowing” controlling agency (ie the government.)
PackerBronco on November 19, 2009 at 12:46 AM
I don’t think our healthcare is scarce. Sometimes, I think we have too much. *haha
We’re becoming a nation of hypochondriacs.
AnninCA on November 19, 2009 at 12:53 AM
No more so, than the myriad of life insurance policies that confront the consuming, each offering different benefits and advantages and suffering from their own particular disadvantages.
The nightmare that you speak of occurs when a 3rd party attempts to control – or administer – what should be individual choices on the part of the consumer. But that’s a common problem with all command-and-control economies.
The Soviet Union found the farm system a nightmare to administer and saw disaster after disaster because they failed to understand or admit that there are some things you cannot control.
PackerBronco on November 19, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Well, Parker. All I know is that my dentist is constantly telling me that something is covered. Then we find out his office staff got it wrong.
It’s already a big of enough headache.
AnninCA on November 19, 2009 at 12:56 AM
GaltBlvnAtty (and PackerBronco) Sorry if I was not clear. I agree completely. That is exactly what I was trying to point out, that the current system is far preferable to a faceless, unaccountable gummint-run board.
bofh on November 19, 2009 at 12:57 AM
And part of our current problem is that the state governments continue to add specific reguirements about what must be covered, called “mandates.” These state requirements limit the choices provided to the consumer and drive up the cost of all policies.
GaltBlvnAtty on November 19, 2009 at 12:58 AM
I think that was @PackerBronco’s point – to some extent. That said, there is no reason to assume that there will never be headaches in life. We can strive for a system that respects the right of the individual, though.
MeatHeadinCA on November 19, 2009 at 1:00 AM
We could manage with more choices as well, particularly for healthy young adults who do not want to pay for multiple PC-driven items mandated by the states.
GaltBlvnAtty on November 19, 2009 at 1:02 AM
You’re all overreacting. Great Britain’s NHS already has this policy of no mammograms until age 50, and their breast cancer mortality is only 88% higher than the US’s. That’s not even double. Stop being so selfish.
Fabozz on November 19, 2009 at 1:03 AM
Well, you make a good point about mammograms. The fact is that it’s still a huge threat to women and we’ve made headway. It seems a shame to stop a practice that is obviously helping.
AnninCA on November 19, 2009 at 1:07 AM
Why do insurance companies cover scanning and stuff like this?
For the same reason auto insurance covers fixing cracks in your windshield. Cheaper then having to replace the whole thing. Similarly, cheaper if you catch cancer early.
Now, politically wise I think we ought to focus on how this is the prefect lever to move Snow and Collins to solid opposition. They are women, and have always prided themselves on representing the interests of women.
Just ask them how women will be harmed if the government insurance exchange takes the position that women should not be screened for breast cancer until age 50 instead of the current 40.
We should be calling those two Senators and pounding this issue. Mainly convince them that this “new” revelation provides sufficient cover to oppose Obama’s Health Care Bill- and let them pose as moderates. “I was willing to vote for Health Care reform, but not if it puts in danger the health of millions of women.”
Sackett on November 19, 2009 at 1:07 AM
And here’s the latest on inhuman British health care rationing:
Condemned to an early death: Rationing body tells liver cancer victims that life-prolonging drug is ‘too costly’
Sharke on November 19, 2009 at 1:08 AM
That is expensive for 6 months. We are never going to have it all.
AnninCA on November 19, 2009 at 1:11 AM
That is expensive for 6 months. We are never going to have it all.
AnninCA on November 19, 2009 at 1:11 AM
That is expensive for 6 months. We are never going to have it all.
AnninCA on November 19, 2009 at 1:11 AM
That is expensive for 6 months. We are never going to have it all.
AnninCA on November 19, 2009 at 1:11 AM
While I don’t see the basis for having a system in which everyone is entitled to government payment for every treatment, no matter how expensive, I also do not see any basis for having the government decide who gets what. Those are decisions best left to the free market.
GaltBlvnAtty on November 19, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »