California moves to ration mammograms

posted at 10:12 am on December 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

ObamaCare advocates claim that putting government in charge of health care coverage and treatments won’t result in care rationing, while its opponents say rationing will be the inevitable result.  The latter can point to California as evidence for their position.  Facing enormous budget shortfalls, the state has ended subsidies for mammograms for poor women between 40-50 years of age, and will also freeze enrollments in a breast-cancer screening program for its Medicaid recipients:

The eligibility age for state-subsidized breast cancer screening has been raised from 40 to 50 by the California Health and Human Services Agency, which will also temporarily stop enrollment in the breast cancer screening program.

Advocates for low-income women, whose health care the department helps pay for, say the cuts put a two-tier system in place that is based on money rather than medical standards.

The cuts will greatly harm the clinic’s mammogram program, said Natasha Riley, manager of Vista Community Clinic’s Breast Health Outreach and Education Program.

The clinic and others like it in San Diego County provide reduced-cost care, mostly to low-income people, with money from the state and some private donations.

“More than 50 percent of the women we give breast exams and mammograms to are in their 40s,” Riley said. “The majority of our current breast cancer survivors are women in their 40s.”

The state followed the recommendation of the US Preventive Services Task Force, which claimed that regular mammograms created too much anxiety for women between 40 and 50.  It also linked the decision to declining revenues from tobacco sales — no, really — which cut into funding for anti-cancer screening programs:

In its announcement, the state said the cuts were needed because of a projected budget shortfall for the California Department of Public Health, and from declining revenue from tobacco taxes.

However, it did not say how much money it expected to save.

Gee, what else have we built on the shifting sands of tobacco taxes?  I wonder how the S-CHIP program is faring these days.

This is a great example of the difference between static and dynamic tax analyses.  The former predicts a revenue from a tax that assumes that the tax won’t change the environment which produces the revenue, while dynamic tax analysis accounts for behavior changes when tax policies are applied.  In this case, it’s actually worse; the tobacco-tax advocates argued both that increased taxes would discourage smoking while relying on a constant increase of revenue from the boost in tobacco taxes.

And now what we get is rationing, because the government created these programs based on rosy revenue projections that can’t be met.

Given Carly Fiorina’s recent statement on her experiences with breast cancer, I asked her campaign for a reaction to this decision:

“This is an example of what happens when the government’s role in healthcare decisions grows and the role of doctors and patients diminishes. With more government involvement cutting costs becomes paramount over quality of care. This situation underscores what is so critically wrong with the health reform legislation making its way through Congress now. It increases the role of government in our healthcare which is a recipe for higher taxes and lower quality of care.  Instead, Carly believes any reform to our healthcare system should be focused on market-based reforms that prioritize quality of care and increasing access and choice.”— Julie Soderlund, Deputy Campaign Manager for Communications


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Death Panels do not exist.

uknowmorethanme on December 7, 2009 at 10:16 AM

They need to enlist the gays because we know how graphic and vociferous they can be. Tell the gays that they are going to limit research and resources on AIDS and they’ll be against this bill quicker than they can say ‘bend over’.

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2009 at 10:18 AM

CA got the government it voted for, and now it’s getting it good and hard.

(Apologies to H.L. Mencken)

Techie on December 7, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Advocates for low-income women, whose health care the department helps pay for, say the cuts put a two-tier system in place that is based on money rather than medical standards.

Um, isn’t that what happened when they started subsidizing it for the poor? It’s only a two-tier system because the the unsuccessful are getting someone else to pay for it.

Count to 10 on December 7, 2009 at 10:21 AM

The liberals only need to look to California to have their eyes opened. Tax and spend and refusing to drill for oil all result in a failed state. This is the path they want to take the country on and a majority of American’s are screaming NO!

Makes you wonder. It seems some liberals want to tank the country on purpose to usher in a world government, or at least a Socialist America. The rest I am afraid are to idealistic to see reality even when it is staring them in the face.

Keep praying for our country and do what you can to keep those in power from ruining it.

Ordinary1 on December 7, 2009 at 10:22 AM

The biggest problem is that single-payer systems, which is what the Dems really want in the end, eventually prevent you from paying cash for a test or treatment in order to enforce ‘fairness’.

So not only will the government ration and control your access to healthcare, it will also prevent you from paying money to get cover the costs yourself. Eventually, I suppose, we’ll end up with back alley cancer screenings.

Asher on December 7, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Cali are now underway. Floating down the crap river without any paddles.

hawkman on December 7, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Maine experienced this exact same situation a couple years back. The state raised the tobacco tax and figured they would collect some $92 million in new revenue. Rather than wait for the tax to arrive, the legislature went ahead and spent it.

Well, with the new taxes ($1/pack) many decided to quit or cut back, and, as a result, Maine took in less than $78 million. Thus, they had a “shortfall” of some $14 MILLION dollars, because the greedy hacks couldn’t wait to spend their ill-gotten gains.

These legislative hacks in California and Maine (and everywhere, apparently) are like the fellow who thinks that he still has money because he still has checks in hi checkbook! They are spending like drunken trailer trash that just hit the lottery, and unless and untill we clean them all out and start over, this will be the norm for many years to come.

AW1 Tim on December 7, 2009 at 10:26 AM

This robbing Peter to pay Paul nonsense has got to stop. Here in CT the state is going to increase the unemployment tax on business because the fund is broke and in the hole for about $2 billion. It appears that most of the money paid into the fund was put into the General fund over the years and spent on other stuff just like the Tobacco settlement money was. Of course when the tax gets raised, employeers will simply not hire new people or lay off workers to compensate for the increase.

Johnnyreb on December 7, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Enjoy your beautiful weather in your liberal wonderland while breast cancer cuts your life short.
Is this what Utopia is like???

Just A Grunt on December 7, 2009 at 10:27 AM

This is what happens with a dependent class dependent on government largess.
And people whine and scream when this happens.
I’m not surprised at all.

Amendment X on December 7, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Why do California liberals hate poor, black women?

Buy Danish on December 7, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Kamikaze Marxists strike again

faraway on December 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM

CA is dead broke. We’re down to the bone and the cuts are only just starting.

Years of foolish spending is the cause. My favorite is the home caretakers. They are paid by the state to take care of family members in their own homes. There are 2 compliance officers for the entire state. You can imagine the number of elderly neighbors who were asked to pose as “Aunt Betty” for this gig.

SEIU covers these workers. Arnold tried to lower the wages paid, and Obama and the SEIU head got on the phone and threatened that if he did, the State would lose a large portion of the stimulus money.

So, we protect this outlandish benefit and stick it to the poor women. Of course, many of them are illegals, so that should please some far-right folks.

Nevertheless, it is just absurd.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Carly’s plan, however, wouldn’t really help these women, anyway.

They can’t afford insurance at all.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 10:34 AM

I remember years ago being PO’d when cigarettes went up to 25 cents a pack in machines in North Carolina. Now they’re $10 a pack in machines in Chicago. The S-Chip tax increase doubled their price, and as a result I quit smoking after 30 years (saving myself $2,000 a year in the process), so it had an effect. Of course, since I’m not paying for someone else’s healthcare now, Obama will have to raise cigarette prices AGAIN. The obvious result of pricing something out of the market, economics 101. Wait. Obama never took that in college either. What did he study other than rabblerousing?

bradley11 on December 7, 2009 at 10:34 AM

and from declining revenue from tobacco taxes.

This is the plan: get the voters to okay a welfare scheme paid for by tobacco taxes; when the taxes are insufficient, you shift the tax to the general population, and you have a whole new entitlement program. It’s the typical Trojan Horse maneuver.

PattyJ on December 7, 2009 at 10:35 AM

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Regardless of the infighting and disagreement we sometimes have. . . I’ve always liked you AnninCA.

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Of course, since I’m not paying for someone else’s healthcare now, Obama will have to raise cigarette prices AGAIN.

bradley11 on December 7, 2009 at 10:34 AM

You know there is a secret VAT tax hidden in ObamaCare, right? This VAT will expand faster than healthcare.

faraway on December 7, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Regardless of the infighting and disagreement we sometimes have. . . I’ve always liked you AnninCA.

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Well, thanks, Thacker! Ditto. And good morning.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 10:38 AM

They can’t afford insurance at all.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 10:34 AM

My argument is they shouldn’t be WASTING their money on insurance that they might not need. They should focus on the COST of the mammogram and how to make it affordable WITHOUT insurance.

The debate is going the wrong way when talking about reducing the COST of health care. Insurance companies don’t raise the costs. . . they pay for new expensive treatments which save lives (but raise costs).

Focus on care without coverage. Don’t try to reform health ‘care’ by reforming health ‘coverage’. Covered people might not need the care. And people who need the care might be able to pay for the care that they need if they didn’t spend all their money on coverage.

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2009 at 10:39 AM

This is the plan: get the voters to okay a welfare scheme paid for by tobacco taxes; when the taxes are insufficient, you shift the tax to the general population, and you have a whole new entitlement program. It’s the typical Trojan Horse maneuver.

PattyJ on December 7, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Oh, there are other vice taxes coming next. *hehe As a smoker, I’m rather looking forward to those. I can’t wait to jab over potato chips and soft drinks. I dream of the day when I can walk past someone whose paid premium for the right to indulge in, say, a plate of overtaxed chips and dip and look snooty. :)

Just a fantasy……

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Trading cancer for flowers…

right2bright on December 7, 2009 at 10:41 AM

My wife and I had dinner and drinks with several friends the other night (some of whom voted for Obama) and I brought up the issue of rationing mammograms up.

Man it was like I had just been dropped right dead in the middle of the battle of Fallujah.

Everyone of the ladies made it very clear how bad of an idea it was and held back no feelings of disgust and anger that the government would interfere in this.

I don’t know whose idea in the democratic party this was but getting in-between women and their pap smears,mammograms,and other feminine medical needs is a recipe for disaster.

More “smart power” from the “adults in charge”.

Baxter Greene on December 7, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Michelle My Belle Obama was paid $350,000 a year by a Chicago hospital to do a job so unimportant that the position was eleminated when Bambi was elected.

I wonder how many poor women could have gotten mammograms or pre natal care with the money the Obamas pocketed?

Labamigo on December 7, 2009 at 10:42 AM

There will always be rationing – that’s life. The real question is whether this rationing is best done by the government or the market place. The answer SHOULD be obvious.

rock the casbah on December 7, 2009 at 10:42 AM

My argument is they shouldn’t be WASTING their money on insurance that they might not need. They should focus on the COST of the mammogram and how to make it affordable WITHOUT insurance.

They have done that. The clinics are the least expensive delivery systems we have. They are just going to cut off the reimbursements for the Medicaid folks.

I have a friend who is a waitress, raising a kid, yadda, yadda. She’s gone to one of the clinics for some female stuff. She told me last week that the clinic informed her that they can’t cover her anymore.

Women can probably go for awhile without these tests and, statistically, it won’t show up. However, there are some other services they provide that are a lot more immediate and will cause some major health problems.

It wouldn’t matter, btw, if a public option were offered tomorrow morning. She still couldn’t afford it. Restaurants are empty, and she has been cut back to less than 30 hours weekly. She’s barely making rent, nevermind insurance.

And, yes…she’s looking for a 2nd job.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Ah, more brown-skinned people getting the shaft by liberals.

SouthernGent on December 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM

The people in the current White House are not adults.

Rather, they are impressively credentialed 12 yr olds, with no experience outside of government employment.

Ignorant of the real world and emotionally stunted children who hold grudges.

thgrant on December 7, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Of course, many of them are illegals, so that should please some far-right folks.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM

No, stupid, your insult that “far-right folks” want people to die is typical of your stupid foolish selfish attitude…I guess one who supports abortion, killing babies pleases them? See how that works?

right2bright on December 7, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Poor women hardest hit. This will be coming to a state near you soon.

Kissmygrits on December 7, 2009 at 10:49 AM

don’t know whose idea in the democratic party this was but getting in-between women and their pap smears,mammograms,and other feminine medical needs is a recipe for disaster.

More “smart power” from the “adults in charge”.

Baxter Greene on December 7, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Well, this is one of those deals where the medical profession pushed a particular preventive method for years and years. I remember when you were not allowed to renew a prescription for birth control unless you had the pap smear done.

Now, the entire technology of mammograms has been called into question. (BTW, a lot of women agree with the problems identified.)

They can’t exactly retrain us overnight.

I do think most women know that if there’s breast cancer in the family, ignore the new guidelines and keep doing what you’re doing. And new technology may be on the horizon to improve the testing.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Ah, more brown-skinned people getting the shaft by liberals.

SouthernGent on December 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM

And the better case…the most liberal state in the union, turns their back on the minorities, again.
But hey, they all have their office staffs…they haven’t cut the gov. spending budget…

right2bright on December 7, 2009 at 10:49 AM

This is just the beginning of a Government bailout of California that we all know is coming.

Knucklehead on December 7, 2009 at 10:49 AM

The state followed the recommendation of the US Preventive Services Task Force, which claimed that regular mammograms created too much anxiety for women between 40 and 50.

This is the task force that no one listens to and doesn’t matter, right?

LibTired on December 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM

This is just the beginning of a Government bailout of California that we all know is coming.

Knucklehead on December 7, 2009 at 10:49 AM

I do think Obama is considering a 2nd stimulus.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Global Warming exists. Government rationing doesn’t. Welcome to lib world.

LibTired on December 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM

illegal immigration has nothing to do with this…Not one bit.But those criminal aliens in Kalifornia never looked healthier.Go figure.

frizzbee on December 7, 2009 at 10:56 AM

No matter how bad California gets financially, if you took a poll of liberals and asked them what state governments they’d like to live under, California would be in the Top 5. This report about mammograms might bother them for a microsecond, but they’ll simply decide the answer is to throw more tax dollars from the top five percent of wage earners and corporations at the problem, and call it solved.

jon1979 on December 7, 2009 at 10:56 AM

LEGAL SELECTIVE EXTERMINATION

ms on December 7, 2009 at 10:58 AM

I do think Obama is considering a 2nd stimulus.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM

I’m not talking about another stimulus, I’m talking about a total takeover of the eighth largest economy in the world.

This is just the beginning of what the Progressives want, a total global economy and what better place to start.

Knucklehead on December 7, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Knucklehead on December 7, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Nobody wants CA right now. *haha

It would be nice if it fell off into the ocean.

Truly.

I’m moving out. I was at a party this weekend. I was absolutely amazed at the number of people whom used to have very solid careers, businesses, etc., who are now working in schmuck jobs as “consultants.”

It was shocking.

They still look pretty good, but when I said I was moving to get away from the high cost of living combined with the deep, deep recession, they nodded in agreement.

It’s close to collapse.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Michelle My Belle Obama was paid $350,000 a year by a Chicago hospital to do a job so unimportant that the position was eleminated when Bambi was elected.

I wonder how many poor women could have gotten mammograms or pre natal care with the money the Obamas pocketed?

Labamigo on December 7, 2009 at 10:42 AM

But then the Obamas might not have been able to afford those expensive private school tuitions and Prada bags for their girls. Why do you hate the children????

AZCoyote on December 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Sounds like a situation is brewing that will make it the absolute right time to have a female run for president. Now, where are we gonna get a good woman to run? :)

Kafir on December 7, 2009 at 11:10 AM

I am surprised the idiots don’t offer a one breast per year policy.

bloggless on December 7, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Poor women hardest hit. This will be coming to a state near you soon.

Kissmygrits on December 7, 2009 at 10:49 AM
————————————————
The Eugenics people are in charge and they plan on legally exterminating the “human weeds”.

ms on December 7, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Aren’t low income women at HIGHER risk of Breast Cancer?
The warnings on Hormone-based Birth Control are so dire for women who smoke – they make it sound like you will definitely get breast cancer if you smoke. And study-after-study tells us that low income people are more likely to be smokers.
So you have a child-bearing age woman (i.e. high likliehood of being a hormone-based birth control user) who is also low-income (i.e. high likliehood of being a smoker).

Aren’t these the very women who need their mammograms yearly!?

kooly on December 7, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Wonderful news.
– Bleeds Blue

angryed on December 7, 2009 at 11:20 AM

kooly on December 7, 2009 at 11:15 AM

That may be, but this isn’t about health. It’s about the state budget.

When I say CA is broke, I don’t just mean “sort of.”

I mean, CA will NOT meet pension/payroll obligations within a few months. We can’t print money, remember.

Therefore, cuts are happening. Medicaid is only one area being cut. Many teachers will be pink-slipped, too. Cities are being handed their part of the bill. That means police force cuts.

Revenue tax stream is down to a dribble.

While the rest of the country may have 10% unemployment, CA is a LOT higher.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM

This is exactly what will happen when taxes on “the rich” are increased. The added revenue Obama thinks he will get assumes every “rich” person will behave the same in the future as today. Truth is when tax rates for those making $200K+ go from 30something percent to 50+ (when the Bush cust expire and when the SS cap is lifted) people will either work less or find ways to evade taxes.

angryed on December 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM

The Eugenics people are in charge and they plan on legally exterminating the “human weeds”.

ms on December 7, 2009 at 11:15 AM

That’s ugly talk. CA is very, very generous with these benefits when we actually have money. And there is no desire whatsoever to exterminate anyone.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Just because they dont speak of it anymore, eugenics is a major pillar of liberal progressives.

Daveyardbird on December 7, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Come on. That’s not rationing. It’s limiting avaliability. Get with the newspeak.

loudmouth883 on December 7, 2009 at 11:26 AM

That’s ugly talk. CA is very, very generous with these benefits when we actually have money. And there is no desire whatsoever to exterminate anyone.
AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM
———————————————-
And YOU are wrong. Read your history.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, called poor people and black people “human weeds”.

Obama’s people, Cass Sustein and Holder, ARE eugenics people.

ms on December 7, 2009 at 11:29 AM

That’s ugly talk. CA is very, very generous with these benefits when we actually have money. And there is no desire whatsoever to exterminate anyone.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Just wait until they say the best way to control the “dangerous” pollutant CO2 is to control population growth. I’m sure a president who supports to letting babies who survive abortion die would have no problem with this idea.

Just one thing, who would we kill off? The rich or the poor?

Hard to tell with this guy.

loudmouth883 on December 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM

That’s ugly talk. CA is very, very generous with these benefits when we actually have money.
AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Well your state has no money and is flat broke, so let’s just call it what it is.

Death panels part 1.

Knucklehead on December 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Therefore, cuts are happening. Medicaid is only one area being cut. Many teachers will be pink-slipped, too. Cities are being handed their part of the bill. That means police force cuts.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM

But there’s still money for the sea otters and the delta smelt. Oh, and offshore drilling for oil? That ain’t happening. I think I see a pattern emerging.

Kafir on December 7, 2009 at 11:32 AM

The liberals only need to look to California to have their eyes opened. Tax and spend and refusing to drill for oil all result in a failed state.

Please, don’t kid yourself.

Obama has praised California as his model for the American economy. From the Washington Examiner:

While promoting his new cap-and-trade energy tax bill, which passed the U.S. House last week, President Obama revealed in a White House address on Monday his model for the nation’s economy – California. “In the late 1970s, the state of California enacted tougher energy-efficiency policies,” Obama said, noting that the state and its residents use less energy today per capita than the national average. “Think about that,” he said, “California producing jobs, their economy keeping pace with the rest of the country and yet they’ve been able to maintain their energy usage in a much lower level than the rest of the country.”

Obama might want to rethink his choice of a model state because it is easy to understand how California has curbed its energy use. Between 2000 and 2007, before the current recession, the state shed nearly 21 percent of its manufacturing jobs, driving down its industrial electrical consumption by 21 percent. California’s industrial users pay electric rates twice as high as their Midwestern counterparts – which helps explain why so much heavy industry has fled the state. In addition to alienating its industry, California has also curbed energy use through exorbitant residential electric rates (50 percent higher than the national average) and massive net out-migration. Between 2005 and 2007, 2.14 million Californians moved to other states, while only 1.44 million people from elsewhere moved to the Golden State, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Don’t be surprised when the 2010 Census finds even more people leaving to escape California’s 11.5 percent unemployment. And, as jobs and residents fled California, its tax revenues have declined, while its politicians went on a spending binge, creating a severe budget crisis.

If the President wants America to look like California, pushing the Obama-Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade anti-global warming energy bill through Congress is surely the way to do it.

So if he wants us to emulate California economically, then he’ll want us to emulate it medically, too.

All hail hope, change, and death panels!

englishqueen01 on December 7, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Just because they dont speak of it anymore, eugenics is a major pillar of liberal progressives.
Daveyardbird on December 7, 2009 at 11:26 AM
—————————————————-

Thank you, yes it is.

Hillary, “I call myself a 20th century progressive”, got the “Maggie Award” this year.

The Maggie Award is after, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

Margaret Sanger was the leader of the “Negro Project”…. read up on that one.

The “progressives” are the “eugenics people”.

ms on December 7, 2009 at 11:34 AM

The state followed the recommendation of the US Preventive Services Task Force, which claimed that regular mammograms created too much anxiety for women between 40 and 50.

Created too much anxiety? I always knew that liberal ideology was weightless, but, sheesh…making health/budgetary recommendations/regulations based on an emotional state? Dear God.

Diane on December 7, 2009 at 11:38 AM

As I have said before this is what will happen to the poor under Obamacare. The poor think this guy is an advocate for them and they will get Obama money & care NOPE. Not only is it a tax bill it is a eugenics bill. So for all you poor people out there this is what you have to look forward too! You will not get free or better healthcare you will be allowed to die because you’re too expensive and are of NO use to the society in general and are non-producers. This way they will get you off of the dole and control spending on Medicare/Medicaid by using this rationing.

At least now you can go in to a hospital and get treated even though you don’t pay! Sometimes the status quo should stay the way it is. Becareful of what you ask for!

xler8bmw on December 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM

I always knew that liberal ideology was weightless, but, sheesh…making health/budgetary recommendations/regulations based on an emotional state?

Diane, this surprises you? These people make laws based on what feels good to them!

As a recovering liberal, I can tell you that all of my political arguments were – as a liberal – based solely in feeling. There was no logic.

You know why?

You. Can’t. Argue. With. A. Feeling.

They’re wholly subjective, personal, and – therefore – cannot be refuted. If liberals argued their positions based on logic, they’d see it was wholly illogical to support socialism/communism because those policies fail, time and again.

So they don’t bother with rationality or logic. They say it makes people “feel good” or is “just” to do X (redistribute wealth, pass cap-and-trade, have a judge rule gay marriage a right) and you can’t say it isn’t because you can’t argue with a feeling.

englishqueen01 on December 7, 2009 at 11:48 AM

This way they will get you off of the dole and control spending on Medicare/Medicaid by using this rationing.
xler8bmw on December 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM
————————————————-

It will also control Social Security spending, welfare spending, and any other entitlement spending.

And it is all done LEGALLY.

A Eugenicist dream come true.

ms on December 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Democrats have blood on their hands

Kuffar on December 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM

***
The corrupt Kalifornia government and legislature thinks that if they pass a bill repealing the law of gravity that all the furniture in their offices will start floating up into the air! And they use the same approach to “budgeting” and taxation. They have killed the “golden goose”.
***
I couldn’t believe their stupidity in funding embryonic stem cell research with taxpayer money when big pharmaceutical companies already bailed out on this–they saw no profits and big risks. How’s that multi-million dollar “investment” working out for Kalifornia now?
***
As far as ILLEGAL ALIENS (not “undocumented immigrants”) not running up costs for all–look at reality. Hospitals and Emergency Rooms treat all people with critical injuries and illnesses–at taxpayer expense. Schools educate all kids. Jails and prisons warehouse all criminals. And a big part of their costs are the illegal aliens.
***
Smart companies and people are “bailing out” every day–voting with their feet. Enjoy!
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on December 7, 2009 at 12:03 PM

They can’t afford insurance at all.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Of course they can’t afford insurance in California. State mandates for what is required covers everything including throwing a kitchen sink at your spouse.

chemman on December 7, 2009 at 12:04 PM

The state followed the recommendation of the US Preventive Services Task Force, which claimed that regular mammograms created too much anxiety for women between 40 and 50.

Ed, this is a huge mischaracterization. It also made its recommendations based on the fact that screening at that age saves only 1 life in 1900, while both costing an enormous amount for those other 1899 as well as exposing those who come up with false positives to medical danger.

Writing what you did is misleading and dangerous, and this is an important issue that people who are making decisions should understand.

Created too much anxiety? I always knew that liberal ideology was weightless, but, sheesh…making health/budgetary recommendations/regulations based on an emotional state? Dear God.

Diane on December 7, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Way to take Ed’s mischaracterization and jump on liberals. It’s not just based on a feeling, it’s based on financial and medical considerations. And what makes you think that the task force was driven by liberals? It’s a non-profit medical organization.

tneloms on December 7, 2009 at 12:07 PM

And there is no desire whatsoever to exterminate anyone.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM

I believe you can still purchase a copy of George Grant’s book, “Grand Illusions” http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Illusions-Legacy-Planned-Parenthood/dp/1581820577/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260205384&sr=1-1.

Margaret Sanger’s desire was to exterminate entire groups of people, notably blacks and Italians. Grant’s book is exhaustively researched and foot-noted. If you want to learn the truth about PPFA, read it. And if you want to spend the money, get it from your local library through the inter-library loan program.

oldleprechaun on December 7, 2009 at 12:11 PM

It’s a non-profit medical organization.

tneloms on December 7, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Do you have a list of those who served on this board and did any of them have a specialty in oncology?

How many other early tests have similar rates of discovery and are still funded?

chemman on December 7, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Ever notice that almost every story on TV or print, about mammograms, has a picture of a woman in a hospital robe with the back open, exposing her back? Recently I saw a story about pap smears that had a woman on a stirrup table and the doctor was “down there” doing the procedure under her gown.

Not saying these don’t lend something to the story, but figure it was mainly a bit prurient and to keep the channel from being changed.

My question is this; have you ever seen a similar visual accompaniment to a story about testicular or prostate cancer in men?

Concerning mammograms, the Missus had hers this morning and wants to convey a message to the person that invented the machine. “YOU B*STARD!”

TugboatPhil on December 7, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Do you have a list of those who served on this board and did any of them have a specialty in oncology?

It’s funny that you put the onus on me, but fine:

Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* are Ned Calonge, MD, MPH, Chair (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, Colorado); Diana B. Petitti, MD, MPH, Vice-Chair (Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona); Thomas G. DeWitt, MD (Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio); Allen J. Dietrich, MD (Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire); Kimberly D. Gregory, MD, MPH (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California); David Grossman, MD (Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington); George Isham, MD, MS (HealthPartners, Minneapolis, Minnesota); Michael L. LeFevre, MD, MSPH (University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, Missouri); Rosanne M. Leipzig, MD, PhD (Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York); Lucy N. Marion, PhD, RN (School of Nursing, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia); Bernadette Melnyk, PhD, RN (Arizona State University College of Nursing & Health Innovation, Phoenix, Arizona); Virginia A. Moyer, MD, MPH (Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas); Judith K. Ockene, PhD (University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts); George F. Sawaya, MD (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California); J. Sanford Schwartz, MD (University of Pennsylvania Medical School and the Wharton School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); and Timothy Wilt, MD, MPH (University of Minnesota Department of Medicine and Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota).

I quickly searched for profiles of the first few, and they all have obvious expertise. Dietrich (the 4th I looked at) was the first one that has a specialty in oncology, but the chair is a leading expert in public health and preventative medicine.

Please let me know when you find that these are all liberal advocates.

This task force was formed a long time ago. Do you think that not only did they all happen to be liberals, but they also realized that a few years down the road universal health care would be proposed, and it would suit their liberal agenda to recommend less screening so that the government could save money by denying people life-saving screening? That’s what the claim is here?

How many other early tests have similar rates of discovery and are still funded?

chemman on December 7, 2009 at 12:16 PM

I’m pretty sure that the recommendations that doctors follow are uniform in terms of rates of discovery. I don’t know about what California’s welfare programs fund. Do you have any reason to believe that they fund other screening tests with similar discovery rates?

tneloms on December 7, 2009 at 12:39 PM

TugBoatPhil:

Tell your wife I agree 100%. I’ve always wondered why they didn’t try the same technology on, say, scrotal cancer?

texabama on December 7, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Please let me know when you find that these are all liberal advocates.
tneloms on December 7, 2009 at 12:39 PM
—————————————————–

Oh yes….. this is getting good.

The Eugenics people (liberal progressives) are definitely involved.

Allen J. Dietrich, M.D. (number 4 on your list)

Title(s):
Professor
Associate Director of Population Sciences
, Norris Cotton Cancer Center
Co-Chair, MacArthur Foundation Initiative on Depression & Primary Care

Department(s):
Community and Family Medicine

Education:
Case Western Reserve University, MD 1973
Swarthmore College, BA 1969
Residency: University of Rochester
Fellowship: Stanford University

“Population Sciences” = population control = Eugenics

ms on December 7, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Years of foolish spending thinking is the cause.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM

FIFY Ann LOL*

AsianGirlInTights on December 7, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Regardless of the infighting and disagreement we sometimes have. . . I’ve always liked you AnninCA.

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Liam 2?

AsianGirlInTights on December 7, 2009 at 1:42 PM

AnninCA on December 7, 2009

I would like to thank AnninCA for volunteering to pay more taxes than she would have to pay if she didn’t smoke. That means that I don’t have to pay as many taxes on something else.

If you do leave Kalifornia, please leave all your crazy liberal ideas behind or you will ruin the state that you move to by wanting them to make the same stupid decisions that were made in Kalifonia. That is the problem with liberals. They foul their own nests and then when the stench begins to get to them, they leave their nests and look for new nests which they will proceed to foul unless they learn a lesson and change their liberal ideas to fiscal conservatism. You can’t TAX AND SPEND FOREVER. After a while you run out of OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY TO SPEND.

TruthToBeTold on December 7, 2009 at 2:21 PM

TruthToBeTold on December 7, 2009 at 2:21 PM

+10000

AsianGirlInTights on December 7, 2009 at 2:27 PM

That’s ugly talk. CA is very, very generous with these benefits when we actually have money.

AnninCA on December 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM

This is an opportunity for conservatives actually. As socialism bankrupts governments they will always ration benefits. Conservatives should respond by picking up the slack via religious and secular charities.

The long term strategy would be to government incompetence destroy the statist grip on social services. That could be way easier than getting the votes to back them off.

rcl on December 7, 2009 at 3:03 PM

“The majority of our current breast cancer survivors are women in their 40s.”

Soooooo….what does that tell you?

royzer on December 7, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Oh yes….. this is getting good.

The Eugenics people (liberal progressives) are definitely involved.

….

Professor
Associate Director of Population Sciences, Norris Cotton Cancer Center

“Population Sciences” = population control = Eugenics

ms on December 7, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Do you have any idea what population sciences is? Look it up. You saw a phrase and leapt to hysterical conclusions.

In this case, it’s the study of cancer in populations, as opposed to in individuals. For example, you might want to know how prevalent breast cancer is in the country, or how often it causes death among the elderly compared to other causes of death.

Here’s an example of a paper Dietrich published: http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/7/4/320. It looks at the effect of providing certain types of advice and support to community health centers in terms of how much services improved.

This has nothing to do with eugenics. Your comment is totally ridicuous.

tneloms on December 7, 2009 at 4:50 PM

Well, heck…I guess they’ll have to slap another $5.00 on each pack of cigs…that’ll fix the problem!

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 7, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Banana Republic, but I bet Michelle Obama’s A-cups are getting mammograms.

father on December 7, 2009 at 5:37 PM

I’ll bet nobody saw this coming!!

jdkchem on December 7, 2009 at 6:31 PM

In this case, it’s the study of cancer in populations, as opposed to in individuals. For example, you might want to know how prevalent breast cancer is in the country, or how often it causes death among the elderly compared to other causes of death.
This has nothing to do with eugenics. Your comment is totally ridicuous.
tneloms on December 7, 2009 at 4:50 PM
—————————————————–
Study of cancer in populations?

Just like the study of the climate…. can you say climategate?

As we have seen….. Science studies WILL result in whatever the scientists are told to make the studies show.

The eugenics people have told the “population scientists” to give them the results they want.

ms on December 7, 2009 at 8:00 PM

Study of cancer in populations?

Just like the study of the climate…. can you say climategate?

As we have seen….. Science studies WILL result in whatever the scientists are told to make the studies show.

The eugenics people have told the “population scientists” to give them the results they want.

ms on December 7, 2009 at 8:00 PM

Studying cancer in populations is like studying the climate because… you say it is? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?

Are you saying scientists shouldn’t study cancer in populations? Are you still maintaining that the study of populations is the same as eugenics? Did you look up what the term population sciences means?

tneloms on December 8, 2009 at 3:01 AM