Women in a uproar, a glimpse into national health care
in [Toyota]
|
From: ByTor on 19 Nov 2009 15:56 In article <VBeNm.44150$de6.35295(a)newsfe21.iad>, newstrash(a)frontiernet.net says... > Do you believe it's correct for ANYONE to connect the task force with Obama? > If yes, why? I think the fair question to ask, because this task force was created *before* Obama, is how much *influence* will this *current* administration have over the *current* task force.
From: ByTor on 19 Nov 2009 16:19 In article <b%gNm.44383$de6.2718(a)newsfe21.iad>, newstrash(a)frontiernet.net says... > 1) The task force has been around since 1984. > > 2) The nomination process doesn't involve the president, unless something's > missing from the agency's web site. You've visited the site, so you probably > agree. > > "The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) solicits nominations > for members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) through an > open process announced in the Federal Register, an official Government > publication for notices from Federal agencies and organizations. Anyone can > nominate a candidate for the Task Force. Self-nominations are also accepted. > Members of the Task Force are selected based on recognized expertise in > prevention, evidence-based medicine, and primary care." > > 3) Since the whining began about the mammogram issue, I haven't seen any of > the whiners indicate which, if any task force members were nominated by > Obama, or which members were already in place before Obama took office. > > I'm always interested in new information if you have any, especially about > #3. I think the fair question to ask, because this task force was created *before* Obama, is how much *influence* will this *current* administration have over the *current* task force. I mean *all* administrations currently in power have their agendas that they will push, just because some department existed already is really irrelevant, leads me to believe that its just business as usual in Washington, influencing what *needs* to be influenced to win. I personally think that opposition is so fierce that they will *latch* on to anything to stall & discredit this health issue, but that doesn't mean that they may be wrong or spreading misinformation. The left opposes the opposers & attacks with almost equal ferocity so it looks to me like no one gets anywhere just more added drama & bullshit to the issues.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 19 Nov 2009 17:34 The government recommended colonoscopy by age 50. I waited until was 51. I didn't think this was a problem, but when my doctor submitted records of the exam, I was pretty worried about being arrested for waiting an extra year. I stocked up on extra ammo. Nothing happened, though. "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message news:4b05ab05$0$6751$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... > You are missing the point, Joe$#itForBrains, it make no difference WHO or > HOW they got to be on that panel. > > The fact is if BOs healthcare plan is passed by the Dims in Congress, they > are exactly the type of people that will determining the type of > healthcare we will be subjected to. > > A Government panel will make healthcare decision for the masses based on > need and cost. You can bet the farm, old folks like us will bear the > brunt of those government decisions > > I don't know about you but I prefer my healthcare decisions continued to > be made between me and my doctor. > > Why would any thinking person want a healthcare plan, run by government > bureaucrats, that is going to cost everybody more money to the tune of ten > trillions dollars, yet reduce the available healthcare? > > > "Joe$#itForBrains" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message > news:b%gNm.44383$de6.2718(a)newsfe21.iad... >> 1) The task force has been around since 1984. >> >> 2) The nomination process doesn't involve the president, unless >> something's missing from the agency's web site. You've visited the site, >> so you probably agree. >> >> "The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) solicits >> nominations for members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force >> (USPSTF) through an open process announced in the Federal Register, an >> official Government publication for notices from Federal agencies and >> organizations. Anyone can nominate a candidate for the Task Force. >> Self-nominations are also accepted. Members of the Task Force are >> selected based on recognized expertise in prevention, evidence-based >> medicine, and primary care." >> >> 3) Since the whining began about the mammogram issue, I haven't seen any >> of the whiners indicate which, if any task force members were nominated >> by Obama, or which members were already in place before Obama took >> office. >> >> I'm always interested in new information if you have any, especially >> about #3. >> >> >> >> "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message >> news:4b059680$0$6704$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >>> What makes you believe they are wrong in doing so? >>> >>> >>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message >>> news:Y1fNm.44376$de6.8318(a)newsfe21.iad... >>>> Because some people are connecting the tast force with Obama. >>>> >>>> >>>> "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message >>>> news:4b057cc9$0$6713$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >>>>> Why do you ask, Joe$#itForBrains? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Joe$#itForBrains" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:VBeNm.44150$de6.35295(a)newsfe21.iad... >>>>>> Do you believe it's correct for ANYONE to connect the task force with >>>>>> Obama? If yes, why? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:4b0575bb$0$6709$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >>>>>>> Joe$#itForBrains the NGs resident racist, I never said the task >>>>>>> force was appointed by the president, dummy. What I did was >>>>>>> "quote" what was in the Tribune News papers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know what you want but most sensible people do not want BO >>>>>>> and the Dims in Congress, to give people from the government the >>>>>>> power to control our healthcare, or THAT is the type of "change" >>>>>>> they will be making. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Joe$#itForBrains"ash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:RfeNm.43774$de6.20294(a)newsfe21.iad... >>>>>>>> Sorry to burst your bubble, Uncle Jemima, but the task force you're >>>>>>>> babbling about is not appointed by the president. Be very careful >>>>>>>> with your next response. This is a trap. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:4b056e4d$0$6741$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >>>>>>>>> What part of the "health task force, appointed by Obama," did you >>>>>>>>> not understand? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It was only thee days after the AMA and Cancer Society objected, >>>>>>>>> causing the uproar, that the Secretary come out and said, it >>>>>>>>> wasn't "us" it was "them," dr_jeff. LOL >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:taWdnYsrRbiOLZnWnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>>>>>>> Mike Hunter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> They THINK? Based on what it is doing seems to suggest >>>>>>>>>>> otherwise. LOL >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gee, Obama administration is saying that it is sticking with the >>>>>>>>>> old guidelines to begin screening at 40. I agree with Obama's >>>>>>>>>> administration on this one, not the task force that looked at the >>>>>>>>>> data. The data showed that you would have to screen about 1900 >>>>>>>>>> women in their 40s for breast cancer to save one life while you >>>>>>>>>> would only have to screen about 1300 women in their 50s for >>>>>>>>>> breast cancer. While I understand that fewer women's live would >>>>>>>>>> be saved by screening the younger women, fewer years woudl be >>>>>>>>>> lost. In addition, for saving lives, 1 in 1900 seems like a >>>>>>>>>> worthwhile screening. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/health/19cancer.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jeff >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "dbu`" <nospam(a)nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:jrqdnfl1tICc95nWnZ2dnUVZ_rFi4p2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <4b044174$0$18210$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net>, >>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A report from one of BO's appointed "medical" panels has >>>>>>>>>>>>> "determined" that >>>>>>>>>>>>> woman do not need monograms before the age of fifty, because >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not cost >>>>>>>>>>>>> effective to do so. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> America women, the AMA and the Cancer Society are all saying >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> "medical" panels proposal is BS and should be opposed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Several woman on TV said they would be dead if that were the >>>>>>>>>>>>> law of the land >>>>>>>>>>>>> because THEIR Brest cancer was discovered when they were in >>>>>>>>>>>>> their thirties >>>>>>>>>>>>> and forties. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just one of the first steps that proves how BO and the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dims in >>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress will control your healthcare if we ever let them pass >>>>>>>>>>>>> that goofy >>>>>>>>>>>>> law. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>> Young women need MORE not less mammograms. It is the young >>>>>>>>>>>> women who >>>>>>>>>>>> are more likely to die from breast cancer, because it is more >>>>>>>>>>>> aggressive >>>>>>>>>>>> at the younger age. What in hell is this obama administration >>>>>>>>>>>> thinking. >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 19 Nov 2009 17:34 "ByTor" <ByTor(a)snowdog.com> wrote in message news:00818628$0$23805$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > In article <VBeNm.44150$de6.35295(a)newsfe21.iad>, > newstrash(a)frontiernet.net says... > >> Do you believe it's correct for ANYONE to connect the task force with >> Obama? >> If yes, why? > > I think the fair question to ask, because this task force was created > *before* Obama, is how much *influence* will this *current* > administration have over the *current* task force. None whatsoever.
From: ByTor on 19 Nov 2009 17:49
In article <lKjNm.44398$de6.18753(a)newsfe21.iad>, newstrash(a)frontiernet.net says... > > "ByTor" <ByTor(a)snowdog.com> wrote in message > news:00818628$0$23805$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > In article <VBeNm.44150$de6.35295(a)newsfe21.iad>, > > newstrash(a)frontiernet.net says... > > > >> Do you believe it's correct for ANYONE to connect the task force with > >> Obama? > >> If yes, why? > > > > I think the fair question to ask, because this task force was created > > *before* Obama, is how much *influence* will this *current* > > administration have over the *current* task force. > > > None whatsoever. Okay.....Again, I see you cut out the rest of my reply but that's okay. I'll paste the rest so no one is confused by your answer because I think its more relevant & fair to my first paragraph, I explained *both* parties are responsible for influence as well, if anyone thinks they are note they are in denial: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I mean *all* administrations currently in power have their agendas that they will push, just because some department existed already is really irrelevant, leads me to believe that its just business as usual in Washington, influencing what *needs* to be influenced to win. I personally think that opposition is so fierce that they will *latch* on to anything to stall & discredit this health issue, but that doesn't mean that they may be wrong or spreading misinformation. The left opposes the opposers & attacks with almost equal ferocity so it looks to me like no one gets anywhere just more added drama & bullshit to the issues. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |