Women in a uproar, a glimpse into national health care
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 19 Nov 2009 18:14 On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:29:25 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>> But, then again, she doesn't work for Obama, so that doesn't carry >>>> weight as far as you're concerned. If this had come out during the >>>> Bush administration you'd be all over it. You're a putz. >>> >>> >>> All over it? Nice try. You lose. >> >> >> No. Any woman who develops breast cancer before the age of 50 loses, >> thanks to Obamacare. >> >> When it comes to you, I never lose. Loser. >> >> > > You'd have no such thoughts if the AMA made the same recommendations. You > hate it because you were told it was connected with Obama. Sure. Of course. But the AMA didn't. As a matter of fact, NO Doctor, Oncologist, OR medical professional had anything to do with it. If you leave now, you can probably make it to the store in time to buy today's Wall Street Journal and fiuind this out for yourself. There was not ONE SINGLE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL on the panel that came up with the 50 year old 'guideline'. It was done by a panel, and most likely a panel of bureaucrats. This is Bambicare. No science. No medicine. Just statiticians and actuaries. You know, like of like an insurance company. Except most insurance companies do have medical professionals advising them so they don't go and say something stupid. So, keep on rooting for National health care! Just the same thing, only run by the government instead of an insurance company. We don't expect any more from you, or them.
From: Mike Hunter on 19 Nov 2009 18:19 In other words you think it will OK for the government to control what treatments you may have under a federal healthcare plan, rather than what the doctors in the AMA believe is right for you, because they ALL do it? LOL "ByTor" <ByTor(a)snowdog.com> wrote in message news:00819f51$0$13122$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 19 Nov 2009 18:23 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.11.19.23.14.18.293248(a)e86.GTS... > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:29:25 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >>>>> But, then again, she doesn't work for Obama, so that doesn't carry >>>>> weight as far as you're concerned. If this had come out during the >>>>> Bush administration you'd be all over it. You're a putz. >>>> >>>> >>>> All over it? Nice try. You lose. >>> >>> >>> No. Any woman who develops breast cancer before the age of 50 loses, >>> thanks to Obamacare. >>> >>> When it comes to you, I never lose. Loser. >>> >>> >> >> You'd have no such thoughts if the AMA made the same recommendations. You >> hate it because you were told it was connected with Obama. > > Sure. Of course. But the AMA didn't. > > As a matter of fact, NO Doctor, Oncologist, OR medical professional had > anything to do with it. > > If you leave now, you can probably make it to the store in time to buy > today's Wall Street Journal and fiuind this out for yourself. There was > not ONE SINGLE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL on the panel that came up with the 50 > year old 'guideline'. Can't leave here for a newspaper, and band rehearsal begins in a half hour. Last I read, the recommendation came from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Is that still the case, as far as you know?
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 19 Nov 2009 19:54 On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:23:04 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.11.19.23.14.18.293248(a)e86.GTS... >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:29:25 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> >>>>>> But, then again, she doesn't work for Obama, so that doesn't carry >>>>>> weight as far as you're concerned. If this had come out during the >>>>>> Bush administration you'd be all over it. You're a putz. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All over it? Nice try. You lose. >>>> >>>> >>>> No. Any woman who develops breast cancer before the age of 50 loses, >>>> thanks to Obamacare. >>>> >>>> When it comes to you, I never lose. Loser. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> You'd have no such thoughts if the AMA made the same recommendations. >>> You hate it because you were told it was connected with Obama. >> >> Sure. Of course. But the AMA didn't. >> >> As a matter of fact, NO Doctor, Oncologist, OR medical professional had >> anything to do with it. >> >> If you leave now, you can probably make it to the store in time to buy >> today's Wall Street Journal and fiuind this out for yourself. There was >> not ONE SINGLE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL on the panel that came up with the >> 50 year old 'guideline'. > > > Can't leave here for a newspaper, and band rehearsal begins in a half > hour. Last I read, the recommendation came from the U.S. Preventive > Services Task Force (USPSTF). Is that still the case, as far as you know? THat's what it says. I'd like to know what 'doctor' would recommend fewer breast exams. Should probably have his license revoked. Let's see Michelle O lead the way!
From: dr_jeff on 19 Nov 2009 21:09
Mike Hunter wrote: > What part of the "health task force, appointed by Obama," did you not > understand? It is not appointed by Obama. From the Task Force website: "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." http://info.ahrq.gov/cgi-bin/ahrq.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=9&p_created=1151080977&p_sid=ERAUWoNj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_srch=1&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9NDUsNDUmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPTE2LDUmcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0yLjUmcF9wYWdlPTE!&p_li=&p_topview=1 So it is part of the government, but not appointed by Obama. > 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," And it was the Obama administration doing the right thing. Jeff > 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. >>>> -- >>>> > |