GOP Rep Insists New Breast Screening Guidelines Will Be Government Mandate
h/t David
From This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn and Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz get into one of those discussions over this week's breast screening recommendations in which the Republican simply constructs an alternate reality:
BLACKBURN: ... Debbie is right when she says they forgot about people. Indeed, they did. But we have to realize, this group that made this recommendation, this isn't some outside group. This is a part of HHS. And when you look at the...
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: It's an independent group. That is not accurate.
BLACKBURN: ... 118 -- when you look at the...
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: It is not a part of HHS.
BLACKBURN: No, it is a part of HHS.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, it is not.
BLACKBURN: And when you look at what is going to happen with these 118 new bureaucracies with 62 directives that are given by the health choices commissioner on what insurance can be offered in this country after 2013 and what is going to be paid, you know that this is the bureaucrat in the exam room. This is how it's going to happen.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Marsha...
BLACKBURN: And this is the first step.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Marsha, there's an insurance company bureaucrat in the -- in between the patient and her doctor right now.
BLACKBURN: This is breast cancer. Well, and people don't like that, and we need to get rid of...
(CROSSTALK)
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And your bill -- your -- your alternative...
(CROSSTALK)
BLACKBURN: We need to get rid of all of those insurance bureaucrats.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: ... does nothing to...
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm going to have to -- I'm going to have to stop this right now.
Yes, George. Because your job is to provide a showcase. You're not supposed to confront the guests when they make things up.
George to Audience:
Tough titties,
Like you expect me to clarify matters?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Is that a pun on breast cancer?
;)
Sorry, I know that's a little bad taste.
marshka dips hers in cayenne pepper?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
.
Pretty-Boy George is useless as a moderator.
Does Marsha Blackburn ever shut up? Her nonstop blathering is so typical of republicans. Debbie Wasserman Schultz did her best, but I felt sorry for her.
Sunday morning news shows - another great reason to sleep late on Sunday mornings!
George stopped Wasserman Shulz from interrupting the monologueing Blackburn.
in to overtalk and lie is getting a bit tiresome..Geo should have stopped this but he lets l cheney run off at the mouth too...Must be a female thing with him! Like it that he let's them show their collective a$$ by not controlling the republican motormouths...makes the Dem case stronger!
Does anyone know who Blackburn is ? I do not.
She's from a gerrymandered district here in Middle Tennessee. Ultrawealthy and white Brentwood/Franklin and Fort Campbell area of Clarksville.
But, does anyone notice the recurring theme? The RW now does not give a shit about out and out lying now. It does not matter to them. Add to that a media that will not confront them on the lies. This is happening over and over again now.
Is ANYONE outraged? I mean enough to actually raise hell about it?
I now have such low expectations of these pathological liars that I expect them to lie all the time.
“The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it.”
Albert Einstein
“A lie told often enough becomes truth" - Vladimir Lenin
If telling the truth is the best policy the GOP is just shooting for second best?
:)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Okay next up Lady Gaga and her new CD "doing it with the enemy" but first a word from our sponsor Cheese Wiz . .
It go like that or something?
That ALL government office holders and candidates for said offices must take an oath to tell the truth in all speeches and interviews, and if caught lying, would be found guilty of perjury with all the punishments that violating said oath entails.
I'm sick of the lying, becasue they don't even care or try to hide it anymore.
If this was enacted, it would at least make the airwaves a little quieter.
One that gets a big fat bonus for denying care and the other that doesn't even exist. Which would you worry about. Health insurers are in the business of collecting premiums not paying claims. Payin claims is a cost that they are trying their best to reduce. Premiums are revenues that they are trying their best to raise. If HR does not past the health insurers will know we can't stop them. There will be a feeding frenzy the likes we have never seen before. Except them to drastically reduce paying claims and to double the increase in bpremiums every year.
...FnS had on some other person (I forget her name) that fear-mongered the living cr@p out of this, saying she "Strongly recommends ignoring the new guidelines. Women will die."
ADDENDUM: Bernadine Healy, NIH Director under Bush on FnS this morning:
Healy: "I'm saying very powerfully, Ignore the new breast screening recommendations. Women will die."
"It may save money, but it won't save lives."
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
this crap though? Just put immediate restrictions by executive order on all the obvious crime and greed running rampant then put together a real reform bill over the next few years.
Why does everything in the U.S. have to be done as if it's a football game where all that matters is the clock.
Duhhhhhhhh
I mean it. Just once I would like to see someone look one of these reactionary bozos in the eye and say "You're lying through your damn teeth!"
Hell, I'd settle for "You have no idea what the hell you're talking about."
Here's my response from the FCC in faux news using footage of the 2008 campaign during a story about palin's book tour:
Hello,
Thank you for contacting the FCC.
The FCC cannot interfere with a broadcaster's selection and presentation of material for the news and/or its commentary.
All concerns and/or comments about a specific news broadcast or commentary should be directed, in writing, to the local station and network involved.
The Communications Act and First Amendment to the Constitution prohibit any action by the FCC that would interfere with free speech in broadcasting.
The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, except when that material is obscene.
(emphasis mine).
The FCC receives numerous consumer complaints about broadcast journalism (television and radio journalism). Consumers complain that networks, stations, news reporters, and/or commentators give inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, fail to cover certain events, or cover events inadequately. Some consumers complain that the news has been staged or that news reports overemphasize or dramatize certain aspects of events. Other consumers object that broadcasters have announced an illness, accident, or a death of an individual before his or her family has been notified, or have in some way acted inappropriately toward the family. Consumers also complain to the FCC about the conduct (tone of voice, facial expressions, etc.) of some journalists while reporting or commenting on the news.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/journali...
Best Regards.
___________________________________________________________________________
In other words, they didn't say the expected, that it's out of their control due to it being on cable and not a broadcast station.
"All concerns and/or comments about a specific news broadcast or commentary should be directed, in writing, to the local station and network involved" what is the point of this direction in writing, when they already know they did this offense, as they have had a history of this offense, before this particular occasion? To do this on purpose they would have to have malice aforethought.
The Constitution and the regulation does not or should not condone deliberate misleading statements nor images presented (that is already under contract law by-the-way with both parties being equally informed).
The Constitution, and the regulation does not condone fraud.
The Telecommunications Act of 1993 and the Children's Programming Act both forebade program length commercials, unless they were clearly identified as such. This wasn't program length, but the length of a normal news story, but it appears to be covered by the stipulation.
And I don't need their protection from naughty words (isn't that a violation of Ist amendment rights too?)
I would say this email shows that the FCC serves no practical purpose and probably should be abolished.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
the fcc is important cuz it keeps people from saying fuck on the air
and if people can say fuck on the air, that will lead to others fucking on the street
and then, instead of the wars that keep this country going, all you will have is lots of fucking
oh, and the fcc makes sure that only people with money and power can own all the media...and that is important...cuz how else are you gonna control the sheeple
oh and dont blame the fcc...the supreme court already decided that fox is allowed to lie
funny how the word fuck and a nipple are considered obscene, but blatantly lying is not
I would like to see a Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce investigation opened on News Corp (Fox News), who appear to be frequently misleading the public intentionally, with what appears to be malice aforethought.:
The political parties of politicians caught in scandals misidentified,
Assistant producers caught staging tea party protests,
Misrepresenting numbers in turnout, specifically the tea party turnout in the Capitol as organized by Michelle Bachmann, and as reported by Sean Hannity; and, Gregg Jarrett using clips from the 2008 presidential campaign, in a story about the turnout for Sarah Palin's book tour (bordering on being a commercial passing as a news story at any rate, in an apparent violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996).
Inflammatory terminology with the apparent design and intent to create a violent atmosphere over political matters instead of informed, rational and enlightened debate.
I would like to see an audit of the FCC as well, who I understand is not involved with cable. But they seem to be hiding behind the I Amendment and Communications Act to defray acting. In a recent email from them, they seemed to think their job was to protect me from content with vulgar words and nothing more. As a full-grown man I do not need a nanny. And is this not in violation of the I amendment too, or are they deciding on their own what merits such protection and what does not?
Perhaps new legislation should be initiated to include cable regulation under the FCC purview, and to undo the damage caused by New World Communications. of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre, 866 So. 2d 1231 (2003).
The pattern of incidents suggests no random errors or differences in opinions and/or judgment as protected by the I amendment, and the Telecommunications Acts.
Does the FCC, Federal regulations and the power of the Federal Government exist only to protect fraud and hoaxes?
______________________________________________________________________
Unfortunately their contact site won't send it, and won't explain why, but I saved it and intend on mailing it.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I don't think it went as far as the Supreme Court UJM.
I think it's only gone as far as the Florida's Appeals Court.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Since Rep. Marsha Blackburn and Sen. Alexander are from the same place, if it's a ghetto for Alexander then the same talking point this moron Blackburn is spewing is the same. Both are from the ghetto of Tennessee and both are proud of it.
Blackburn has a record of repeating ONLY the things her handlers tell her to say so her track record is REAL poor, but since Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is ACTUALLY A BREAST CANCER SURVIVOR she tends to know what she's talking about. This was not a fair fight because Blackburn was an idiot going in......
Knowledge 1 - Moron-ism - 0....
If these idiots spent as much time working on legislation as they did appearing on the Bobble Head circuit, pr events, etc we might actually have a government.
This government gets about as much accomplished as two football teams who spend the entire 60 minutes arguing over who's going to get to call the coin toss.
for my mammogram when I was found to have benign tumors in my breast at age 23.
Blackburn can spare me her phony "concern."
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
and I mean THE SECOND they came out, you can bet your ass there was a group of Republican leaders and aides sitting in some window-less office brainstorming how to turn it around into a smear against health reform, and how to use it to scare people into thinking it's another example of Obama's death squads coming to get you.
Then they get their talking points together, footnote the appropriate page numbers in the bill that need to be distorted, and send it off to people like Blackburn that will parrot it off brainlessly to the equally brainless and gutless talk show hosts.
And then, before you know it, you're on Facebook, in a coffee shop, in line at the grocery store, etc... and you hear another in the long-line of sociopaths and morons completing the cycle, and repeating (regurgitating) what they just heard.
'It's just another example of Obama killing us with his health reform... he wants us to die.'
And that's American politics for you. Isn't it great?
Democrats need to up their game. Start lying on the GOpers positions.
that instead of lying to us.
crap that Obama seems so set on will fade out and the Dems will start playing hardball for a change, or am I just dreaming.
dandy
But the village didn't like it... they were being unfair, and acting in a way that was unbecoming of a Presidential Administration.
Better to just sit back and smile when an entire politcal movement is pissing down your throat and beating you over the back with a tire iron.
And make sure to thank them when they're done for the day.
who was so hell bent in regaining power in the congress, that they went out and got conservative, corporatists to run as dems
when a president has to fight his own party...he is doomed
Blackburn is really saying the insurnace companies SHOULD be setting healthcare policy/guide lines?
I think she has her talking points upside-down.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Pull my finger...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
WOW,
Lookit the size of that booger!!!
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
they don't know shit. why aren't they OUTRAGED by the CIGNA death panels, the private insurers who insist women be sterilised before they get insurance, or any of myriad heinous business-as-usual practices of private corporate extremely wealthy private insurers?
me-oww!
how in the world is any money saved by not doing preventive procedures???
im sick of the repukes who only serve their corporate masters, and im sick of the corporate dems who do exactly the same
there is no point in fighting anymore...this country is controlled by the corporatists
and will someone please tell george that if he and the administration he belonged to hadnt fucked up the health care debate so badly, we wouldnt even be having this discussion today
fucking midget freak
Well obviously the insurance companies who would have to pay for them are saving money - and they're saving BIG money if they discover any tumors that would require treatments. Much more cost effective if they're discovered too late.
GOP liars, like Marsha Blackburn, know that their lies have achieved sacred status in the halls of our newwork, print and radio news media. Journalist, reporters, pundits,...do not address, confront, or acknowledge that lies have been spoken. In the tradition of Palinista beliefs, like lying Palin herself; one thing is known, truth is never pursued. Exhaggeration, distortion and out right lies are paralyzing to news reports . The reality has become, you will get away with it and more importantly your constiuency supports your methods, tactics, and words (fear mongering, hate speech, racism, anger incitement...). The media is merely a vessel for repeation of calculated presentations of unsubstantiated information that will not be questioned.
To pin lying Marsha Blackburn against the wall; present the evidence and confront her premediated partisan lie; will never happen. The true newsmen with conviction, the reporters of the past are just that, in the past. The seriousness of breast cancer victims, families and contigent of supporters will get no respect from the news medias. Repect in the form of silence and cowardice instead will be afforded to the GOP liar in question at any given time. The Palinista Lying tactic is one born of initial ignornace but now enjoyed officially as a gleeful reality. Republicans are either obstructing, fillerbustering, holding back confirmations or just lying about everything and anything. Republicans like Marsha Blackburn, relish knowing no one will confront them, exposes them. No one will expose the lies of deathers, birthers, tenthers, beckers, x rated tea baggers, dithering ditto headers, foxers, nor of Palin the master of decption herself. Blackburn is in lock step as the Palista base flexs once again and the brave men and women of Amierican news media will continue to justify their reporting,(secretly their job security and selfishly their own possible future; aka cowards).
It's crap like this that will doom us in the decades to come. PLEASE watch Tom Friedman's analysis to Charlie Rose of why America will stay stuck in the mud.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/22/frie...
While I agree with most of what Tom Friedman said in this clip. I disagree with what he has to say about the internet: "Friedman also thinks cable news television distorts the truth and that the internet (at its worst) can be a terrible thing for our nation's politics. He also says American businesses have gone AWOL, and hover over America, participating only when it suits their industry's needs."
Seems to me Friedman made that comment about the internet to suit his industry's needs. The internet (at its best) can be an enlightening thing for our nation's politics because it helps expose the lies told by pundits on so called cable news channels.
Guys, I love this site and read it every day. (It's my first time commenting, though.)
I have to say that USPSTF is, in fact, sponsored and convened by AHRQ, the HHS Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm
For once, Blackburn is right about something, at least on that point. Somebody should really write an update/correction on this post, it seems to me.
Now, I don't at all agree with her interpretation of the bill, however .... :-)
any longer. Any show that has Liz Cheney on it's panel more than once, is not a credible news source.
There are just too many new bureaucracies and directives. That's why we need one, simple bill that creates a single payer health care system. Very simple. Kill off all the for-profit insurance companies.
It's your Freekin' job to be informed and to put the kibosh on disinformation, i.e. to speak truth to power, i.e. to ferret out the truth, i.e. JOURNALISM.
Get your thumb out of your ass, know your facts and hold your guests to an honest discussion about the facts.
Does anyone want to talk about the claim that Blackburn made about what was covered in the bill? She's talking about Sec. 222, which (as I read it) discusses minimum coverage under qualified health benefit plans:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c111RGCWEA:e140367:
So, someone please help me figure out why Blackburn is wrong here and mammograms (listed in USPSTF's recent report as a "C" for age 40-50) would in fact be covered. PLEASE ....
There is virtually no chance that any insurers, either public or private, will deny coverage to anyone based on these recommendations. Government and industry officials have said that explicitly and, in fact, every state but Utah requires private insurers to pay for mammograms for women starting in their 40s.
Looking at the report: http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/716.full
The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation)
An appendix table provides further explanation of what a Grade C recommendation means:
Definition: The USPSTF recommends against routinely providing the service. There may be considerations that support providing the service in an individual patient. There is moderate or high certainty that the net benefit is small.
Suggestions for Practice: Offer/provide this service only if other considerations support offering or providing the service in an individual patient.
Blackburn emphatically suggests that no mammograms will be covered for anyone under the age of 50. A Republican politicizing breast cancer. What a surprise!
How convenient for this news to come out the week of the senate vote.
Jeanne
Since "This Week" requires a plug-in (another security hole in my browser) to watch - I tried to install anyway but since the programming genius's over there removed the scroll bars on their EULA screen (for a goddamn one trick pony video viewer) - I can't install it! Well I figured it out actually it involves a key above your caps lock but by that point I was done and I wonder how may people would just give up. Funny the ads still work! I'll try and find the audio re-broadcast on cspan instead. ABC why do you hate the security conscious who are using landscape oriented laptops? I am sure it's a abc wide thing but it still pee's me off.
If anyone here ever thinks,in a moment of weakness,that there might be some small amount of validity to the notion that government health insurance would have meddling bureaucrats positioned between you and your Doctor?Perish the thought.They are LYING TO YOU.
As a Canadian I receive excellent care by simply flashing my "care card".I have never once had to deal with a bureaucrat (at the doctor)in all my 51 years.Americans should demand equal services and should be OUTRAGED at the level to which these profit hoarding dogs are prepared to stoop.Don't believe a word of it.
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
i posted this info at TP the other day -
i’ve been doing some digging, to find out when the task force study was initiated (maybe i should’ve checked here first, but i’ve been away all day and scarce for several days)…
here is what i found:
Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force*
+ Author Affiliations
1.
From the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.
Abstract
Reader Survey: Will the USPSTF Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations change what you do?
Description: Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer in the general population.
[...]
http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/716.abst...
.
.
Screening for Breast Cancer: An Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
[...]
Abstract
Background: This systematic review is an update of evidence since the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on breast cancer screening.
[...]
Data Sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth quarter of 2008), MEDLINE (January 2001 to December 2008), reference lists, and Web of Science searches for published studies and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium for screening mammography data.
[...]
http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/727.abst...
.
more to follow…
the original 2002 study (the conclusion is a bit different):
Breast Cancer Screening: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
[...]
Abstract
Purpose: To synthesize new data on breast cancer screening for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
[...]
Conclusions: In the randomized, controlled trials, mammography reduced breast cancer mortality rates among women 40 to 74 years of age. Greater absolute risk reduction was seen among older women. Because these results incorporate several rounds of screening, the actual number of mammograms needed to prevent one death from breast cancer is higher. In addition, each screening has associated risks and costs.
[...]
This review was commissioned to assist the current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in updating its recommendations on breast cancer screening. We focus on information that was not available in 1996, when the second USPSTF examined the issue (6). Our goal was to critically appraise and synthesize evidence about the overall effectiveness of breast cancer screening, as well as its effectiveness among women younger than 50 years of age.
[...]
http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/727.abst...
The New U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), first convened by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1984, and since 1998 sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), is the leading independent panel of private-sector experts in prevention and primary care. The USPSTF conducts rigorous, impartial assessments of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications. Its recommendations are considered the “gold standard” for clinical preventive services.
The mission of the USPSTF is to evaluate the benefits of individual services based on age, gender, and risk factors for disease; make recommendations about which preventive services should be incorporated routinely into primary medical care and for which populations; and identify a research agenda for clinical preventive care.
Background and Mission
Public Law Section 915 mandates that AHRQ convene the USPSTF to conduct scientific evidence reviews of a broad array of clinical preventive services, develop recommendations for the health care community, and provide ongoing administrative, research, technical, and dissemination support.
The Task Force’s pioneering efforts began with the 1989 Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. A second edition of the Guide was published in 1996. The current Guide to Clinical Preventive Services is available on the Web.
[...]
http://www.uspreventiveservices.com/index.cfm
my doctor told be a few years ago that guidelines for pap test had changed to every 2 years over 50 (i am 56)...
the more i learn about the breast exam guidelines the more logical it sounds…
once again, i think team obama overestimated the intelligence of the general populace and released the information without
due caution and explanation…
they should’ve known it would be confusing…
AND that the frighties would go negative…
but SOMEbody needs to point out when this task force study was started…
not?
Comments are closed on this entry