NOT RATIONING MAMMOS, EH?

As Dr. Marcy Zwelling points out in this video, the Senate health “reform” bill will destroy much of your autonomy as a patient. And, no matter how many whoppers the Democrats tell, she’s right. John Goodman points to a good example of how untrustworthy the Dems are on this point:

Ever since the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force called for fewer mammograms and fewer Pap smears, the Obama Administration has been trying to distance itself from the organization — referring to its recommendations as “nonbinding.?

Yet the National Center for Policy Analysis has discovered that the Reid health care bill refers to the task force no less than 26 times. And, yes, the task force will determine what screenings will and will not be included in the minimum coverage that everyone will be required to buy.

To put it bluntly, the White House and Congress are lying to the American people about their intentions. They are definitely planning to make your health care decisions for you and they are most certainly planning to use rationing as their primary method of controlling costs.

Comments 10

  1. Marc Brown wrote:

    This is complete nonsense. What you’re saying is that insurance companies should continue to cover procedures that are shown to do more harm than good. In other words, you would prefer to get your healthcare based on voodoo than science. And if you really want it – guess what. There’s nothing stopping you paying for it yourself in true ‘market’ fashion.

    Posted 25 Nov 2009 at 5:12 am
  2. jz-md wrote:

    are you using the term “rationing” as a dirty, unholy term?

    If so, then I ask: “do you believe that all patients ought have access to all they desire, all the time and place of their desires? or do you believe that rationing is prudent?

    If you believe rationing is prudent, then who do you trust to make those decisions?
    –politicians?
    –government beaureaucrats? eg. Preventative Services Task Force?
    –insurance administrators?
    –patient/doctors with some pts. having no choices because they have no money.
    –random patchwork of “all the above” which we currently have , and frustrates many.?

    Posted 25 Nov 2009 at 7:10 pm
  3. Catron wrote:

    “If you believe rationing is prudent, then who do you trust to make those decisions?”

    Rationing isn’t a matter of prudence, it is inevitable. All finite goods and services are rationed. The only choice is how it is done.

    Your choices all assume that someone must consciously “control” the rationing process, and you leave out the the market.

    The market is, ironically, the only fair and equitable mechanism for rationing, yet very few of our “leaders” understand this.

    Thus, they repeatedly attempt to impose top-down, centrally-controlled boondoggles like Obamacare.

    Posted 25 Nov 2009 at 7:52 pm
  4. Marc Brown wrote:

    You really are confused – the discussion on mammography is nothing to to with rationing. It is about applicability – maximizing effectiveness and minimizing harm. In fact, there has never been any attempt to ‘ration’ mammography – quite the reverse, with governments/insurers around the world actively pursuing population screening programs.

    Posted 26 Nov 2009 at 6:12 am
  5. Joseph C. wrote:

    Dave,

    The new USPSTF recommendations are based on a risk-benefit analysis informed by science, not politics:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/11/really_rethinking_breast_cancer_screenin.php

    Posted 28 Nov 2009 at 8:54 pm
  6. Catron wrote:

    I’m not as confident as you are that there is a bright line between science and politics, Joseph.

    I’m even less confident that “Respectful Insolence? is the best judge in these questions. Orac is “insolent? mainly to the safe, establishment-approved targets, like the anti-vaccine types.

    Moreover, as this WaPo piece indicates, these new guidelines were largely based on a “comprehensive analysis of medical literature” from Britain and Sweden. These two countries are already notorious for (you guessed it) rationing.

    Posted 28 Nov 2009 at 10:54 pm
  7. Joseph C. wrote:

    “I’m even less confident that “Respectful Insolence? is the best judge in these questions.”

    Why isn’t an oncologist qualified to comment on mammography guidelines? Some might even say that it’s his job to stay on top of this area of research.

    Posted 29 Nov 2009 at 7:21 pm
  8. Catron wrote:

    “Why isn’t an oncologist qualified to comment on mammography guidelines?”

    He’s qualified to comment, of course, but his posts suggest a level of status anxiety that would (in most cases) prevent him from bucking establishment opinion, even if his instincts tell him the CW is dead wrong.

    Posted 29 Nov 2009 at 7:36 pm
  9. Joseph C. wrote:

    I don’t think “the Man” has a consensus on this issue just yet. The debate goes way, way back and they’re still fighting it out.

    Posted 30 Nov 2009 at 9:21 am
  10. jz-md wrote:

    “Why isn’t an oncologist qualified to comment on mammography guidelines??

    The opinion of an oncologist will suffer from hindsite bias. His/Her experiences are skewed to the True Positives. A physician involved with triage, family doctor or internist, will carry more experience with the false positives, false negatives, and the true negatives.

    Posted 30 Nov 2009 at 6:48 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *