Business & Lobbying

Video
THE HILL
 
comment
Print

Mammograms indicate defects of gov’t healthcare

By Dick Morris - 11/19/09 02:33 PM ET

The recent decision of the federal government to recommend that women abstain from annual mammograms illustrates well exactly how ObamaCare would force a deterioration in the quality of medical care, particularly for the elderly.

The panel evaluating the effectiveness of mammograms did not find that they don’t work or that they do not save lives. Rather, it found that the lives they save are not “worth” the cost of annual testing. This bureaucratic balancing of human life and financial cost lies at the core of the government-managed healthcare in the Obama bill.

To maximize your chances of avoiding breast cancer, women over 50 should, of course, be tested annually. But to save the government money and to conserve scarce resources, the government would like them to increase their chances of becoming sick and get screened only every other year.

Under our current healthcare system, the government can only recommend such changes.  But under ObamaCare, it can and will require them.

This rationing of healthcare, of course, primarily affects the elderly, since it is they who need care the most. Who could ask for a better illustration of how this system would work than the government’s sudden discovery that saving lives through mammograms is not worth the cost?


Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/68667-mammograms-indicate-defects-of-govt-healthcare
The contents of this site are © 2010 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsisiary of News Communications, Inc.

Comments (15)

I wonder why Elizabeth Edwards is silent on this controversy?BY Bzdashek on 11/19/2009 at 16:35
To say that the government panel is discouraging mammograms because the lives saved "aren't worth it" is offensive and entirely counterproducti ve. A huge number of cancers could be detected early if routinely checked for without any reasoning for doing so, but the question is whether the pain endured during those tests and the psychological stress of having a false positive (THE MAJORITY of positive mammograms for women in their 40s are false) are less significant than the benefits incurred from blanket testing. Women with false positives who undergo numerous biopsies, only to consistently find benign tumors, would undoubtedly argue that their suffering is NOT insignificant.BY Talia  on 11/19/2009 at 22:23
This is typical of the government's approach to women's health issues. We've had to fight every step of the way to get better health care. Now, the government wants to make it harder to get a mammogram every year. Who wants to get a mammogram? I sure don't, but it's been a necessary part of my life, and I have it done every single year. I consider it an essential weapon in the fight against breast cancer. This is a reckless decision, and I'm sure will be rethought due to the reaction of women everywhere.BY Linda on 11/19/2009 at 22:26
Mammograms are the worst thing any woman can get. There is a much safer way to be tested and that is by THERMOGRAPY. Mammograms spread the cancer cells if they are present and damage the tissue tremendously. We have been sold a bill of goods and it's all a big LIE. Women should not get this test.BY Margie on 11/20/2009 at 06:11
In addition to Thermography, an even better, as I understand it, and MUCH cheaper test is a simple ultrasound that is very effective. Why didn't the report elevate this test? It is used throughout Asia and Europe.BY Pencil Neck on 11/20/2009 at 06:38
Early testing discovered very small cancer in my wife 5 years ago, now cancer free.. she had been getting routine mamo's for years and other tests..lets not through out specific tests, unless an alternative has been evaluted and accepted by medical professionals first. the over the shoulder view by the bean counters will always be there, but should not rule the show.BY boxed quad on 11/20/2009 at 06:48
What this shows is that elected officials do not have the nerve to make important choices in regard to healthcare when clinicians point the way to positive changes. Will this be an opportunity for Republicans to start talking again about "dealth panels." Please…There are a clinically appropriate time to have tests, of all kinds, however, because the system pays for screenings in a certain way today, should not dictatate that we continue in this manner. Over testing is problem of costs, but more importantly a problem for the quality of care we provide to women and all citizens. Let's start talking this passionately about those people who do not have health insurance at all!!BY JoeyBoston on 11/20/2009 at 08:49
And now we hear that Pap tests aren't necessary for young women under 21 and then not every year afterwards. This comes from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists. The Washington Post article quoted an Alan Waxman as their spokesman. Wonder if he's related to Henry. Hmmmm. Curiouser and curiouser.BY Glennis on 11/20/2009 at 09:19
I agree with Bzdashek that the latest message on breast cancer screening is NOT that it isn't worth it, it is that the false positives may not be worth the detected cancers that result. Yes, you could argue every detected cancer is worth preventing, but the screening also causes harm. So on a population level, you need to weigh the costs. Every intervention in medicine has some risk associated with it and it's the balance of risk vs. benefit that needs to be communicated to the public if we are to ever get to improved quality of care. Obama's plan isn't about denying information or rationing, it's about educating the public on these risks.BY PamMinneapolis on 11/20/2009 at 09:57
I suggest that those who debate the medical/economic pros and cons of thse guidelines have missed the point. What about the the one, two or many women who are alive today because of the the tests at an early age. To discuss the medical/economic pros and cons is important but all that verbage is insenitive for those who are alive to day and is a diservice to those who never made it but might have been saved by a simple test. "One size does not fit all" when medical decisions need to be concluded. .BY JJD on 11/20/2009 at 11:33

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | Opinion
View News by Subject:
Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & Infrastructure
bloglogo

Briefing Room


More Briefing Room »

Congress Blog


More Congress Blog »

Pundits Blog


More Pundits Blog »

Twitter Room


More Twitter Room »

Hillicon Valley


More Hillicon Valley »

E2-Wire


More E2-Wire »
You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.