Breast cancer is such a politicized illness that it's like a tar-baby: touch it anywhere and you just get tangled up in it. Suffice it to say that it really should be up the woman to decide when she wants to be tested, and she should be pleased to know that no other illness receives as many dollars in research funding per death--helping to lead to a 95 percent cure rate if caught earlier, probably a better rate than almost any other cancer.
Anyways, one topic on Ron Reagan’s show on Wednesday was the question of whether Barack Obama should veto a health care bill if it includes the Stupak abortion amendment, which would restrict private insurers from covering abortion—and seems a contradiction of the Republican’s hands-off business stance. Beyond the hypocrisy, it seems illogical to include any Republican-backed amendment if it does bring any Republicans on board; perhaps we should assume that this amendment (and others that restrict reform) merely serves as a sop to the conservative sensitivities of Blue Dog Democrats.
In the end, what has this “bi-partisan” wrangling has wrought? One Republican vote, and that not even in support of reform, but to “continue” the “conversation.” Harry Reid, while he may be given credit for shepherding through a CBO-approved bill, he has not learned how to play the “game” (or Nancy Pelosi for that matter, considering the two votes to spare passage of the House bill). Or Obama, it must be confessed. LBJ knew how to play the game, managing to get his social agenda passed with the support of some conservative Southern Democrats—by horse-trading for votes. If conservative lawmakers wanted amendments or a “favor,” they could get it—but they had to vote for LBJ’s agenda, or else it was no deal. What we are seeing now seems nothing more than an effort to water down health care reform to the point where Democrats can make the quizzical claim that they did everything they could to appease the Republicans, that they took into account all their complaints and “suggestions,” and that in the end it the Republicans were never serious about reform. The problem, of course, is that the bill still contains all the elements the right wanted, but won’t vote for. Why keep those elements in then, and opt for an alternative, stronger bill? Well, there are still those pesky Blue Dogs who we’re not sure what they stand for that differentiates themselves from Republicans.
Keeping on the subject of health care, I checked an online insurance broker that provided a list of major (and minor) medical plans and their costs for individuals at a certain age. Your choices were either high premiums (over $1,000 a month) with “relatively” low co-pays, or low premiums ($100) with high co-pays—generally anywhere from $3,500 to $5,000 before the insurance company even considers paying a dime. It’s hard to see how low-income individuals (or families) can afford either option. Perhaps “indemnity” insurance isn’t that bad in comparison.
I was hoping that we could discuss the new recommendations for breast cancer screening again. Women who feel their lives were saved by early cancer screening are very angry about the new recommendations, but the problem is that no one is willing to ask the question, "Was I one of the people treated unnecessarily? How do I know that my cancer wouldn't have healed itself without the treatment? Or did my body heal it itself in spite of the toxic cancer treatments?" After going through the horrors of cancer treatment and surviving, no one would ever want to believe that this treatment was not necessary.
I do not blame women for not wanting to ask this question. I wouldn't want to ask that question either.
All of the comments made about this new study have been made about the actual detection of cancer, but it seems to me that this study is not indicting early detection but rather indicting toxic cancer treatments and their actual benefits. We are focusing on mammograms in our discussions when we should be having honest discussions about the true effectiveness of chemotherapy. The study proves that we need to take pharm profits from overzealous oncologists who may be guiding women to have aggressive treatment simply to pay for their lifestyle.
Am I wrongheaded here?
Basically the study