Posted on 11/21/2009 5:32:26 AM PST by Libloather
Sarah Palin asks: 'Rationed care' already?
By ANDY BARR | 11/20/09 8:44 AM EST
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin early Friday morning greeted news that renewed guidelines scale back screenings for cervical cancer by asking if bureaucratic panels were already rationing care.
“The recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists comes on the heels of another recommendation to limit breast cancer screenings with mammograms. There are many questions unanswered for me, but one which immediately comes to mind is whether costs have anything to do with these recommendations,” Palin wrote in a post on her Facebook page.
“The current health care debate elicits great concern because of its introduction of socialized medicine in America and the inevitable rationed care,” she continued. “We need to carefully watch this debate as it coincides with Capitol Hill’s debate and determine whether we are witnessing the early stages of that rationed care before the Senate bill is rushed through as well.”
Palin first waded into health care debate in August, announcing that Democrats would create so-called death panels to decide end-of-life care decisions for the elderly. The claim was widely disputed and debunked by the White House and congressional leaders.
The ex-governor did not wade into “death panels” territory on Frida, but did float the suggestion that Democrats have already begun to ration care in order to pay for health care reform.
“Obviously the first thought that comes to mind when hearing of these new recommendations from bureaucratic panels is ‘rationed care,’” Palin wrote. “It’s fair — and healthy — to ask if that’s what Washington has in mind with a government-controlled takeover of a health care system.”
Palin also encouraged supporters to consider “why these women-focused cancers are seemingly receiving substandard attention at a time when proactive health and fitness should be the message.
“Every woman should encourage rigorous debate to ensure that our collective voices are heard. We are paying attention to Washington’s health care proposals, and we want to hear what helps patients the most,” Palin wrote. “We need answers: Is early screening not saving lives? Why do doctors’ groups disagree? Did costs play any role in these decisions to change the recommendations on breast and cervical cancer screenings?"
“We need assurances that everything we’ve heard this week about fewer tests for women’s cancers is a result of patient-focused research and providing the best care for the right reasons, and not because of bureaucratic pressure to control costs,” she added.
It's time for women to light up some phone lines.
Obama will provide free pain pills as you slowly die.
Whether it is rationing or not, government health care politicizes everything to do with health, and people are right to question and not have faith in those institutions they previously trusted.
This woman is good. Here’s her posting from last night on the healthcare procedural vote: http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?v=app_2347471856&viewas=0
It’s clear that she gets a grasp of the heart of an issue, identifies what people can easily relate to in it, then puts it in succinct, common language. I don’t care how many staffers our other pols have, they can’t keep up with her cutting to the core of the issues on Facebook.
Another one -
Cancer Screenings - Rational Advice or Rationed Care?
Thu at 11:10pm
It was a breath of fresh air to finally hear the Democrats admit to their health care bill as “a lot of show and tell and razzmatazz,” (see Democrat talking points, in reference to my book). At least now we’re all on the same page when discussing the problems with their monstrous government health care “reform” plan.
Now, tonight, more disconcerting news – the New York Times reports of new guidelines to scale back cervical cancer screenings. The recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists comes on the heels of another recommendation to limit breast cancer screenings with mammograms. There are many questions unanswered for me, but one which immediately comes to mind is whether costs have anything to do with these recommendations. The current health care debate elicits great concern because of its introduction of socialized medicine in America and the inevitable rationed care. We need to carefully watch this debate as it coincides with Capitol Hill’s debate and determine whether we are witnessing the early stages of that rationed care before the Senate bill is rushed through as well.
Another question is why these women-focused cancers are seemingly receiving substandard attention at a time when proactive health and fitness should be the message. Every woman should encourage rigorous debate to ensure that our collective voices are heard. We are paying attention to Washington’s health care proposals, and we want to hear what helps patients the most.
We need answers: Is early screening not saving lives? Why do doctors’ groups disagree? Did costs play any role in these decisions to change the recommendations on breast and cervical cancer screenings? We need assurances that everything we’ve heard this week about fewer tests for women’s cancers is a result of patient-focused research and providing the best care for the right reasons, and not because of bureaucratic pressure to control costs.
Obviously the first thought that comes to mind when hearing of these new recommendations from bureaucratic panels is “rationed care.” It’s fair – and healthy – to ask if that’s what Washington has in mind with a government-controlled takeover of a health care system.
- Sarah Palin
I really think she’s going to break through, perhaps in the cycle of campaigning for 2010 candidates. Already Fox has a poll showing her overall popularity shooting up in the last month. (Hint: she’s now ahead of Romney, Huck, et al.)
And lets not forget 47% with Indies and 70% with GOPers. I guess Sarah is not toxic after all ay RNC.
In 1999 and 2000 I watched W frame issues and cut to the core. I remember his "risky anti-buggywhip makers scheme" comment. It gave me great hope.
1) Repubs/conservatives need to be able to frame issues, sell ideas in the face of a hostile and partisan media. This is why Reagan was successful, and those who cannot do so need not apply.
Palin has moved the debate on national issues from a freakin' facebook page! How can anyone say she doesn't get it?
2) Unlike W, she has a healthy disregard for the opinions of her political opponents. I was hoping W had a little bit less of his daddy in him, and a little bit more of his ma...guess not.
Palin has a demonstrated willingness and track record in taking on a corrupt establishment.
3) The new political divide is not between repubs and RATS, but between insiders and outsiders. Current repub leadership has shown itself unwilling or unable to take on RAT leaders, policies and positions. The debate seems to be not whether we will have more or less government, but who will be in charge.
Gingrich delivered a majority, and Hastert p!$$ed it away. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
Palin has shown every indication she will be "Going Rogue," not native.
I'll make up my own mind about who to support in 2012, and it won't be based upon hand-wringing in the media...unlike too many posters here.
I wonder sometimes...are these so-called conservative posters who think Palin is too controversial or ignorant naive or seminar posters?
The mammogram and cervical cancer screening controversy has brought the solution to our healthcar dilemma into focus for me.
Both of these screening exam issues are statistically based. What is the increased risk doing 2-year exams versus doing 1-year exams? That is the starting point. From there it moves into the cost realm. Is it worth the additional cost to do 1-year exams?
The other measure would be a risk comparison. Would 2-year exams make one of these cancers stick out like a sore thumb in comparison to other bad things that happen to us? If not then 2-year exams are fine.
Then there’s the matter of individual feelings. Maybe one person wants the security of 1-year exams, and another can’t be bothered even going every 2 years.
We’re only talking about government-mandated coverage here. The mandate might be for 2-year exams. What’s stopping people that want extra security from paying for an exam every other year. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Now the proper overall universal healthcare strategy comes into focus. Universal coverage should be a minimum level. If individuals want more than the minimum, they gets private insurance or pay out of pocket.
Under that scheme there’s room for private insurers. The minimum level should be minimal enough to where much of the population would choose to pay for more coverage.
Doctors might feel a need to compete pricewise for various services because a bunch of people will pay for some of them out of pocket and therefore will look for the cheapest provider.
And there’s the obvious fact that minimal universal coverage will be the cheapest.
So there you have it. By making universal coverage minimal you make room for private insurance and also for competition among providers.
An integral part of the healthcare legislation ought to be the definition of the limits of its coverage. Universal coverage must not be something that makes everyone say “that’s all I want”.
I’ve been thinking about the irony of all of the, “we shouldn’t be looking too hard for breast cancer” announcements in November, the month after Breast Cancer Awareness Month. The only thing that would have been more ironic is to make these announcements in October, though apparently even the clueless idiots making those pronouncements must have had some dim bit of awareness that making these announcements in October would probably not have been a good idea.
On the upside, with all of these pro-breast-cancer announcements clustered in November, right after Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it makes November the ideal month to be designated “Breast Cancer Unawareness Month”. The official ribbon will be modeled after yellow and black striped crime tape. And the offical motto will be “What, me worry?”
An elderly neighbor of mine sees a doctor at least once every two weeks to check blood thickness. Cutting that in half could mean real problems.
Yep, if Obama weren’t so bad and Palin so good, Middle America would probably punish the Republicans with more than four years in the wilderness. It’s looking like four years of a Democrat Congress may even be all they can take, too.
The commies will try to kill off as many elderly as they can. If you’re not working and paying taxes to them, you’re of no use to them and in fact, a drain on the system. As such, you are expendable. But what else could you expect from those who have no problem murdering human infants.
That's only PART of the problem. Cervical cancer hits too many BEFORE they hit 40. Husseincare seems to disagree.
Their arrogance is astounding. That they would already start the rationing preliminary propaganda is just indicative of how shock-sure they are of getting their way in EVERY aspect of their agenda.
God, please tell me we’re not really going to let them get away with this crap. Most Americans oppose what they’re doing and so they do it anyway.
Anybody else see a deliberate challenge here? It’s like they’re daring us to try and stop them.
No. Not free. Tax-payer funded, of course.
Just as they, the DemocRats that voted to pull the feeding tube.. provided morphine to Terri Shiavo, as they slowly starved her to death. These are the SAME ghouls in charge of the country today. Does anyone doubt that they’ll be pulling our plug/feeding tube soon too? I don’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.