Posted on 11/18/2009 8:04:40 PM PST by Nachum
Thank you for that link.
I went and read the article and was not enlightened. I am not considered a stupid person and am usually regarded as gifted with fine reading comprehension.
What I am unclear about is that there is some healthcare “task force” with some members appointed by George Bush, FTA. The article does stipulate that information and guidelines from this “task force” is being used by congress in the drafting of health care legislation.
This is all so vague to me. I understand that a group of GOP women brought this matter up before the public, good on them.
Because this was just a perfect thing to throw out in front of the public....goood on the pubs.
But I sure would like more information on just who is involved in this task force, who appointed them...that sort of thing.
Interestingly, some woman supposed to be head of a women’s coalition on breast cancer of some sort, is dismayed at all the hoopla because she thinks this suggestion about mammograms as recommended by the task force are spot on.
Odd position for a female head of a breast cancer support group to take.
Could they have been stupid enough to think women would be relieved not to have to be tested until 50? Like you, I don’t see the benefit her, in our face or not. It just seems like whack-a-do stuff to me.
I have a liberal friend who has a strong family history of breast cancer and has been getting yearly mammograms since age 35; she is *not* happy with the “hope and change” recommendation of gov’t panels to end coverage for mammograms.
And this week marks the first time she’s been unhappy with Obama. (She loves taxes, socialism. . .)
I’m not surprised Obama is distancing himself from this. This is a big deal for my peers who are often kind of obsessed with breast cancer (I’m now 40).
And liberal women are his base. They are NOT happy with this, since they suspect, as we all do, that this is the first taste of the death panels. . .
“I note you mentioned that this panel was assembled by Sebelius’ own department. Which makes me think you know something about it, at least more than me right now.”
You said this in your comments to MyLife. He merely restated what was in the article. Why would that make you think he knows more about this than you?
That’s why I provided another link to the article.
I hadn’t heard that. Wow...
Yes. I did respond to MyLife. He said, in his comment, (assuming MYLIFE is a fellow) that this panel was assembled by Sebelius’ own department. Nothing in the linked article said anything about this panel being assembled by Sebelius’ own department.
So I thought maybe MYLIFE knew more than me.
Now I don’t want to fight and I ain’t going to fight. I read the link you sent which was the original link to this post but I could be wrong and am too lazy to check.
I just wondered how this panel was....as a commenter stated and I questioned which we are lawfully allowed to do here on FreeRepublic, that this panel was assembled by Sebelius.
You graciously provided me with a link to an article that did have more information on it all but as I stated, it was not at all clear to me that this panel was formed by Sebelius or her department. Which was asserted by the original commenter.
I just want to understand where this panel came from and it’s not yet been at all clear to me.
I do know, and I stated, that the “task force” that recommended changes in times and rates of mammograms, was formed and included members appointed by George Dubya Bush. I read it with my lying eyes which makes me ponder how the original commenter could claim the panel was formed by Sebelius’ department.
But I’m moving on cause I got a life.
These things do tend to iron out over the passage of time and soon enough it will become clear.
Thank you, again, for the link. It really did help.
"Sebelius's statement challenged the recommendations of that influential panel, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, made up of independent experts assembled by her department to address one of the most explosive issues in women's health.
I had not heard about this.
First of all, I do have a life. Second of all, I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m just trying to set the record straight.
Please read the statement pulled from the article that MyLife posted in response 68 here.
In light of it, does this still look factual to you, “Nothing in the linked article said anything about this panel being assembled by Sebelius’ own department.”
From the article:
“Sebelius’s statement challenged the recommendations of that influential panel, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, made up of independent experts assembled by her department to address one of the most explosive issues in women’s health.
(death panel test run)
I agree with your comments in post 4. I’m not sure why anyone would disagree. Thanks for the repost.
Sibelious is just playing a game of plausible deniability.
Sibelious is just playing a game of plausible deniability.
That’s about as good an explanation as anything I’ve got.
I can’t believe the poor timing here.
It may actually wake some people up though. Good for us, with regard to that.
I am surprised, talking to folks who arent that in tune with the news, I have found that they are aware of this story and are pissed.
Crap! And I just removed my own prostate with an apple corer and bottle of Knob Creek...
Government by trial balloon.
The quote that you Mylife quoted in comment 68 IS, indeed, in the article.
however, the quote ABOVE, in italics...is ALSO in the article. This is confusing to me, silly me.
Now is the WAPO wrong stating that the panel was appointed by Sebelius, or is my quote, COPIED FROM THE SAME ARTICLE, ali?
Seems to me somebody's obfuscating here and we're all arguing about confusing issues that are...eh, confusing.
I did, however, miss, that first thing, I apologize MYLIFe, but again, all I did was ask where he saw it. Which you kindly provided in comment 68. But again, my quote above is ALSO from the article. Can anybody explain that?
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.