Socialize

Republicans: See, we told you so

By
November 21, 2009

Republicans are seizing on this week’s recommendations for fewer Pap smears and mammograms to fuel concern about government-rationed medical care — and to try to chip away support by women for President Barack Obama’s proposed health care overhaul.

“This is how rationing starts,” declared Jon Kyl of Arizona, the party’s second-in-command in the Senate, during a news conference. “This is what we’re going to expect in the future.”

Said Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska: “Those recommendations will be used by the insurance companies as they make a determination as to what they’re going to cover.”

Democrats said the recommendations had nothing to do with the big health care bill. And besides, they said, the recommendations, especially one that women start mammograms at 50 rather than 40, were deeply flawed.

“It’s entirely possible that this panel got it wrong, and I think they did,” said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the vote-counting Democratic whip. Fears that the government is going to run health care have not come up during negotiations for Saturday’s crucial procedural vote, Durbin added.

But the recommendations have given Republicans something new to talk about in making their case that the 2,074-page bill amounts to government-rationed health care.

The timing of the release of both sets of guidelines this week, though apparently coincidental, couldn’t have been worse for majority Democrats. The bill faces its first survival test Saturday, when it must win 60 votes to advance to the next step. In recent days, Democratic leaders have struggled to placate three holdouts from their caucus but appeared Friday night to be winning them over.

One Democrat wasn’t taking chances on whether the recommendations had jeopardized access to affordable mammograms. Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., said she would introduce an amendment that would limit the costs of the breast cancer tests for women 40 and older.

“Otherwise, insurance companies may use this new recommendation as yet another reason to deny women coverage for mammograms,” Mikulski said.

That was unlikely, the White House said.

“Under health insurance reform, recommendations like these cannot be used to dictate coverage,” said presidential spokesman Reid Cherlin.

The guidelines themselves stress that they’re general recommendations for routine screening, not a replacement for the one-on-one health advice that women with various risk factors for breast or cervical cancer get from their doctors in choosing how often to get a Pap or mammogram.

“So, what does this mean if you are a woman in your 40s? You should talk to your doctor and make an informed decision about whether a mammography is right for you based on your family history, general health and personal values,” said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the task force that made the mammogram recommendations.

Still, the new guidelines generated enough confusion and raised enough questions to force proponents of the health care overhaul on the defensive.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has said the mammogram recommendation “does not determine what services are covered by the federal government.”

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said the Senate health care bill he authored “doesn’t do one single thing to change current law related to the way coverage decisions are made.”

“Those decisions will be based only on science and thorough review, just as they are today,” said Baucus, D-Mont. “Research comparing the effectiveness of different treatments for different patients cannot be used for rationing care.”

“We’re not rationing anything,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. “It’s a decision between a woman and her doctors.”

The specter of the government making deeply personal medical decisions for millions of Americans — in this case, women — has been propelled in part by the Republican drive to stymie the Democratic bill.

The legislation would require most people to buy health insurance, and the House version would create a government plan that would compete with those offered by private insurers.

This week’s recommendations from two different groups called for less-frequent cancer tests for women.

On Monday, a government-appointed but independent panel of doctors and scientists said women generally should begin routine mammograms in their 50s, rather than their 40s.

Then on Friday, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said that most women in their 20s can have a Pap test every two years — instead of annually — to catch slow-growing cervical cancer.

Neither the task force, which provides advice to government officials who may or may not act on it, nor the ACOG set federal policy. The ACOG’s recommendations are aimed at its own members.

The Democratic bill would set up an independent institute to conduct studies. It would not authorize the health secretary to deny coverage solely based on the institute’s research.

There are other safeguards. All states except Utah make insurers cover mammograms, and 20 states require coverage that starts at age 40, according to 2007 data compiled by the Washington-based National Women’s Law Center.

___

Associated Press writers Stephanie Nano in New York and Lauran Neergaard in Washington contributed to this report.

Posted by on November 21, 2009. Filed under Capitol Hillbillies. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

5 Responses to Republicans: See, we told you so

  1. Sandra Price

    November 21, 2009 at 6:51 am

    I am always shocked at the reaction from the GOP when it extremely obvious they had no plans to win any election for their party. They sat back, whining and trying to prove President Obama was born in Kenya. Their blind faith in the Bush Administration gave them the false security that the GOP was a viable political movement and it would win on it’s own merits. Not a single member of the GOP will stand up to the promises made by President Obama. His actions are exactly what he promised.

    The GOP sat out of the campaigns in 2006 and 2008 resting on their deep religious convictions that the opposition was socialistic. I defy anyone here not to visit the Social Conservative sites to see what they are threatening.

    There is an element of threatening terrorism from the right. The dialog is terrible and I fear it will bring on another crusade.

    Sandy

  2. Carl Nemo

    November 21, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    “One Democrat wasn’t taking chances on whether the recommendations had jeopardized access to affordable mammograms. Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., said she would introduce an amendment that would limit the costs of the breast cancer tests for women 40 and older.

    “Otherwise, insurance companies may use this new recommendation as yet another reason to deny women coverage for mammograms,” Mikulski said.” extract from article

    ***

    This is a prime example of a medical non-professional; worse yet, a politician adding an ‘amendment’ limiting costs of breast cancer tests for women. Senator Barbara Mikulski-Dem. MD is involved with its hopeful passage and even she evidently doesn’t trust the wording and intentions of this bill once turned over to faceless bureaucrats for interpretation and administration.

    As far as I’m concerned Congress has no business with any aspect of our health care realm other than to pass “anti-trust” legislation if necessary or simply worded, bills that would prohibit companies from engaging in less than sterling enrollment practices; ie., using a host of preconditions that can exclude one from obtaining coverage. Other than that they need to stay away from the field of medicine…period!

    How many more kneejerk amendments will be added to this bill prior to passage or modifications in years to come if passed until it’s a convoluted nightmare for “We the forcibly insured”… / : |

    Carl Nemo **==

  3. bogofree

    November 22, 2009 at 8:51 am

    And so it begins. I’m 65 and sooner or later I will get screwed by government policy. Have a great insurance program now and eventually that will limited. As I have said many times on this issue my fear is not that the underinsured/non-insured will be raised to my level but I will be lowered to their level. Selfish? You bet!

  4. woody188

    November 23, 2009 at 3:41 pm

    It’s not selfish if you worked hard and paid for your insurance. Why should anyone get that for free when you had to bust your butt for it?

  5. bogofree

    November 23, 2009 at 6:52 pm

    Correct. All those moonbats trying to shove emotional guilt on me for not wishing to support alternative lifestyles for multi-generational layabouts. Seems like the entitlements come to those who should be least entitled.