You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘healthcare’ tag.
From the medical business to the media to idiotic women, they all got on the Angeina Jolie bandwagon. For whatever reason she chose breast surgery, plastic or medical – it shouldn’t be our business. But she decided to make it so, so here is my reaction:
A healthy woman is hailed as brave for cutting her breasts because she might get cancer (she still might now, but better odds) I don’t know who came up with the 87% and 5 % numbers and how, but people take them on faith and miss one point: without surgery she might never get cancer. With it, she still could.
Yet the move is praised to high heaven – even elevated at the rank of “a mother’s duty”. NY Times promotes the tweet with the quote about telling her kids they don’t have to fear losing her to cancer. Keep your breasts and you are a bad mommy!
It’s nice how everyone is so cavalier with a woman’s body parts. Waiting for the praise for someone cutting testicles based on an 87% chance.
I have been called ignorant, anti-woman and how do I dare criticize her. I don’t. She wanted to raise awareness, I’m aware and this is what I know:
Genetics is in its infancy – not sure how reliable their cause/effect study is – and is there only one gene involved? The numbers are highly suspicious.
Cancer patients are less and less getting surgery these days. Boosting immunity is the state of the art treatment. With all the early screening, it was noticed that the body takes care of a great number of tumors, through its immune system.
Breasts, ovaries are not just man toys, baby-making organs. They are important parts of our body. Nerves, hormones important to our overall health are there. Lopping them off based on a “maybe” is not bravery in my book.
Oh, and this woman the whole medical science defers to today, used to carry blood vials of her spouse around her neck (they both did, Billy Bob and her) for a strange reason I forgot now.
And a balancing view
Preventive double mastectomies among women in that latter group have shot up by 188 percent since the late-1990s. The steepness of the rise suggests those operations were driven less by medical advice than by women’s exaggerated sense of risk of getting a new cancer in the other breast. According to one study, such women believed that risk to be more than 30 percent over 10 years when it was actually closer to 5 percent. I am concerned that the coverage of Jolie’s decision, if not handled carefully, will add fuel to a culture of fear, to a misunderstanding of risk that could compromise women’s health choices.
From the RW Newsbusters with the word “amazing” in the headline
It’s been a long time since I have been amazed by the media bias. But the real point they make is
A new ABC-Washington Post poll found ObamaCare sunk to its lowest popularity yet: 52 percent opposed, and only 43 percent in favor. ABC mentioned the poll without fanfare at the end of a Jake Tapper report on Monday’s World News, and Tapper added this was the health law’s “lowest level of popularity ever.” But Tuesday’s Washington Post reported not one sentence on the poll in the paper – even as they reported in the paper that the same survey found Obama’s tax-and-unemployment-compensation deal has “broad bipartisan support.”
So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.
And I don’t think there’s a single Democrat out there, who if they looked at where we started when I came into office and look at where we are now, would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that I promised.
Maybe those bipartisan polled make all over one million dollars. Maybe they all work at the White House or WaPo.
There’s nothing “amazing” in this omission for me. Just what I grown to become accustomed from WaPo since their reporting on Bill Clinton.
If it’s in WaPo, it’s very likely made up. Especially considering that they have a lot to gain fron this particular lie.
Too bad that here, on planet reality it stinks: The Chicago article mentions insurers can both delay a year the early provision or eliminate co-pay (you pay all) Read the rest of this entry »
I will name WaPo the cover of the day as it catches the photo op with the miner’s widow in the right moment: as Obama rushes to disentangle himself from the yucky moment
other papers were more reverential in their choice of photo, but they demonstrate anyway Obama has just as much of a problem as W to pretend that he cares
.Wall Street Journal is predictably running with the financial bill
.In DC, The Examiner brings up yet another potential disaster Obama’s historical Romneycare is cooking for us all
In NY, the theme seems to be transportation:
NY Post reports on a cabbie trick
Today in irony: Here’s a headline I read this morning that made me laugh out loud
In Ohio, Democrats cast themselves as outsiders
Ohio’s U.S. Senate campaign offers an excellent preview of what this fall’s midterm elections will be like: Everyone in the race wants to be an outsider, everyone pledges to break with politics as usual, and everyone is talking about jobs.
Some of it is sincere form of flattery of Scott Brown
In a year when independence seems chic, Brunner argues that she might be the Democrats’ answer to Scott Brown, who rode his outsider status and his pickup truck to an unanticipated Republican victory that shook the nation.
“I do drive a pickup truck,” Brunner says, “but I was already doing it — I needed it for my dogs.”
The article goes in the specifics of this particular primary race but barely touches on the reasons for these outlandish claims from the party in power of being outsiders. In fact the words “distancing themselves from Obama” never come into play. Remember the rule, kids: when it’s bad news its “Washington, Feds”. When it’s good news, it’s Obama. Bush”. For Clinton it plays in reverse. Here’s how it’s applied here
As for the fall, Fisher believes that several more months of economic growth will improve the climate for Democrats. And he adds: “Much of the unrest and anger we’re seeing is directed much more at Washington and Wall Street than at any particular political party.”
Dream on, candidate. Whatever the economy might do, there won’t be any improvement in jobs for the next 5 years. That’s the part of the economy voters care about – the rest is just rhetoric.
So, let’s face it: outsider in this case is code for “I didn’t vote for Obama’s mandates “
Which, considering that Ohio went to Hillary in the primaries, is doubly sweet.
For added fun, think of Democratic incumbents who were actually in ” evil” Washington, doing Washington things with the Wall Street guys. What will their narrative be?
And this is your schadenfreude thought for the day.