You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘healthcare’ tag.
Hillary said it
followed by a string of personal stories like this one
After all the huffing and puffing
which is good news for the people who want to stay alive
how it came out
so we can afford a little snark
and see reality hitting the tantrum party
the before/after tweets are fun
and those tabloids today
and similar from Daily News
The blame from 🍊 is on its way although for now
and right before
but credit where credit is due
and this is a good summary
and be silly
although not quite as silly as republicans airing celebratory ads – we’ll remember those ones come election time!
but the Ds ads will hit harder
NY Post after
and the News
this is better
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.
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
The two identical parties are racing for the big Money SCOTUS now freed to flow openly into our elections.
DNC tops Steele’s record March for donations
Of course, while both parties will brag that this is a reflection on what membership thinks of the Heritage Foundation Romneycare,
“It’s clear supporters of reform were more generous than opponents,” said DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse.
the truth is, we don’t know who these supporters are just yet
Neither party Wednesday released more detailed statements on the sources of the money, the number of donors or the size of the average donation.
Well, maybe we do have an idea. Here’s a headline from a few weeks ago
Millions Spent to Sway Democrats on Health Care
An alliance of groups supporting the health care plan, which works closely with the White House and Democratic leaders, had been spending far less and focusing on fewer districts. But after pharmaceutical companies made a $12 million investment for a final advertising push, spending by both sides for the first time is now nearly the same.
You have to wonder how much of that was funneled through the parties.
Or how about this Wall Street article on Blue Dogs.
Friday’s page-one Post story about the Blue Dogs suggests a far simpler explanation: Entrepreneurship. In addition to everything else, the Dogs are champion fund raisers. Individual Dogs do far better than garden-variety Democrats when it comes to bringing in contributions from folks with business before Congress, like the insurance industry and the medical industry. According to CQ, their political action committee is the only Democratic PAC to rival the big Republican dogs; in 2009 fund raising it has been bested only by Mitt Romney’s gang.
or the headline in Washington post
Industry Is Generous To Influential Bloc
the group has set a record pace for fundraising this year through its political action committee, surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June. More than half the money came from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries, marking a notable surge in donations from those sectors compared with earlier years,
But probably the most relevant headline here is this one from USA Today
Health industry invests in state elections
It appears that if they want to see their sweet mandate money pouring in, insurers need o buy stooges at the state level too
Six of the 15 attorneys general who have challenged the new law count health care interests among the top five industries giving to their most recent campaigns, according to the non-partisan National Institute on Money in State Politics.
and we even have some numbers from last year
In 2009, health care companies made up four of the top 10 givers to the Democratic Governors Association and three in the top 10 to the Republican Governors Association. Health interests donated more than $4.2 million to the DGA and $3.9 million to the RGA, which are working to elect 37 governors this fall, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
And of course, why are the money sent to GOP anyway?
The financial burden of expanding Medicaid is a top concern of 14 attorneys general who recently filed a multistate lawsuit challenging the health care law Obama signed into law last month. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott received the most from health care groups, taking in more than $415,000 in his 2006 campaign.Jason Johnson, an Abbott campaign spokesman, said there’s no link between donations and official actions. Given the profits health companies will reap from the new law, “if anything, I would expect these individuals to demand their contributions be returned,” he said.
No, they won’t. But thanks for the peek behind the kabuki curtain anyway. Seems some of the GOP-ers are in on the secret.