newspoodle’s posterous

News and info to make you a better whatever.... 

Triage Doctor from Little Rock Free Clinic: Public Option Needed to “Alleviate the Suffering” from Firedoglake

Ralph Freidin MD, is an internist.  Dr. Freidin traveled from Massachusetts to Little Rock, Arkansas last week to volunteer his professional services at the Little Rock Free Health Clinic, which I also attended. He was assigned to The Line.

I met this good man the night before the clinic opened. He told me he would be the triage doctor working The Line–the long line of folks, some with appointments, some without, waiting to get in to the clinic.  I was taken aback that there was the need for a triage doctor, and I asked him what this entailed.  He explained that it was likely we’d have people who needed emergency medical treatment simply because they haven’t had the financial resources or health insurance to access care, and this free clinic was their last hope. He was correct. There were some desperately ill people who required immediate transportation to an emergency room.

So, Dr. Freidin spent the day evaluating the people patiently waiting to go into the Free Clinic to determine if they could wait no longer. Well into the evening, the good doctor looked for those who required urgent emergency care.  Tragically, some did.

Dr. Freidin emailed me his thoughts about the uniquely American shame he witnessed in Little Rock. It’s a message of damnation to America, especially directed at politicians like Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, and others who are responsible for this catastrophe, but are nonetheless determined to maintain the depraved status quo.

Here’s Dr. Freidin in his own words. . . .

Suffering in Silence in Little Rock

They began to line up about 45 minutes before the doors to the one-day health clinic opened. The event, organized by the National Association of Free Clinics, was going to provide free medical care to anyone wanting to be seen as long as they did not have any health insurance.

Perhaps because I have had 40 years of experience practicing medicine, I was assigned to be the person to look for anyone in the line who needed urgent care.  As the line grew I made my way through introducing myself and asking how we could help them today.

In the first hour of speaking to over a hundred people, (ten percent of all those seen) I saw five middle aged men with untreated hypertension all with diastolic pressures of over 100. Standard medical practice is to treat a diastolic pressure greater than the low 80’s. Two of these people had not seen a doctor in more than two years and the others had not seen a doctor at all. Either they did not have the cash or the insurance. The two who had been to the doctor were not taking medication because they could not afford it.

Sitting in a wheel chair in the midst of the crowd was a middle-aged man with below knee amputation who hoped that we would be able to help him obtain prosthesis. He had some medical insurance but it had just denied his request sinking his hopes to be able to walk again so that he could return to his job as plumber and support his family.

There was a woman who had cancer treatment two years ago but was unable to continue with her care again because she did not have insurance. But it was not her cancer that was her concern today of. Her face was grimacing with the pain of a terrible toothache that she had been suffering with for the past two weeks. Again – no insurance, no physician, no medication.

Then I spotted a woman off to the side of the line wearing a trench coat to cover her emaciated frame. She did not have an appointment but had had three grand mal seizures in the past two weeks. A week ago she had been seen in a local emergency room where she was told that anti seizure medications was “OK” and then discharged without arrangement for any follow up. In addition to her uncontrolled seizures, she had terrible dental pain such that she could not eat. I could only see the roots of her teeth. There was not an intact tooth visible.

Leaning on the railing was a woman panting after walking a half a block to get in line. She had no asthma medication and had not had any in more than six months.  Behind her was a thirties year old man who had already been given a wheelchair because he was having difficulty breathing. In a soft voice he said that he had just been discharged from the intensive care unit of a local hospital where he had been treated for swollen ankles and shortness of breath. He was not sure what was wrong with him but for the past month he had been having chest pains every time he walked more than a few yards, he was sleeping propped up on pillows, and his ankles had begun to swell. When he was discharged he was given a list of medications that he could not afford, did not understand and arrangements for his continued care had not been made. About an hour after, I had brought this gentleman to the front of the line he was being attended by an ambulance crew on his way back to the emergency room with a possible heart attack.

Looking further down the line I saw a young man avoiding any eye contact. His slouched posture told me he did not want to talk but had something very heavy on his mind. Later I heard that there had been three young people who had plans for suicide that had been foiled. I was quiet sure that he was one of them.

<strong>I knew that I was in Little Rock, Arkansas because it was written on the school buses I had seen the day before parked outside of the Central High School and it was written on the front of the airport terminal. But I did not feel I was in America – at least not the America of the 21st century. Sure I had seen patients with these illnesses before but the last time was in my first year of medical school, which was the first year of Medicare. </strong>

What is it with my profession? What is it with those who set policy in an agriculturally rich but morally poor midwestern state? What is it with our county that gives so little value to the ‘small person’?

I feel as embarrassed by my profession as I did when I read the hysterical fear generating campaign to block the passage of Medicare in 1965. OK, this time the American Medical Association says that it supports health reform, but I did not see them in Little Rock at the free clinic. Nor were the politicians who brag that a ‘public option’ is something they cannot vote for because they must first think of what is in the best interest of the people of their state. When I juxtapose my experience in the Free Clinic to these self-righteous proclamations, I hear the clarion of hypocrisy. No self respecting educated person could possibly believe that without the pressure of a public option will a private insurance company ever write policies to alleviate the amount of suffering of so many people I witnessed last Saturday in Little Rock.

It is not a question only how much reforming our healthcare will cost, it also is a question how much it will cost not to fix it. It is a question of equality, how we as a nation value our neighbor – how we see ourselves.

I am convinced that if the Declaration of Independence were written today ‘the pursuit of happiness’ would include access to basic health care.

[emphasis added]

Ralph Freidin, MD
Lexington, Massachusetts

Comments [0]

Sarah Palin wants to dismantle Canadian healthcare? from Crooks and Liars

Because she can see it from her house.

From The Canadian Press (syndicated)

Marg Delahunty has braved the wilds of the American Midwest to come face-to-face with Sarah Palin. Comedian Mary Walsh’s beloved character button-holed the former Alaska governor at a recent book-signing in Columbus, Ohio...

"Marg Delahunty" has been compared to the more famous Dame Edna, and Stephen Colbert owes her five bucks, too. Marg is a character, dressed up as some kind of "Canadian Warrior" right winger, etc. Here's a pic of her in full regalia:

I think she's got a Palinesque look to her, but anyhoo...

“We told her we’re from Canada, and we’re just looking for a few words of encouragement for the Canadian conservatives who have worked so tirelessly to destroy the socialized medicare that we have,” Walsh recalled Tuesday from St. John’s.

After being kicked out of the book-signing, Walsh and her crew then waited outside at a loading dock close to where Palin’s bus was parked. When Palin emerged from the Borders bookstore, Walsh said, Delahunty — dressed in a more toned-down version of her trademark warrior princess costume — called out to her.

“Hey, remember us, we’re the Canadians! We came all the way here from Canada!” Delahunty yelled. “When we asked you that question, we didn’t hear your answer.”

Palin strolled over, looking down on Walsh and her crew to tell them that “Canada needs to dismantle its public health-care system and allow private enterprise to get involved and turn a profit.”

“Basically, she said government should stop doing the work that private enterprise should do,” Walsh said.

There are no words, Sarah Palin. No words.

crossposted from Blue Gal; h/t TD in comments for the tip

Comments [0]

REPORT: At Least 40 GOP Lawmakers Fail A Principle Of The ‘Purity Test’ from Think Progress

Yesterday, Republican National Committee member Jim Bopp unveiled a resolution to deny funding of candidates who do not uphold right-wing conservative values. The resolution, termed a “purity test,” is being touted as a mechanism for actually avoiding the party schism that occurred in the NY-23 special election, when the Republican Party nominated a moderate who violated several of the resolution dictates.

As the Hotline has noted, the resolution, if adopted, would boot key Republican candidates running for the Senate next year. National Republicans recruited Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) to run for the Senate, even though they have bucked conservative orthodoxy in the past.

ThinkProgress has conducted an analysis that finds at least 40 current Republican members of Congress have violated at least one principle of the purity test:

Purity Pledge #1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill

– The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus) was passed with support from Republican Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

Purity Pledge #2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare

– Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) voted for the health reform bill passed by the House.

Purity Pledge #3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation

– The Waxman Markey cap and trade clean energy bill was passed with support from GOP Reps. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Mike Castle (R-DE), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Dave Reichert (R-WA), and Chris Smith (R-NJ).

Purity Pledge #4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check

– In 2007, the House passed the Employee Free Choice Act with support from Republican Reps. Tim Murphy (R-PA), Don Young (R-AK), Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Peter King (R-NY), and Steve LaTourette (R-OH).

Purity Pledge #5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants

– The McCain-Kennedy 2006 immigration bill would have “legalized millions of undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. if they paid fines, paid back taxes and learned English.” Republican Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Dick Lugar (R-IN), George Voinovich (R-OH), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bob Bennett (R-UT), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Susan Collins (R-ME), Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) voted for the bill.

Purity Pledge #6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges

– In 2007, both Republican Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) cosponsored resolutions opposing a troop surge in Iraq. In the House, Reps. Bob Inglis (R-SC), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Dean Heller (R-NV), Walter Jones (R-NC), Tim Johnson (R-IL), Mike Castle (R-DE), Howard Coble (R-NC), Ron Paul (R-TX), Tom Petri (R-WI), Fred Upton (R-MI), and Steve LaTourette (R-OH) supported a resolution opposing the Iraq surge. In addition, Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-NC), Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), John Duncan (R-TN), and Tim Johnson (R-IL) have signed onto a letter opposing a troop surge in Afghanistan.

Purity Pledge #7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat

– Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Dick Lugar (R-IN) both voted to remove North Korea from the state-sponsors of terror list. Sen. Lugar also voted against a 2007 resolution urging action against Iran. In the House, Reps. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Ron Paul (R-TX), and Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) voted against further sanctions against Iran in 2007.

Purity Pledge #10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

– Earlier this year, Sen. John Thune’s (R-SD) “concealed carry” gun amendment failed to receive the 60 votes it needed to pass. Republican Senators Dick Lugar (R-IN) and George Voinovich (R-OH) opposed the measure.

Already, conservative leaders like RedState’s Erik Erickson are saying that Bopp’s purity resolution doesn’t even go far enough. On Monday night, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann noted that President Ronald Reagan violated 6 of the 10 purity tests. “Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?” asked Olbermann, tongue planted firmly in cheek.

Comments [0]

Lou Dobbs Loves Immigrants Now, Everyone [Assholes] from Gawker

Oh, seriously? "In a little-noticed interview Friday, Mr. Dobbs told Spanish-language network Telemundo he now supports a plan to legalize millions of undocumented workers, a stance he long lambasted as an unfair 'amnesty.'"

Well. What a fast turnaround, right?

"Whatever you have thought of me in the past, I can tell you right now that I am one of your greatest friends and I mean for us to work together," he said in a live interview with Telemundo's Maria Celeste. "I hope that will begin with Maria and me and Telemundo and other media organizations and others in this national debate that we should turn into a solution rather than a continuing debate and factional contest."

Mr. Dobbs twice mentioned a possible legalization plan for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., saying at one point that "we need the ability to legalize illegal immigrants under certain conditions."

It's great that Lou Dobbs saw the light, and that he now favors liberalization of our broken immigration and naturalization process.

But—and, you know, we hate to do this two days in a row—fuck you, Lou Dobbs.

Mr. Dobbs couldn't be reached Tuesday. Spokesman Bob Dilenschneider said Mr. Dobbs draws a distinction between illegal immigrants who have committed crimes since arriving in the U.S. and those who are "living upright, positive and constructive lives" who should be "integrated" into society. He said Mr. Dobbs recognizes the political importance of Latinos and is "smoothing the water and clearing the air."

The funny thing, Lou, is that you were the one who attempted to create the impression, without evidence, that all illegal immigrants were criminals. You know-nothing prick.

You made your name on one issue, Lou, and one issue alone: that there are too many Mexicans, that the Mexicans are scary, and that they should all go back to Mexico, because they are disease-ridden criminals. You lied about how many immigrants there are, you called them "an army of invaders," you said they wanted to reannex the Southwestern United States, you claimed they were spreading leprosy, you spent hours of airtime openly, blatantly lying, in order to inflame anti-immigrant hysteria. That is what you did. For years. You doughy, lying, sack of shit.

Video via Anyguey.

Comments [0]

Biggest Loser : Basically Killing Fat People for Your Amusement [Fitness] from Gawker

 

Most obese Americans, meaning most Americans, have given up hope of ever losing that weight unless they can land a spot as a contestant on NBC's Biggest Loser. Unfortunately, Biggest Loser is made of 100% evil.

The New York Times wrote a story about Biggest Loser. What did they find out?

  • The winner of season one "dropped some of the weight by fasting and dehydrating himself to the point that he was urinating blood." Actually many of the people dropped mostly water weight, and gained much of it back after the show ended and they began hydrating properly.
  • Whose fault is it that these dangerously fat people are dangerously dehydrating themselves in pursuit of a cash prize? The fault of the fat people themselves, according to the professional fitness trainer Jillian "Evil" Michaels. "Contestants can get a little too crazy and they can get too thin," she said.
  • Don't go blaming the show for that; they never said they were qualified to know about health and weight loss and whatever! The show's waivers state that no guarantees have been made that the medical professionals are qualified to "diagnose medical conditions that may affect my fitness to participate in the series."
  • Also the show tried to intimidate former contestants into not speaking to the New York Times.
So: Take a bunch of dangerously obese people, tempt them with a cash prize, exercise them for six hours(!) a day, and let them dehydrate themselves until they piss blood, all while forswearing any legal responsibility for their health. Good job, NBC!

Overweight Americans: Would you like to slim down, but don't have access to evil fitness trainer Jillian Michaels? Here is the secret formula! Eat a few hundred calories less than you burn every day; exercise for no more than an hour five days a week, with a sensible mix of interval cardio workouts and basic weight training; lose a couple pounds a week; continue until satisfied. Just read this! Better yet, forget about losing weight altogether. Put that weight to work for you. You can gain up to 30 pounds of pure power with THIS:

Comments [0]

Former Insurance Company Executive: Health Insurers Stand Between Patients And Their Doctors from Think Progress

ellenhayden3 One of the most common right-wing memes used by opponents of health care reform is that progressive solutions to America’s health care problems place “Washington bureaucrats firmly between you and your doctor.” Again and again, conservatives have deployed this meme to demagogue the health care debate.

However, the reality is there already is someone standing between you and your doctor: health insurance companies. Single mother Ellen Hayden knows this from experience. After losing her mother at the age of 7 from breast cancer, Hayden has done everything she can to get regular mammograms. Following an abnormal mammogram, her doctor recommended that she have an MRI. After the scan, her insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, refused to pay for the procedure and is also refusing to pay for a follow-up second MRI her doctor has suggested.

Ned Helms, a former health insurance industry executive who now works at the University of New Hampshire, told Sea Coast Online that this is Hayden’s case is an example of “insurance people” getting between patients and their doctors:

“It’s understandable that this is an emotional issue because most patients believe that ‘nothing is going to stand between me and what I want to get done,’” said Ned Helms, a former health insurance industry executive and director of the N.H. Institute of Health Policy and Practice at the University of New Hampshire. [...]

“We have this notion in our political debate and popular culture that we can’t have reform because that means that government bureaucrats will make decisions but we already have insurance people playing that role,” said Helms

Helms went on to say that one of the major obstacles to attaining proper reform is the way insurance companies often “write their own rules for the road.” Late last year, former Cigna executive Wendell Potter left his 15-year career at the major health insurer and joined the fight for universal health care. He told Bill Moyers last July that politicians who warn about the government getting between patients and their doctors are “ideologically aligned with the [health insurance] industry.”

Comments [0]

Dobbs Calls Himself Latinos’ ‘Greatest Friend,’ Denies Tying Leprosy To Undocumented Immigrants from Think Progress

Today in an interview with Maria Celeste on Telemundo’s Al Rojo Vivo, ousted CNN anchor Lou Dobbs denied ever erroneously claiming that undocumented immigrants are bringing leprosy to the United States. Instead he attacked Celeste for bringing up reports that he aired on his show in the past. From interview (translated from Spanish):

DOBBS: Let’s be very clear: I did not support that report, in fact we corrected that report. And secondly, in fairness to me, I never said a word about leprosy and undocumented immigrants as you call them. My correspondent on our broadcast ad-libbed…obviously she was wrong. My only declaration in response to that report was one word: “incredible.”

CELESTE: You were also confronted with this erroneous information by Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes and you said that you supported 100% of what you had said on the show, and that you were the managing editor of the program, and in your show, everything that was said was factual….

DOBBS: Maria, in the interest of fairness, would you like to tell your audience how long ago that report was?

CELESTE:That was a few years ago…

DOBBS: No, Maria, that was four years ago…

CELESTE: It doesn’t matter how many years ago, you never retracted…This is your opportunity to clarify that and once and for all put it to rest doing whatever you choose to do — an apology, a retraction — whatever you feel most comfortable with.

Watch it:

Popout

Despite the fact that Dobbs did in fact state that “the invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans,” he refused to issue a retraction or apology on Telemundo.

However, Dobbs did tell the Latino community that he is one of its “greatest friends,” and he wants to work with them. He defended himself on the show by explaining that he is not “an enemy of Latinos,” but rather that the far-left has characterized him as such with its propaganda. The CBS website shows the 60 Minutes segment that aired in 2007.

Comments [0]

Health Insurance Reform: The Enslavement of American Citizens to Corporate Rule from AfterDowningStreet.org

 

Health Insurance Reform: The Enslavement of American Citizens to Corporate Rule
By debbierlus | DemocraticUnderground

After months of silent, closed door negotiations between the holy trinity (the executive branch, the congress, & the health care industry), we stand on the brink of health insurance reform.

Health insurance reform. Do not confuse this with health care reform as that was never the intent of this legislation. This is not a minor point. Health care reform would have addressed the central problem of our current health care system and confronted the reality that in order to provide universal, affordable health care for all citizens, we would need to stop treating human health as a commodity. It would have taken a moral imperative to place human life over profit. But, right from the very beginning, the central GOAL in creating this legislation was just the opposite, the development of a plan that not only maintained, but expanded the ability of the health care industry (private insurers, big pharm, large hospitals) to profit off human illness.

And, that has what has been created. A bill that enshrines private health care companies as the government mandated model for health care administration. A bill that will provide 70 billion dollars in subsidies to private insurance companies, at the expense of universal, affordable coverage for every American citizen. A bill that negotiated away the government's ability to stop big pharm price gouging, in exchange for a phony bargain where the pharmaceutical companies would cut up to 8 billion dollars in costs over the next ten years while they elevated prices 10 billion this year alone. A bill that does not allow reimportation of drugs from Canada and holds the American people hostage to a mob type system of pay or die. Under this bill, millions will not be able to afford their prescriptions. Millions more will be forced to choose medication, food, or heat. Read more.

read more

Comments [0]

The Best Reason to Ignore ‘Climategate’: The Climate Really Is Changing from The Washington Independent

Yesterday, I picked apart the “Climategate” scandal, arguing that climate change skeptics’ position — that the leaked emails proved the science behind global warming was fraudulent — didn’t hold water, simply because the emails just weren’t that incriminating. Well, there’s another, far more important reason why their argument is flawed, and that’s the overwhelming evidence that global warming is, in fact, slowly (or not so slowly) changing our planet as we know it.

Case in point: a study released today by 26 leading climatologists, which finds that the climate situation is actually far more dire than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had led us to believe.

The new report, dubbed “The Copenhagen Diagnosis,” seeks to fill in the gaps since the last IPCC assessment, published in 2007 but drafted earlier. Its authors include 14 members of the IPCC, the world’s top climate change authority.

Jonathan Hiskes, who’s compared the two reports in greater depth than I have, writes:

The new diagnosis finds that arctic sea ice is melting 40 percent faster than the panel estimated just a few years ago. Another startling finding: Satellites have found that the global average for rising sea levels was 3.4 millimeters per year from 1993-2008. The IPCC estimated it would be 1.9 mm for that period—short by 80 percent.

Here’s a summary of the new report’s key findings:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present –day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2oC. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2oC warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190C per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

Sea-level prediction revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as – 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2oC above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society – with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-90% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

Comments [0]

GOP Lawmakers Complain About Revised Mammogram Guidelines While Opposing Requirements For More Tests from Think Progress

On Wednesday, a group of women GOP lawmakers held a press conference to denounce a new recommendation by the federal Preventive Services Task Force that women receive mammograms less frequently. “This is how rationing begins,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). “This is the little toe in the edge of the water.”

“Women in particular may lose a great deal of clout in decision making,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). “We don’t know how far government will go in this bureaucracy,” she added, noting that they “want to empower women” and “want to have all the data on the table so individuals can make the best decision they can.”

On MSNBC this afternoon, Dr. Nancy Snyderman took Blackburn to task for getting the “public health message lost in the politics.” “Now, there’s nothing that came out of this panel recommending rationing,” said Snyderman. “Just a prudent use of screening tests.” When Blackburn tried to claim that the guidelines meant “bureaucrats deciding what they’re going to allow,” Snyderman pointed out that Blackburn was acting as a “bureaucrat” standing between patients and “the best possible evidence”:

BLACKBURN: It is troubling also that another of our colleagues has said many times, we. And that we means bureaucrats deciding what they’re going to allow.

SNYDERMAN: But you’re one of those bureaucrats. You’re my bureaucrat!

BLACKBURN: But I’m not, no. And you see, I don’t think a bureaucrat should be between a patient and a doctor. See, I don’t want to be that bureaucrat.

SNYDERMAN: Excuse me, I think that’s exactly where you are right now.

Watch it:

Popout

As the Washington Independent’s Mike Lillis notes, the concern of the congresswomen about rationed mammograms is especially ironic considering that they oppose legislation that “would require insurance companies that cover diagnostic mammograms also to cover routine, annual breast cancer screenings for all women 40 and older.”

Comments [0]