Female liberals should see this preview of Obamacare.

http://tinyurl.com/ychtzla
A Breast Cancer Preview The mammogram decision is a sign of cost control to come. A government panel's decision to toss out long-time guidelines for breast cancer screening is causing an uproar, and well it should....preview of the coming political decisions about cost-control and medical treatment that are at the heart of ObamaCare....Since regular mammography became standard practice in the early 1990s, mortality from breast cancer—the second leading cause of cancer death among American women—has dropped by about 30%, after remaining constant for the prior half-century. But this week the 16-member task force ruled that patients under 50 or over 75 without special risk factors no longer need screening....the panel—which includes no oncologists and radiologists, who best know the medical literature—did decide to re-analyze the data with health-care spending as a core concern....Of course, this calculation doesn't consider that at least 40% of the patient years of life saved by screening are among women under 50. That's a lot of women, even by the terms of the panel's own statistical abstractions.... But at the individual level they are immeasurably valuable, especially if you happen to be the woman whose life is saved. ****Elderly female liberals should take special note of the following. Still like Obama?**** The recommendation to cut off all screening in women over 75 is equally as myopic. The committee notes that the benefits of screening "occur only several years after the actual screening test, whereas the percentage of women who survive long enough to benefit decreases with age." It adds that "women of this age are at much greater risk for dying of other conditions that would not be affected by breast cancer screening." In other words, grandma is probably going to die anyway, so why waste the money to reduce the chances that she dies of a leading cause of death among elderly women?...Medicare generally adopts the panel's recommendations when it makes coverage decisions for seniors, and its judgments also play a large role in the private insurance markets. ...More spending on "prevention" has long been the cry of health reformers, and President Obama has been especially forceful. In his health speech to Congress in September, the President made a point of emphasizing "routine checkups and preventative care, like mammograms and colonoscopies—because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse." It turns out that there is, in fact, a reason: Screening for breast cancer will cost the government too much money, even if it saves lives.****Still, not yet as bad as the U.K. where TREATMENT for liver cancer is banned.****http://tinyurl.com/yg3dk6h
Condemned to an early death: Rationing body tells liver cancer victims that life-prolonging drug is 'too costly' By Jenny Hope
Liver cancer sufferers are being condemned to an early death by being denied a new drug on the Health Service, campaigners warn. They criticised draft guidance that will effectively ban the drug sorafenib - which is routinely used in every other country where it is licensed. Trials show the drug, which costs £36,000 a year, can increase survival by around six months for patients who have run out of options. The Government's rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) said the overall cost was 'simply too high' to justify the 'benefit to patients' ...
http://tinyurl.com/y9y3nrc
Patient-centered wellness for our people powered world By Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter (R-Mich.)
Washington, DC — ...concern that willful Washington politicians will impose these unhelpful proposals despite the American people’s objections. ...there is a far more sensible, affordable and contemporary path: patient-centered wellness for our people powered world....the Democrats’ radical, nearly trillion dollar “health redistribution” will not work. For months, the case has been made and the public has concurred: government-run medicine’s cost, higher taxes, surcharges on employer provided benefits, Medicare cuts, rationing boards (such as the stimulus bill’s already appointed Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research) and personal mandates, will only increase the costs, decrease the quality and reduce the choices of Americans’ health care...the Democrats are bent on governmentally reducing the supply of health care to “control” costs. This is patently absurd. According to the time-tested law of supply and demand, if the government reduces the supply of health care while the demand for it increases from demographic pressures and medical advances, the costs will spiral upward; and the government will increasingly intrude into your personal decisions and savings...