Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sarah Palin: Cancer Screenings - Rational Advice or Rationed Care?
Sarah Palin on Facebook ^ | November 20, 2009 | Sarah Palin

Posted on 11/20/2009 1:13:59 AM PST by SolidWood

Cancer Screenings - Rational Advice or Rationed Care?

It was a breath of fresh air to finally hear the Democrats admit to their health care bill as “a lot of show and tell and razzmatazz,” (see Democrat talking points, in reference to my book). At least now we’re all on the same page when discussing the problems with their monstrous government health care “reform” plan.

Now, tonight, more disconcerting news – the New York Times reports of new guidelines to scale back cervical cancer screenings. The recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists comes on the heels of another recommendation to limit breast cancer screenings with mammograms. There are many questions unanswered for me, but one which immediately comes to mind is whether costs have anything to do with these recommendations. The current health care debate elicits great concern because of its introduction of socialized medicine in America and the inevitable rationed care. We need to carefully watch this debate as it coincides with Capitol Hill’s debate and determine whether we are witnessing the early stages of that rationed care before the Senate bill is rushed through as well.

(Excerpt) Read more at facebook.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cancerscreening; healthcare; palin; sarahpalin
Also great pics from her book tour:

Sarah Palin: Going Rogue Tour!

This one had me wondering for a moment who the real Sarah is! LOL!


1 posted on 11/20/2009 1:14:00 AM PST by SolidWood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol; Victoria Delsoul; cripplecreek; PennsylvaniaMom; KansasGirl; Perdogg; jla; ...

Dear Ping,

I’ll be very busy until monday... Virgina Ridgerunner is replacing me as the Palin pinger until I’m back.

Cheers!


2 posted on 11/20/2009 1:16:25 AM PST by SolidWood (Sarah Palin: "Only dead fish go with the flow!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

Wow! Had to do a double take. Unfreekin believable. Wonder if that is the others’ natural looks of mayhaps “adjusted” slightly? lol Thanks.


3 posted on 11/20/2009 2:37:30 AM PST by Conservative Vermont Vet ((One of ONLY 37 Conservatives in the People's Republic of Vermont. Socialists and Progressives All))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood
There are many questions unanswered for me, but one which immediately comes to mind is whether costs have anything to do with these recommendations. The current health care debate elicits great concern because of its introduction of socialized medicine in America and the inevitable rationed care.

I had the same reaction when I heard the goverment was recommending later and fewer mammogram screenings. Rationing already.

4 posted on 11/20/2009 2:38:56 AM PST by Once-Ler (ProLife ProGun ProGod ProSoldier ProBusiness Republican To The Core)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

I’ll take both of them.


5 posted on 11/20/2009 3:02:01 AM PST by Right Wing Assault (The Obama magic is fading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler

How’s that ‘hope and change’ working out for you ladies? Oh, well...he does have a purty smile...


6 posted on 11/20/2009 3:18:26 AM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

The shorter woman standing there looks like the lib on one of the TV talk shows, can’t remember her name.


7 posted on 11/20/2009 3:25:37 AM PST by Waco (Stay as bootiful as ya are Karvile.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

Sarah Palin has a stunt double!


8 posted on 11/20/2009 4:08:37 AM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Waco
Margaret Carlson Image and video hosting by TinyPic
9 posted on 11/20/2009 4:33:23 AM PST by libbytarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

Thanks for all you do!


10 posted on 11/20/2009 6:02:11 AM PST by Melian ("Here's the moral of the story: Catholic witness has a cost." ~Archbishop Charles Chaput)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

Thank you for all your pinging!

I love Sarah and you can see by the looks on the people’s faces that they love her too. Oh how I hope I get the chance to vote for her.

Have a nice weekend, SolidWood.


11 posted on 11/20/2009 8:32:31 AM PST by Aria ( "The US republic will endure until Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the people's $.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood
In one of the pictures at the link, the table that Sarah is sitting at is positioned right under the ceiling-hung sign that says "RELIGION".

Those B&N managers have a sense of humor. Heh-heh.

12 posted on 11/20/2009 8:47:17 AM PST by ExcursionGuy84 ("Jesus, Your Love takes my breath away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood
Breast cancer survival among women under age 50: is mammography detrimental?

Stacey-Clear A, McCarthy KA, Hall DA, Pile-Spellman E, White G, Hulka C, Whitman GJ, Mahoney E, Kopans DB.

Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston 02114.

Comment in:

* Lancet. 1992 Dec 19-26;340(8834-8835):1538-9; author reply 1539-40.

* Lancet. 1992 Dec 19-26;340(8834-8835):1538; author reply 1539-40.

* Lancet. 1992 Dec 19-26;340(8834-8835):1538; author reply 1539-40.

* Lancet. 1992 Dec 19-26;340(8834-8835):1539-40.

Great uncertainty exists about the benefit of detecting breast cancer by mammography in women under 50 years of age. We have reviewed the survival of patients aged 49 years or less whose cancers were detected by mammography alone. 117 women under the age of 50 years were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1978 and 1991 based only on an abnormal mammogram. Ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) was found in 47 (40%) of these women, whilst 70 (60%) had infiltrating ductal or infiltrating lobular carcinomas. During the same interval, 928 women in this age group presented with palpable breast cancer. DCIS was diagnosed in 82 (9%) of these women, whilst 846 (91%) had infiltrating carcinoma. Among the infiltrating cancers detected by mammography alone, 50% were stage I, whilst only 30% of the women with palpable cancers were stage I. Five-year survival for all mammographically detected cancer patients was 95%, whereas for women with palpable cancers the survival was 74% (p < 0.00005).

If DCIS is not included, the corresponding survivals are 91% for mammographically detected infiltrating cancers and 72% for palpable infiltrating cancers. Only 1 woman who died among those with palpable cancer had had a mammogram before diagnosis. Our data contradict the suggestion that women under 50 are put at a survival disadvantage by undergoing mammography.

We believe that investigators who have reported negative results in this age group must examine other causes for their results.

13 posted on 11/20/2009 10:38:29 AM PST by MajorThomas (Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson