Posted on 09/30/2013 9:33:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The death panels aren’t going to come through the front door. They’re going to sneak up on you from behind with piano wire.
On July 29, 2013, a working group for the National Cancer Institute (the main government agency for cancer research) published a paper proposing that the term “cancer” be reserved for lesions with a reasonable likelihood of killing the patient if left untreated. Slower growing tumors would be called a different name such as “indolent lesions of epithelial origin” (IDLE).
Their justification was that modern medical technology now allows doctors to detect small, slow-growing tumors that likely wouldn’t be fatal. Yet once patients are told they have a cancer, many become frightened and seek unnecessary further tests, chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery.
By redefining the term “cancer,” the National Cancer Institute hopes to reduce patient anxiety and reduce the risks and expenses associated with supposedly unnecessary medical procedures. In technical terms, the government hopes to reduce “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” of cancer.
And of course compel doctors to stop recommending expensive “overtreatments” for things that are no longer cancers.
Similarly, the American Medical Association recently voted to declare obesity a “disease.” But as Cato Institute health care analyst Michael Tanner noted, “the AMA’s move is actually a way for its members to receive more federal dollars, by getting obesity treatments covered under government health plans.”
In our Obamacare world, obesity is a serious disease, but cancer isn’t.
With respect to the definition of “cancer,” downgrading some conditions as no longer being “cancer” can and will used to justify reducing “unnecessary” screening tests (e.g., mammograms for women between ages 40-49).
That’s the whole point. The more the government takes over medicine, the more it is driven to reduce costs in order to fund a vast welfare state.
Dr. Milton Wolf, a practicing radiologist who cares for patients with DCIS warns against this Orwellian possibility:
“Health care rationing takes many insidious forms but perhaps the most immoral is for the government to wage a public relations campaign designed specifically to dissuade patients and doctors from seeking available cures for cancer. They scheme to rename cancer, not to cure it, but to deny it exists. These government rationers have calculated that rather than actually treat patients with cancer, it’s cheaper to simply keep them calm… right up to the very end.”
Aren’t we glad that crazy Sarah Palin lady with her death panel rants didn’t get elected. And instead we live with a wise and sane government that fights new wars while renaming them as interventions and cures cancer by renaming it and denying coverage?
Hope. Change. Death.
This discussion predates Obama and Obama care.
If you have something that looks like cancer but doesn’t act like cancer, should you undergo treatment that will not improve your health and very well make it worse?
This is a rational discussion and should not be drug into politics.
Well, then we better plan to use these tools against them, by say for example changing the word abortion, to some other non-allowable medical procedure!
bkmk
The whole point is no healthcare for you; but health care for them. Wake up America and fight this monster.
And for that matter, if any sickness can be redefined, so can any test result.
Imagine the cost savings when all results come back "normal".
After all, these are the same people who define less-than-demanded budget increases as "cuts".
No kidding! Every thread.
A new term for 'Congress'?
That basal cell cancer by your eye isn’t a death sentence, so deal with it. If it grows into your eye, and you end up losing part or all of your eyesight, don’t worry, you’ll live. Oh, and that in situ melanoma you have on your back, don’t worry, it hasn’t even penetrated the first layer of your skin, so it isn’t life threatening at this stage. Go home and deal with it. If it gets into the skin, then we’ll treat it, but by then, it may well have metastasized. So sorry.
Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. More than 3.5 million skin cancers in over two million people are diagnosed annually.
Each year there are more new cases of skin cancer than the combined incidence of cancers of the breast, prostate, lung and colon.
Treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers increased by nearly 77 percent between 1992 and 2006.
Over the past three decades, more people have had skin cancer than all other cancers combined.
Yep, all the millions who get skin cancers each year will just have to buck up and live with the possibility of serious complications, disfigurement and even the potential for death given the new definition of cancer.
Oh goodie! I didn’t have cancer after all - and if it comes back, as it often does, I won’t have to have the surgery again -
Yeah for ObomnibleCare.
In other words, my skin cancer - Basel Cell Carcinoma - because it’s a slow growing cancer - will not be covered for cancer treatment (under Obomnible care)- like surgery - to stop it. Just let it keep growing ‘til it gets into the bone and then likely can’t be stopped.
Then, I guess. treatment will slip over to what Obummer said: “You might want to consider not having the expensive surgery and just take the [pain] pill” -
ESPECIALLY if you’re elderly - a useless taker up of oxygen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
Ha Ha oMao’s heath plan is YOU DIE WHITE CRACKA!
But then the demons love to see blood and child sacrifice!
WE need to get a 'logo' for 2014 - starting now. my idea (I'm an old advertising exec) is:
Housecleaning time -
"CLEAN SWEEP 2014" mt-h
And get some outfit to manufacture little pins in the shape of a broom. Wish I could make them myself - I could use the money ;o)
That would get national attention - media likes a 'gimmick' - and even the brain dead Sheeple would get the message and retain the image -
Obama is the cancer.
Need the Picture of Aunald saying:’It’s Not A Tumor!â€
Precisely . . . the Federal government is much more dishonest than "evil corporations" engaged in the health insurance business. The "evil corporations" have to deal fairly with their customers so they keep them as a customer. When the government is the only real game in town, they just don't care about providing good, fair service.
It’s very true that sometimes treatment is not necessary. Sometimes the side effects of the treatment are worse than leaving it alone.
But that needs to be a personal decision between patient and doctor, and not predetermined by politics deciding who gets to make that choice. By preventing people from going to the doctor in the first place due to absurd “affordable” premiums/copays/deductibles, Obamacare is already going to prevent people from finding out they might have something to worry about.
Healthcare needed to be fixed, but Obamacare is a black hole of moron.
I’m just glad he isn’t doing the House too! LOL
My definition of cancer: LIBs, DIMs, RINOs
Live with it.
There is probably no better example than the "passive" treatment of prostate cancer, and the multitude of studies that purport to support that approach.
They will tell you: "Odds are that you will die of something else first, given your life expectancy".
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.