New Health Care Reform Scare Tactic Aimed at Women

[Proud Liberal Dem]

FYI

Just saw an ad aired on local TV- produced by a group called "Independent Women's Forum <http://www.iwf.org/>, which is also apparently linked with another group called Patients United Now <http://patientsunitednow.com/?q=node/45> warning women that they (will) get roped into a public plan (PO) like Britain's and that their health is at risk. The ad specifically claims a lower survival rate from breast cancer in Britain.

Anybody else seen this ad or heard about either of these groups?

:puke:

[Captain Hilts]

1. It's the one funded by Richard Mellon Scaife. Part of the Vast Right-WingConspiracy. nt

[Cleita]

2. Get those to Rachel Maddow. She would love to dig even deeper and

expose them on her show.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. What's her e-mail address?

I'll do that!

[Cleita]

5. There is contact information on her website with MSNBC.

Google will get you there.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. I already found it and sent an e-mail with a copy of the post

Thanks for the suggestion. We'll see if it gets any play. :hi: The ad was pretty bad and it is really sick that they are using women's health issues/concerns to advance an agenda that would actually keep/make things worse for women.

[dflprincess]

4. I haven't seen these ads but there are ads run on local TV here by an organization

that pays for screening mammograms for uninsured or underinsured women. These have been around a while and don't have anything to do with the current debate. But they are ads you'd never see in the U.K. or any other civilized country that provides its citizens with health care.

I always wonder though, these ads never tell you what happens to the women whose mammograms come back needing follow up. Last year it cost $6,000 for me to find out the weirdness on the film was benign. I was lucky and had decent insurance at the time (now, not so much) that paid most of it (and the 6k was the negotiated rate, if I had not had insurance it would have been more that twice that).

Really, is there any point in having the screening test if you can't afford the follow up? These are questions women in other countries never have to ask themselves.

I wish someone would start running ads telling the true stories of our system.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Yeah I agree with you

It's amazing that efforts to make health insurance affordable are demonized (and often successfully so) as attempts to somehow impose a draconian and totalitarian health care system on us and take away our rights and freedoms- you know, kind of like the private insurance based health care system we have now? :eyes: *sigh* Only in America. I would also agree with you that there is very little point to all of these screenings if people don't have the means to do anything about a concerning test result.

[juno jones]

10. It bothers me too.

I haven't been to a doc in years and we finally got in with a low-income clinic. They're all gung ho about getting me into a free women's wellness check, but I haven't a clue what would happen were they to find something.

I think I'll be asking some interesting questions at my next visit in a week or two.

[jsamuel]

7. run by Americans for Prosperity Foundation - known group like FreedomWorks that

Rachel Maddow has been deriding for exactly this kind of bs

[Emit]

9. Check this out re: Cancer survival rate in Britain

~snip~

First, it is true that that the five year survival rate for cancer in Britain is much worse than it is in the United States. ... The difference in survivability rates might very well be an artifact of early detection. If you catch the disease earlier, your chances of living for five years after detection go up. With some cancers, like prostate, your survivability might even go up dramatically -- simply because of earlier detection.

The WaPo factchecker recommended instead of survivability rates we should look at mortality rates. How many people die per 100,000 of population in a given country due to cancer? In a mortality rate comparison, the US advantage over the UK disappears, and in fact the UK actually comes off better.

9 United States: 321.9 deaths per 100,000 peopl

...

16 United Kingdom: 253.5 deaths per 100,000 peopl

http://www.rbguy.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/12/765480/-untitled-diary