Woman Doc Speaks Out on Breast Cancer Treatments and the Need to Abolish Obamacare

Submitted by Peggy in comments:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

90 Responses to Woman Doc Speaks Out on Breast Cancer Treatments and the Need to Abolish Obamacare

  1. Peggy says:

    I know Chris wont read this because its from WND, but the rest of you might find the article about young adults 18-29 year olds who are fed up with this presidents failed economic policies and organizing against him like they did when they were for him in 2008.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/no-bama-2012-young-voters-fed-up-with-economy/

  2. Chris says:

    Dr. Vecchio is misinformed, and operating on extremely outdated information. She is not prohibited from recommending mammograms to anyone.

    The Mikulski amendment, passed and added to the Senate health care bill in December of 2009, makes it clear that the government cannot prohibit doctors from recommending treatment beyond the guidelines of the Preventive Service Task Force:

    “Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit
    a plan or issuer from providing coverage for services in
    addition to those recommended by United States Preventive Services Task Force or to deny coverage for services that are not recommended by such Task Force.”

    http://www.mikulski.senate.gov/_pdfs/BAI09N48.pdf

    This amendment remains part of the version of the health care law that was passed.

    As a doctor, Vecchio has a responsibility to know what she’s talking about. She owes it to herself, her patients, and all those she is addressing to understand what is in the law and to accurately represent it to others. She is apparently very passionate about this subject, so why does she not care enough to get the facts? Is she letting politics get in the way of the truth? She is falsely claiming that she could be thrown in jail for doing something that the law allows her to do.

  3. Peggy says:

    Chris, I was not able to verify your statement that the Mikulski amendment passed in 2009 was included in ObamaCare passed in 2010. However, I did find the below article dated 4/14/11, about mammograms being cut under ObamaCare and the elimination of $600 million for Community Health Centers, which did provide mammograms.

    Being a women in her 60s I would very much like to see where it is included in ObamaCare. If you have that proof please provide it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States

    Health care reform in the United States:
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Health care reform in the United States has a long history. This article covers two federal statutes enacted in 2010: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), signed March 23, 2010,[1][2] and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872), which amended the PPACA and became law on March 30.[3][4]

    http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/14/obama-cuts-womens-health-care-funds-planned-parenthood/

    Obama Cuts Womens Health Care, Funds Planned Parenthood:

    President Barack Obama is facing criticism from a conservative group for cutting womens health care while holding steadfast to funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

    Obama refused repeated requests from pro-life House Speaker John Boehner to agree to cut funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion business. However, his administration didnt raise a stink about the elimination of $600 million for Community Health Centers.

    Planned Parenthood, and its defenders, like Obama have used the argument against cutting its funding that womens health would suffer because the funding cuts would supposedly cut or eliminate legitimate health care programs for women offered by the abortion business. However, the community health centers facing the cuts offer real health care services for women that Planned Parenthood doesnt provide.

    While an expose revealed Planned Parenthood doesnt provide mammograms and its own figures show relatively few women receive pre-natal and post-natal care (about 95 percent of pregnant women get abortions at Planned Parenthood), community health centers provide both.

    In an email LifeNews.com received from the conservative American Principles Project, community health centers helped 320,000 women with mammograms, while Planned Parenthood provided none.

    Coating its ideology in flowery language about womens health and alleged Republican mean-spiritedness, liberal Democrats refused to cut one dime out of Planned Parenthoods plump federal purse during the budget debate, APP president Frank Cannon said. All the while a sharp knife was being taken to community health centers that actually perform full-scale exams for the needy. These health centers offer prenatal care to women and their babies 480,000 times in 2009 alone. Planned Parenthood? Their 850 clinics average less than one prenatal visit a month, in other words, its not their line of work.

    Previously, LifeNews.com and pro-life blogger Jill Stanek followed up with phone calls to various Planned Parenthood centers and confirmed they do not do mammograms.

    Then, Live Action released videotaped footage of calls to 30 Planned Parenthood centers nationwide in 27 different states where abortion facility staff were asked whether or not mammograms could be performed on site. Every one of the Planned Parenthood centers admitted they could not do mammograms. Every Planned Parenthood, without exception, tells the women calling that they will have to go elsewhere for a mammogram, and many clinics admit that no Planned Parenthood clinics provide this breast cancer screening procedure.

    We dont provide those services whatsoever, admits a staffer at Planned Parenthood of Arizona while a staffer at Planned Parenthoods Comprehensive Health Center clinic in Overland Park, Kansas tells a caller, We actually dont have a, um, mammogram machine, at our clinics.

  4. Peggy says:

    Paradoxical Quote of The Day From Ben Stein:

    “Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured…but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.”

    Now add this, “Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens.”

  5. Post Scripts says:

    Makes perfect sense, but only if you are inclined to see everyone in the world under one authority.

  6. Tina says:

    Peggy I didn’t have a lot of time this afternoon so Iwas quite pleased to see that you had responded to Chris’s comment with some very helpful information. I had also looked for confirmation of the Mikulski amendment but had to leave before I found anything…once again your interest in research pays off. Thanks!

  7. Chris says:

    Peggy, Tina:

    The full text of the PPACA as passed on March 23, 2010 can be found here:

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf

    The Mikulski amendment appears early in Part A of the law, in Sec. 2713, labeled “Coverage of Preventive Health Services.” The section states:

    (a) IN GENERAL.A group health plan and a health insurance
    issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall,
    at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any
    cost sharing requirements for
    (1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect
    a rating of A or B in the current recommendations of the
    United States Preventive Services Task Force;
    (2) immunizations that have in effect a recommendation
    from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of
    the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect
    to the individual involved; and
    (3) with respect to infants, children, and adolescents, evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for
    in the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health
    Resources and Services Administration.
    (4) with respect to women, such additional preventive
    care and screenings not described in paragraph (1) as provided
    for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health
    Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this
    paragraph.
    (5) for the purposes of this Act, and for the purposes
    of any other provision of law, the current recommendations
    of the United States Preventive Service Task Force regarding
    breast cancer screening, mammography, and prevention shall be considered the most current other than those issued in
    or around November 2009.
    Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a plan or issuer from providing coverage for services in addition to those recommended by United States Preventive Services Task Force or to deny coverage for services that are not recommended by such Task Force.”

    This section clearly states that the Task Force’s recommendations are to be treated as the “minimum” standard of coverage a health insurance plan can offer. Even without the final paragraph, it should be clear that this cannot be misconstrued as the government denying coverage for services that go beyond the Task Force’s recommendations. But if there was any doubt about that, the final paragraph lays that to rest.

    If anything, the Mikulski amendment is designed to increase access to mammograms by ensuring that health insurance plans offer them. It does not prohibit them for anyone.

    You can add Dr. Vecchio’s false claim to the gigantic pile of misinformation about the health care law created by conservative activists.

    Whether Dr. Vecchio is simply misinformed or intentionally lying to her audience, she is seriously neglecting her duty by misinforming America’s patients. Most people won’t research her claims; many will simply see that she is a doctor, and assume she must know what she is talking about. I can only hope she keeps her pledge to stop practicing medicine when the law takes effect. We need doctors who are informed and honest, not doctors who are either completely ignorant over the new health care law and unwilling to get the facts, or intentionally deceiving the public on what the law includes. This is grossly irresponsible, and one might argue it is in violation of the Hippocratic oath which Vecchio claims she would never violate. Misinforming patients has the potential to do real harm.

  8. Peggy says:

    Tina, Youre very welcome.

    I really do want to know if what Chris said is correct or if the article I posted is. If the funds were cut in ObamaCare that would have provided mammograms to women through those clinics we need to know about it. Therefore, making what the doctor stated in the video correct.

  9. Chris says:

    Peggy: “I really do want to know if what Chris said is correct or if the article I posted is. If the funds were cut in ObamaCare that would have provided mammograms to women through those clinics we need to know about it. Therefore, making what the doctor stated in the video correct.”

    Peggy, I’m very confused by this comment. The LifeNews article you linked to does not even mention Obamacare. It does state that the Obama administration made cuts to community health centers, but it does not claim that this was done in the new health care law. Even if it did, I don’t see how you can claim it would make “what the doctor stated in the video correct.” Did you watch the video? Dr. Vecchio claims that Obamacare would prohibit her from recommending mammograms to women under 50, and subject her to fines or even jailtime for doing so. In no way is that similar to the claim by LifeNews that Obama cut funding to clinics which provide mammograms. How can you possibly conflate the two? They are two completely different claims. So really, the LifeNews article you posted as well as my information about the Mikulski amendment could both be correct.

    I assume when you wrote your last comment, you hadn’t yet seen the excerpt I posted from the PPACA proving that the law does not prohibit doctors from recommending mammograms to women under 50.

    I did do some research on the claims made by LifeNews, and found that they are partially correct, but do not give the whole story. LifeNews makes it sound as if this was a decision made entirely by the Obama administration. In fact, the funding cuts were enacted by Congress as part of a budget compromise. The PPACA initially increased funding for community health centers, but the budget compromise forced some of those funds to be diverted. From Kaiser Health News:

    “Rather than handing out $250 million to establish new patient care sites to serve more than 2 million additional people as originally expected, the Obama administration gave $29 million to 67 nonprofit organizations that will serve an additional 286,000 patients.

    The funding cut was a result of a federal budget compromise in March to keep the government open. That agreement reduced federal spending by nearly $80 billion, including a $600 million trim in funding for ongoing operations at existing health centers.

    To make sure current centers did not have to reduce services, the Obama administration diverted some of the $11 billion set aside in the health overhaul law for health center expansion initiatives and instead used it to keep the existing centers operating at current levels.

    But a casualty of this strategy was that some of the health center expansion plans were either eliminated or drastically cut back.

    In addition, to free up money to help with existing operations, the administration scrapped plans to distribute $335 million to health centers to boost medical, dental, pharmacy and vision services.”

    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2011/october/06/community-health-centers-expansion-scaled-back.asp

  10. Libby says:

    Call me a wicked cynic, but the first thing that pops into my head is: is this woman running some kind of “mammogram mill”? If she is, she has cause to be upset.

    The latest research indicates that yearly tests are a bad idea. The risks presented by the radiation seemingly out-weigh the benefits, statistically speaking. They’re saying that if you’ve no family history of breast cancer, you should probably hold off til your fifty, and then maybe test every two years.

    This is going to cut into some providers’ business quite a bit.

    But there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the healthcare act that prevents a provider from recommending testing to anyone at any age. If the doctor is saying that, she’s lying.

    There probably is something in the act that requires justification for reimbursement outside of certain parameters, which would likely require nothing more than scribbling “family history” on the order, in very bad handwriting. However, if a provider were to “justify” 10 per day, every day for a year, that provider might be subject to an audit, and would that be a bad thing?

  11. Peggy says:

    Chris: (5) for the purposes of this Act, and for the purposes of any other provision of law, the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Service Task Force regarding breast cancer screening, mammography, and prevention shall be considered the most current other than those issued in or around November 2009.

    Chris, Based on your above information I found what the Task Force recommended in Nov. 2009. The below link will take you to the whole article which provides the names of the task force members. Ive copied a portion of the article below the url address, which outlines their grading systems, but Ive also provided the summary paragraph above the url address since Im not able to bold print it.

    Doesnt look like your information is correct. ObamaCare only provides for mammograms for women between 50 to 75 and not to women younger or older.

    And yes Chris I did watch the video a couple of times. Note I was the one who submitted it to PS. Peg

    =========

    However, when examining these recommendations, what the Task Force is saying about screening mammograms is difficult to understand. If followed to the letter, only women between 50 and 75 years of age shall be screened every two years relying on the results of a total of 12 mammograms per woman in a lifetime; women shall be discouraged from doing self breast examination and physiciians will not be oblligated to perform clinical breast exams.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/mammograms-under-obamacare-affordable-care-for-all-or-a-death-sentence-for-some

    Mammograms under ObamaCare: Affordable care for all or a death sentence for some?

    Until making its recommendations known about routine mammograms, no one ever heard of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Actually it has been around since 1984 when it was begun by the U.S. Public Health Service. In 1999, it fell under the authority of the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research, AHRQ, primarily because Title IX of the Public Health Service Act charged AHRQ with the responsibility of enhancing the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of health care services and access to such services. The Director of AHRQ was empowered to convene a Preventive Services Task Force to be composed of individuals with the appropriate expertise to review the scientific evidence related to these activities for the purpose of developing recommendations for the health care community and updating previous clinical preventive recommendations. The Task Force is purported to be the leading independent panel of private-sector experts in prevention and primary care. Its recommendations are considered the “gold standard” for clinical preventive services.

    The USPSTF is comprised of health care providers with recognized expertise in prevention, evidence-based medicine, and primary care and with specialized interests in decision modeling, evaluations of medical effectiveness and epidemiology.

    The resulting reports and technology assessments from these EPCs are considered the evidence in “evidence based outcomes” and are used not only by the Task Force members but also by other Federal and State agencies, private sector professional societies, health delivery systems, providers, payers, and others committed to evidence-based health care.

    Once the Task Force completes a review of a topic, it grades the strength of the evidence for their recommendations. These grades are: “A” (strongly recommends), “B” (recommends), “C” (no recommendation for or against), “D” (recommends against), or “I” (insufficient evidence to recommend for or against). The following are the official recommendations of the Task Force on mammography with the grading of the evidence leading to these recommendations:

    The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms.
    Grade: C recommendation.

    The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years.
    Grade: B recommendation.

    The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older.
    Grade: I Statement.

    The USPSTF recommends against teaching breast self-examination (BSE).
    Grade: D recommendation.

    The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination (CBE) beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older.
    Grade: I Statement.

    The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer.
    Grade: I Statement.

    In the future, when health reform is passed, this grading system will determine if certain treatments or medical technologies and procedures will be covered benefits for not only the public option but, also, for all qualified health plans in the exchange. However, when examining these recommendations, what the Task Force is saying about screening mammograms is difficult to understand. If followed to the letter, only women between 50 and 75 years of age shall be screened every two years relying on the results of a total of 12 mammograms per woman in a lifetime; women shall be discouraged from doing self breast examination and physiciians will not be oblligated to perform clinical breast exams.

  12. Chris says:

    Peggy: “Doesnt look like your information is correct. ObamaCare only provides for mammograms for women between 50 to 75 and not to women younger or older.”

    Peggy, please show me what part of my information you think was not correct. I never argued that ObamaCare provides for mammograms for women younger than 50 and older than 75. That is not the issue at hand.

    The issue is that Vecchio claimed that under the PPACA, she would be fined or put in jail if she were to recommend mammograms to women younger than 50. That’s obviously not true, as the PPACA says. The PPACA says that the task force’s guidelines should be treated as the most current, and those guidelines recommend against women younger than 50 and older than 75 getting routine mammograms. It does not say that doctors cannot recommend mammograms to women who they believe need them, regardless of age. In fact, it makes it abundantly clear that doctors are not prohibited from doing so, and insurance plans are not prohibited from covering mammograms either.

    You have shown no evidence to back up the argument made by Dr. Jill Vecchio in this video. Instead you have argued almost completely in non-sequiters, using articles that are totally unrelated to Vecchio’s argument, and then claiming that they somehow prove Vecchio right. For instance, you wrote this:

    “However, I did find the below article dated 4/14/11, about mammograms being cut under ObamaCare”

    But the article you cite did not even mention Obamacare, and was not about the health care law at all. The cuts were made as part of a budget negotiation in Congress. Even if the cuts were made in Obamacare, it still wouldn’t be evidence that Vecchio’s claims were correct.

    I did not post incorrect information. You did: first by posting Dr. Vecchio’s video, in which she makes a totally false claim, and then by claiming that the LifeNews article was about cuts made by Obamacare, when it was in fact not about that at all. You also falsely imply that Obama cutting mammograms somehow proves Vecchio’s claim that doctors will be fined and put in jail if they recommend mammograms to women who do not fall within the recommended age bracket, which is ridiculous.

    Those are obviously two wildly different claims, and I’m amazed you seem to still be conflating the two.

  13. Libby says:

    “And yes Chris I did watch the video a couple of times. Note I was the one who submitted it to PS.”

    But you can’t expect us to blindly accept some YouTube video as the last word in investigative journalism. Most of the time, it ain’t even the first. It is often, as in this case, decidedly self-interested propoganda.

  14. Peggy says:

    Chris, you are the one who said the Mikulski amendment was used in ObamaCare. I asked you to verify it. Instead you provided the codes in ObamaCare which clearly stated that only the Task Force recommendations would be used. You did not provide the actual TF guides which included Mikulskis amendment.

    I provided the Task Forces guides, which is according to the code requirements the governing body for establishing the guides, and youre saying Im wrong.

    The Task Force guide is dated Nov. 2009, Mikulskis amendment is dated Dec. 2009, ObamaCare was passed in 2010. Therefore, ObamaCare is the law of the land and it says the Task Force is in control of establishing the guides, not the Mikulski amendment.

    Once again, show me the Task Force guides dated 2010 or later which include Mikulskis recommendations and Ill accept them. Until then the TF trumps Mikulski. I hope you are correct. I like Mikulskis amendment which puts a womans health decisions where it should be between a woman and her doctor instead of some committee in DC. Just show me where the TF adopted and approved the change since Im unable to locate it.

    Here is an article stating Mikulskis amendment passed the Senate, but I could find nothing showing it also passed the House and was signed into law. This is the approval process, right?

    http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Room/News_Releases/2009/ACOG_Applauds_Passage_of_Mikulski_Amendment

    ACOG Applauds Passage of Mikulski Amendment Guaranteeing Coverage of Women’s Preventive Health Care

    December 3, 2009
    Washington, DC — Gerald F. Joseph, Jr, MD, president of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), applauds today’s Senate passage of the Mikulski Women’s Health Amendment to HR 3590, the Senate health reform bill. The amendment guarantees coverage and affordability of critical women’s preventive health care, including mammography screening for women under the age of 50, and ensures physician involvement in decisions on the need for screening.

    Chris: Peggy, please show me what part of my information you think was not correct. I never argued that ObamaCare provides for mammograms for women younger than 50 and older than 75. That is not the issue at hand.

    Chris, How about this? And yes it is the issue at hand.

    Chris: Chris | August 21, 2012 11:34 AM | Reply
    Dr. Vecchio is misinformed, and operating on extremely outdated information. She is not prohibited from recommending mammograms to anyone.

  15. Chris says:

    Peggy, I wish you’d read more carefully–this is getting tiresome.

    I showed you exactly where in the PPACA Mikulski’s amendment is included. It’s in Part A, Sec. 2713, labeled “Coverage of Preventive Health Services.” Right after it is explained that the Task Force recommendations are to be seen as the most current, and that, at MINIMUM, health insurance plans must cover those recommendations, it states:

    “Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a plan or issuer from providing coverage for services in addition to those recommended by United States Preventive Services Task Force or to deny coverage for services that are not recommended by such Task Force.”

    That language is identical to the language used in the Mikulski amendment in the Senate bill.

    Peggy: “I provided the Task Forces guides, which is according to the code requirements the governing body for establishing the guides, and youre saying Im wrong.

    The Task Force guide is dated Nov. 2009, Mikulskis amendment is dated Dec. 2009, ObamaCare was passed in 2010. Therefore, ObamaCare is the law of the land and it says the Task Force is in control of establishing the guides, not the Mikulski amendment.

    Once again, show me the Task Force guides dated 2010 or later which include Mikulskis recommendations and Ill accept them. Until then the TF trumps Mikulski. I hope you are correct. I like Mikulskis amendment which puts a womans health decisions where it should be between a woman and her doctor instead of some committee in DC. Just show me where the TF adopted and approved the change since Im unable to locate it.”

    You don’t understand what you’re talking about. The Mikulski amendment DOES NOT MODIFY the Task Force guidelines, so of course the Task Force guidelines don’t mention it; it doesn’t need to. What the Mikulski amendment states is that doctors and health insurers are not prevented from recommending treatment to their patients BEYOND the guidelines. All the Task Force does is make recommendations; it does not “trump” anything, as it has no control over what kinds of treatments may or may not be given.

    The health care law doesn’t give the guidelines any additional power to restrict medical care; again, it simply says that the guidelines will be seen as the MINIMUM standard of coverage that insurance plans must provide. In short, the law does the OPPOSITE of what Vecchio claims it does: it does not restrict medical options, it raises the minimum standard, thus expanding medical options.

    If you ask me, the language explicitly saying that doctors and insurers are not prohibited should be unnecessary; I can’t see how any reasonable person with decent reading comprehension skills could read the portion of the law right before and conclude that they are only allowed to recommend treatment that falls in line with the Task Force’s recommendations. It clearly states that this is the MINIMUM expected standard of coverage–not the maximum.

    I find it breathtakingly sad that anyone could believe the claims Dr. Jill Vecchio makes in this video. Honestly, Peggy, it should have been obvious to you before you posted this that what she was saying wasn’t true. At the very least, you should have been more skeptical of the idea that doctors will be fined or thrown in jail if they recommend mammograms to women under 50. That claim doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s too absurd to be true.

    But you believed it without question, because your side has so thoroughly demonized this law, this president and Democrats that you were willing to believe they’ve now made this a country where doctors will be fined and thrown in jail for recommending legal medical procedures. That’s nuts, and it has no basis in reality. And it should seriously make you think about what it is you’re willing to believe about your political opponents.

  16. Peggy says:

    Tell me Chris do you feel better now after attacking me for trying to understand this stupid law or do you just enjoying being a mouth-piece for Queen Pelosi who said we had to pass the damn bill to find out what is in it? I and thousands, no correct that, millions are trying to understand this stupid bill, which is the major reason its so unpopular. This incomprehensible bill passed without being read or understood by our legislatures leaving us to weed through it just so they could get reelected and go home with their pockets full of pork.

    I have asked for ONE simple thing, because I cant find it. I want to see what the Task Force recommendations are since ObamaCare became law in 2010. We know what they and Mikulski recommended in 2009, but we/I have seen NOTHING dated after the law was passed in 2010. Got it? Is my question stated clear enough now for you to understand?

    If YOU can provide it fine, if not dont bother responding. After November its not going to matter anyway.

  17. Chris says:

    “I have asked for ONE simple thing, because I cant find it. I want to see what the Task Force recommendations are since ObamaCare became law in 2010. We know what they and Mikulski recommended in 2009, but we/I have seen NOTHING dated after the law was passed in 2010. Got it? Is my question stated clear enough now for you to understand?”

    Peggy, I already explained this. The guidelines are the same as they were when the bill was passed. But that does not validate Dr. Vecchio’s claims, because the law does not punish doctors who recommend treatments that go beyond the task force’s guidelines. The law simply makes those guidelines the minimum standard of care that insurance plans must cover. There is nothing in the law prohibiting doctors from recommending treatment that goes beyond the guidelines. To make that even more clear, the law includes Mikulski’s provision explicitly stating that the law does not prohibit insurance plans from covering “services in addition to those recommended by United States Preventive Services Task Force.”

    I am sorry if you felt attacked. I know you are trying to understand the law. But I feel like I have already explained this as much as I possibly can. It is true that many parts of the law are very confusing, but I don’t think this is one of them. The language is very clear to me. If there is anything you still don’t understand, please let me know and I will try to respond in a more friendly tone.

  18. Tina says:

    Peggy you might find the following informative:

    http://www.aei.org/print/the-bleeding-edge-of-rationing
    A large problem is the lack of formal regulatory guardrails governing the USPSTFs operations. The task force started life as an advisory body and has now become a de facto regulatory agency. But there has been too little reflection along the way on how the body is organized and discharges its mission. Whether by accident or by political design, the USPSTF has evolved into a powerful health regulatory agency, but one with few of the requirements for transparency and due process that Americans have come to demand from their regulatory bodies.

    Many of these problems were on display in the USPSTFs recent recommendations on breast cancer screening. In reaching its decision, the task force said the harms resulting from screening for breast cancer include psychological harms, unnecessary imaging tests and biopsies in women without cancer, and inconvenience due to false-positive screening results. When evaluating breast cancer screening, one must also consider the harms associated with treatment of cancer that would not become clinically apparent during a womans lifetime . . . as well as the harms of unnecessary earlier treatment of breast cancer that would have become clinically apparent but would not have shortened a womans life, the task force wrote.7

    In criticizing the decision, the American Cancer Society responded that the USPSTF had arbitrarily decided that screening 1,300 women to save a life was an acceptable cost but screening 1,900 to save a life was not.8 The USPSTF has no formal rules or guidance on how it arrives at this kind of analysis. As a result, not just clinicians are now questioning how the USPSTF reaches its decisions and the merit in investing its assessments with so much political clout.9 Even the political architects of the USPSTFs new authorities are expressing doubts.

    In October 2010, when the USPSTF canceled a meeting at which it was due to recommend against prostate cancer screening for men of all ages, many figured that the Obama administrations political leadership had intervened to avoid another round of negative headlines about the USPSTF and its new mandates on access to health care.10 In the post-PPACA age, the USPSTF is the bleeding edge of the unaccountable and largely unpredictable Washington institutions that will start intruding themselves into publics available medical choices.

    See also here (Page 4):

    http://www.nhp.org/PDFs/Providers/preventive_services.pdf

  19. Peggy says:

    Chris: The guidelines are the same as they were when the bill was passed.

    Chris, Therein lies the reason for my confusion and searching for when the Task Force did meet after Nov. 2009.

    Per the information you provided it says, (5) for the purposes of this Act, and for the purposes of any other provision of law, the current recommendations
    of the United States Preventive Service Task Force regarding
    breast cancer screening, mammography, and prevention shall be considered the most current other than those issued in or around November 2009.

    If the law says the Nov. 2009 recommendations are NOT to be used and there is no evidence they have met we must conclude therefore there are NO current guides to follow. Thats how I read this, you may see it differently.

    Tina, Thanks for the information. It looks interesting. Ill check it out as I have my coffee.

    Where are we, 75 days or so before we can celebrate and put all this craziness behind us? Hurry 11/6!!!

  20. Peggy says:

    Tina, I did find your information interesting reading. How they function, the guides or lack thereof and their protected access from public review and challenges are most troubling.

    Moreover, the task force has little capacity to vet and incorporate public comments made during this process, nor are there clear ways for people to appeal decisions. The only mechanism is for an affected party to seek a political waiver from the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The provision for this last-ditch waiver process was slipped into PPACA as compromise to address the backlash created by the USPSTF breast cancer screening decision.

    The procedural shortcomings in how the USPSTF operates are amplified by the fact that it could become the first federal authority to explicitly make cost effectiveness a part of its criteria for covering health care services. Cost-effectiveness analysis is not a central part of the USPSTFs mandate. Indeed, the members of the task force do not have expertise in this discipline, but it has been gradually worked into some of its analyses. Since the way the USPSTF goes about its work is not governed by many explicit regulations or instructions from Congress, the task force is able to unilaterally adapt its approach to meet political trends.

    In 2001, the USPSTF announced it would start conducting systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness analysis to inform its recommendations. To this end, the USPSTF initiated a process for systematically reviewing cost-effectiveness analyses as an aid in making recommendations about clinical preventive services.20 The USPSTF stated on its website that one of its goals in using this analysis in its recommendations is to provide substrata for policy discussions and public debate over the role of cost-effectiveness in allocating health care resources.21

    However, there are some unique problems with using cost as a basis to vet screening tests. One is that many of the economic benefits of screening tests cannot be easily measured by tabulating the direct savings from these technologies. For example, cost-benefit analyses cannot easily measure the value afforded by intangible benefits such as greater assuredness that patients gain from a negative test result. Embedding cost in the evaluation of coverage for screening tests can also create long delays in deploying new tools or adapting medical care to new discoveries. Moreover, uncovering illness early will sometimes prove more costly than letting it fester, even if early detection makes a particular disease more curable.

    All of these shortcomings are complicated still more by the byzantine manner in which the USPSTF gathers the evidence to support its coverage decisions. The task force members review evidence that is independently collected for them by AHRQ staff. But that evidence collection process is largely subcontracted by the AHRQ to outside groups (mostly academic research teams). The AHRQ takes charge of compiling resulting information and passing it on the task force, but typically has little hand in generating the data. (A recent exception was the breast cancer screening decision, for which AHRQ went to great lengths to consider emerging data.) This process means that the USPSTF often has limited proximity to the origin of the data and reduced ability to actively solicit new information.

  21. Chris says:

    Tina and Peggy, I feel like you may be overestimating the power of this task force. All they can do is make recommendations; they have no power to prevent doctors from recommending other treatments, or health insurance plans from covering more than they recommend. The PPACA did not give them any additional power to prohibit certain treatments, it merely said that their guidelines would be treated as the minimum standard of coverage. What this means is that health insurance plans now have to cover mammograms for women between 50 and 75; they didn’t have to do that before. This will increase options for many women.

    You may think that the law should have also covered mammograms for women under 50 and over 75. But that’s an argument for more government intervention in the healthcare system, not less. I’m not sure that’s what you’re asking for.

    Peggy, do you see now how Dr. Vecchio was wrong when she claimed that she would be fined or put in jail if she recommended mammograms to women beyond the task force’s guidelines? There is nothing in the law preventing her from doing that. The law doesn’t mention what treatments doctors can recommend, but it does say that health insurance companies are free to cover services beyond the guidelines.

  22. Peggy says:

    Chris: What this means is that health insurance plans now have to cover mammograms for women between 50 and 75; they didn’t have to do that before. This will increase options for many women.

    You may think that the law should have also covered mammograms for women under 50 and over 75. But that’s an argument for more government intervention in the healthcare system, not less. I’m not sure that’s what you’re asking for.

    Chris, OMG do you enjoy talking out of both sides of your mouth or do you just talk in circles so you can counter with we miss understood what you were saying? All of my prior post were to clarify just what the Task Forces recommendations were and at what age her insurance provider would cover it.

    Now you come up with theyre covered for women between 50-75 but not outside of that age group. Anyone outside of those ages is for future government involvement. That is cra_ and you know it.

    I started my mammograms when I was 40, because my doctor recommended them and my insurance (BlueCross) has always paid for them. Now youre trying to convince me that we need the government to do whats already being done. Covering women under 50 and over 75 is exactly what I was talking about. A womens health should be between her and her doctor, without government involvement.

    Chris: I feel like you may be overestimating the power of this task force. All they can do is make recommendations; they have no power to prevent doctors from recommending other treatments, or health insurance plans from covering more than they recommend. The PPACA did not give them any additional power to prohibit certain treatments, it merely said that their guidelines would be treated as the minimum standard of coverage.

    Chris, Im not going to waste my time again by getting into another discussion with you about your statement until youve read the article Tina provided. Even an eleven year old can understand that private and public insurance carriers follow the Task Forces guides as to what they will and will not pay for. With all the public outcry over the mammogram guides how can you say they dont have that power? ObamaCare, as you provided, even specifically indicated their Nov. 2009 guides were not to be followed.

    Here is the articles first couple of paragraphs to get you started.

    Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a previously obscure government advisory body has acquired vast authority to decide which health care services Americans will have access to. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) was created in 1984 as a government advisor with the mission of assessing the clinical utility of preventive health measures such as screening tests and issuing nonbinding recommendations about which measures doctors should incorporate into routine medical care. PPACA gives the USPSTFs recommendations the force of law, making them de facto mandates on which preventive services private health plans and public programs such as Medicare must pay for. Services that do not make the USPSTF grade are unlikely to be covered at all. The USPSTF was not designed to wield this kind of sweeping and binding authority. It does not maintain the transparency, deliberative process, appeal process, or requirements for public notice and comment that are hallmarks of sound regulatory policymaking. Moreover, because the USPSTF has few guidelines governing its function, it has great flexibility to adapt its criteria and grow its mandate in ways that may conflict with political goals and public sentiment and lead to unintended consequences.

    Key points in this Outlook:
    Under President Obamas health care plan, the United States Preventive Services Task Force now wields great power to decide which health services (like mammograms) doctors should provide, yet it has few checks on its sweeping authority.
    Its mandates are likely to raise health insurance costs and premiums, while reducing the number of covered preventive services.
    To improve accountability for an agency that is both out of date with the medical community and out of touch with the public, Congress should closely monitor the impact new mandates have on patient care.

    In November 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said women age forty to forty-nine should not get routine mammograms. Almost instantly, a little known and largely marginalized government health agency was thrust onto the front pages of Americas newspapers. What proved the most controversial aspects of the mammography proposal were some of the criteria the task force had considered in reaching its decision. Among other things, the USPSTF was weighing the benefit of breast cancer screening against the burden of letting some additional cancers go undetected.

    Chris, Im not going to respond to your request that I admit Dr. Vecchio was wrong, because she probably has professional information we are not privy to. As I see it she believed she was right and spoke out, which is her right to do. I wont call her a liar because she did.

  23. Chris says:

    Peggy: “Chris, Im not going to respond to your request that I admit Dr. Vecchio was wrong, because she probably has professional information we are not privy to.”

    This is absolutely ridiculous.

    We are all privy to the law as written and passed. The law clearly says that health insurers are not prohibited from recommending treatment beyond the guidelines set by the task force. Why on earth would doctors be prohibited from recommending such treatment, if health insurers aren’t prohibited from covering it? That. Makes. No. Sense.

    You are essentially saying that there’s no amount of evidence I can provide for you that will change your opinion. You will believe Dr. Vecchio, even though she has no evidence to support her claims, because she is a doctor and she might have information that you don’t. You’re not even asking to see that information–you’re just putting your faith in this woman, even though no one and nothing else substantiates her absurd claims. You do this because you have a pre-existing bias against Obamacare and you are always looking for new reasons to validate that bias. Whether those reasons are based on facts and evidence is irrelevant.

    I spent a lot of time researching this issue and providing evidence proving my point. Apparently as far as you’re concerned, that was a waste of my time. Your position isn’t based on evidence, but on the ridiculous rantings of one grossly irresponsible doctor who is either profoundly uninformed, or lying. I hope this wasn’t a complete waste of my time; maybe someone else read this conversation and was able to figure out that Vecchio’s claims were bogus, even if you were not.

    I hope you don’t interpret this as an attack, Peggy. It is not. These are valid criticisms against your illogical argument, and against the disturbing overall habit of many conservatives of completely abandoning their critical thinking skills when it comes to the issue of Obamacare. All skepticism and logic goes out the window when your side talks about the issue. You can make any claim, no matter how absurd and false–“death panels,” “rationing,” “imprisoning doctors for recommending mammograms”–and people will believe it without question. Even when every fact-checking organization in the country disproves these lies, even when you are confronted with irrefutable proof that these accusations are wrong, you still stand by them and refuse to admit that you were wrong. At best you say it is a matter of “opinion,” when actually, it is a matter of fact that can be checked and determined to be true or false.

    This IS dishonesty–perhaps the worst kind of dishonesty, because it so often requires lying to yourselves. You convince yourselves that these things are true, and that those who are trying to show you how you’re wrong are just biased liberals in on the conspiracy.

    It. Is. Not. Logical.

  24. Tina says:

    Chris you’re the one with blind faith.

    You refuse to even consider the concerns of a practicing doctor whose profession and livelihood will be impacted by this law and whose reading of the law (perhaps after consulting with a lawyer) has created her expressed fears.

    You refuse to consider that laws can play out in practice very differently than they are proposed on paper, especially when incredible power has been vested in an unelected secretary and panel.

    You refuse to acknowledge the power invested in the language in the bill which includes, “The secretary shall” more than 700 times. “Shall” in the legal profession is very strong language.

    Here’s another professional (Insurance sales) with concerns:

    http://theinsurancebarn.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/3-reasons-not-to-be-a-fan-of-the-ppaca/

    The most common phrase in the PPACA is the Secretary Shall. Even though the PPACA is one of the longest bills in U.S. History, it is still only a skeleton. It leaves the Secretary of Health and Human Services too much discretion. As a member of the Presidents cabinet, that position is a part of the Executive branch of government. That branch is to enforce laws and not make them. According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress is supposed to make law.

    Some would argue that the Secretary of HHS is only supposed to make rules and not law. To me, that argument is merely an exercise in semantics. The distinction is lost on me. As I look back on the year of rules made by Kathleen Sebelius I see no difference between her rules and law. In my opinion, the PPACA allows the Secretary of HHS, regardless of which political party he/she is affiliated with, too much power to make law.(continues)

    Peggy and I have not swallowed Obama’s healthcare promises…perhaps because we have been promised things before that ended up having unexpected consequences.

    The debt we now have (close to 16 trillion) is one example. Its very large and growing due to SS & Medicare and it will grow more because of Obamacare. The interest expense is enough to kill us.

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/05/news/economy/national-debt-interest/index.htm

    between 2013 and 2022, estimated interest costs will be:

    * higher than Medicaid spending;
    * equal to half of Social Security spending;
    * close to what is spent on all of defense.

    And here’s the thing — the estimated interest costs assume a fairly steady and moderate increase in rates over the decade.

    This debt is largely due to the implementation of other entitlement programs with projected costs that turned out to be both wrong and harmful.

    You would experience a lot less frustration if you were not so blindly attached to this plan. Your own future opportunity might depend on getting this right…yet you refuse to consider, even for the sake of discussion, that it might be a stinker.

  25. Chris says:

    Tina, do you have one shred of evidence to justify Dr. Vecchio’s claim that the law will fine and/or imprison doctors who offer mammograms to women under 50 and over 75? This is a yes or no question.

    “You refuse to even consider the concerns of a practicing doctor…”

    Tina, I did consider her concerns. As absurd and unlikely as I found her claims to begin with, I still considered them enough to research them. And after doing so, I found that they were just as false as they sound.

    You keep attempting to add legitimacy to what Vecchio said, but since you have no evidence that what she said was true–and since I have provided proof that what she said was false–the only way you can do that is say, “She’s a doctor!” As if it’s impossible for a doctor to lie or be negligent.

    Dr. Vecchio’s claim is stupid on its face. Anyone who would believe that the government is going to start arresting doctors for recommending mammograms is an idiot with no common sense.

    I am not “blindly attached” to the health care law. I have examined the FACTS about the law and think it is overall a positive step. You refuse to deal with the facts about the law. Instead, you continue to peddle proven falsehoods about the law that have been rejected by every major news and fact-checking organization in the U.S., and that are too stupid for any rational person to believe. I am fed up with it.

  26. Tina says:

    Chris the “shred of evidence” I offer all who read here (I am not your child or student) is the testimony of the doctor and the considerations and opinions of other healthcare related organizations, including the Red Cross. They do not agree with you…get over it! (See also a new post to be put up shortly where three more doctors express concerns in an interview with Mike Huckabee and a legal opinion.)

    YOU don’t have to pay for or attempt to comply with the rules under this complicated bull…YOU don’t have to be concerned that the complex mandates could undermine your practice or end in fines (And possibly jail time). Why would you care as long as YOU feel good.

    Be fed up…I could give a rats butt.

  27. Chris says:

    Tina: “Chris the “shred of evidence” I offer all who read here (I am not your child or student) is the testimony of the doctor and the considerations and opinions of other healthcare related organizations, including the Red Cross. They do not agree with you…get over it!”

    Nice try, grouping in this crazy doctor with the Red Cross as people who simply “do not agree” with me. The Red Cross never claimed that doctors would be imprisoned for recommending a legal medical procedure, nor did any of the other healthcare related organizations you’ve cited. So again, all you have to support that falsehood is the crazy doctor’s rantings, and nothing else.

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with me. I don’t have a problem with people thinking that the PPACA is a bad law. I do have a problem with people f***ing up our political process with ridiculous lies. If the law is really that bad, you should be able to stick to real complaints against it. Not insane conspiracy theories with no basis in reality.

  28. Tina says:

    Then stop f***ing up the political process with ridiculous lies…and opinions!

    Here is the portion of the law you cited:

    The Mikulski amendment appears early in Part A of the law, in Sec. 2713, labeled “Coverage of Preventive Health Services.” The section states:

    (a) IN GENERAL.A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for
    (1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect
    a rating of A or B in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force…

    If the task force and the secretary see services or items with a ‘C’ or ‘D’ rating what will the decision be? The panels purpose, and the secretary’s bidding is to cut costs…not determine the best solution for my medical problem as the doctor would do. What will the Secretary decide? Why should the secretary decide anything having to do with possible services or items that might serve my healthcare needs?

    Also this legal opinion may have something to do with the doctors’ concerns:

    http://boards.medscape.com/forums?128@833.2W1JaNPahE3@.2a33a538!comment=1

    PPACA undermines a core principle of the American justice system

    An obscure provision of PPACA, buried deep in Section 6402, has received little attention and none from the “news” media. Nonetheless, it has very serious implications for the legal rights of health care providers, the American justice system and ability of many patients to access medical care. A fundamental principle of our justice system holds that a person cannot be convicted of a felony unless it has been proven that he acted with “criminal intent.” It must be shown, in other words, that he intentionally engaged in conduct he knew to be illegal. This is a venerable legal principle whose pedigree reaches back to the beginnings of Western Civilization, and it was an important element of the English common law upon which the American justice system is based. The requirement to prove criminal intent has, however, been something of a nuisance to Beltway bureaucrats seeking to bend private industry to their will. And it has been particularly inconvenient for federal prosecutors trying to throw doctors and hospital executives in jail for violating hopelessly obscure and Byzantine regulatory statutes. But that pebble has been removed from the federal shoe by ObamaCare.

    Specifically, Section 6402(f)(2) revises existing law so that the government can ignore the criminal intent principle in violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKB). AKB prohibits the payment or receipt of remuneration in exchange for referrals or the purchase of goods and services paid for by a federal health care program. It is a criminal statute, the violation of which is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years. Prior to last March, the government could not obtain a conviction under AKB unless it proved that a defendant knew about the law and intentionally ignored it. The authors of PPACA used the health care bill to revise the statute such that “a person need not have actual knowledge of [AKB] or specific intent to commit a violation.” The “person” who will most likely be prosecuted regardless of “actual knowledge” or “intent” is, of course, your doctor or someone with whom he does business.

    As ominous as this surreptitious revision is for physicians and other health care providers, it has even scarier implications for our justice system in general. PPACA’s reduction of the prosecutorial burden for AKB is part of a broad legislative pattern that has been gaining momentum in recent years. Congress has ignored the principle of criminal intent in an increasing number of statutes covering a wide variety issues and industries.

    As Edwin Meese III and Norman L. Reimer put it in their Foreword to the recently published Heritage Foundation report, “Without Intent: How Congress is Eroding the Criminal Intent Requirement in Federal Law,” this pattern has “dangerously impaired the justification for criminal punishment that has for centuries been based on an individual’s intent to commit a wrongful act. This trend undermines confidence in government and risks pervasive injustice.”

    A provider’s guilt or innocence in an anti-kickback prosecution, to paraphrase a former President, depends on what the meaning of “remuneration” is. And AKB is written in such impenetrable bureaucratese that a generally accepted legal definition of that word has been elusive. “Remuneration” means obvious things like kickbacks and bribes, of course, but it can also mean “payment in kind” made “directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly.” Interpreted broadly, such language can cover virtually every transaction that occurs in the health care industry.

    Even a practice as common and necessary as physician credentialing by hospitals has been associated with “remuneration” by HHS. A hospital is required by law, industry standards, and its general health care mission to verify physician credentials and assure the clinical proficiency of its medical staff. Indeed, HHS itself admonishes hospitals to monitor quality “by appropriately overseeing the credentialing of their medical staffs.” Yet the very HHS notice in which this quote appears also warns that, under certain vaguely-defined circumstances, “medical staff credentialing practices may implicate the anti-kickback statute.” This would be amusing and ironic except that, due to PPACA’s evisceration of the intent requirement, the wrong judgment call could well cause doctors (i.e. the people receiving the alleged remuneration) and hospital executives (i.e. the people “paying” it) to go to jail.

    The prosecutorial discretion created by PPACA is a very dangerous weapon. In addition to undermining the legal rights of health care providers and eroding a core principle of our justice system, Section 6402 will also have an adverse effect on the ability of many patients to access care. The only sure way for a doctor, hospital, ambulatory surgery center, etc. to avoid being sucked under by this dangerous legal quicksand is avoid Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP patients like the plague.(continues)

    This was put into the bill purposely. Docs are already saying they will leave the profession or refuse to take Medicare patients. Employers, they tell us, will drop healthcare plans and tell their employees to go on the government option…universal healthcare was the plan all along! BUT they didn’t figure on doctors being smarter than sheep. There will be a doctor shortage if this piece of crap law stands.

  29. Tina says:

    Before you vote do yourself a favor and read this article on Obamacare. It spells out the one size fits all mass production quality that will be the ultimate result of the legislation. It informs about the advisory panel and corporate healthcare insurance mergers and acquisitions that will create monopolistic/corporatist companies…from the Wall Street Journal:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577605233123916096.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

  30. Chris says:

    Tina: “Then stop f***ing up the political process with ridiculous lies…”

    I’m sorry, is this directed at me? If so, you need to back up this accusation. What lies have I told here? Name them.

    I can name several lies you have put forward on this blog this summer.

    –Obama is gutting the work requirement in welfare: Lie.
    –The U.S. gave a major strip of land back to Mexico: Lie.
    –“The President has decided that minority students should not be punished in school for infractions of the rules more often than white students even if they engage in rule breaking activity more often:” Lie.
    –The Family Research Council is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because it “disagrees with progressive opinion:” Lie.
    –“Many” small businesses will have their taxes increased under Obama’s plan: Lie.
    –Obama insulted business owners and never mentioned individual initiative in his speech on government investment: Lie.
    –Obamacare includes “rationing” and “death panels:” Lie.
    –Obama sues to restrict military voting: Lie.

    And now you’re trying to cover for the ridiculous lie that Obamacare gives the government the power to arrest doctors for recommending mammograms. This is literally one of the dumbest lies I have ever heard. You still have not provided any evidence to support this absurd claim from Dr. Vecchio. But you won’t admit that it isn’t true, because the lie is politically useful to you. So instead you try to distract by changing the subject to other alleged problems with Obamacare. But at this point, why should anyone believe any criticisms you levy against the law? You’ve already proven that you are willing to stoop to incredible lows, that you have no problem with your side telling obvious lies in order to confuse people, and rally the stupid and the gullible in anger in order to defeat Obamacare. As long as people are angry over the law, you’re happy; it doesn’t matter if their anger is based on anything real. You have a huge credibility problem. Nothing you say at this point can be trusted. Until you recognize that and take steps to admit you have been dishonest, I don’t see how any conversation with you about the law can be productive.

  31. Tina says:

    Gee Chris…suddenly the “no evidence” rant isn’t working so now you have to make more accusations of PS lies?

    The “cover” you refer to was put forth by people with legal credentials to argue the point in court. You on the other hand are a student and possible future educator in what field…ah yes, literature.

    Get off that high horse and take a look in the mirror. YOU lied about the concerns of the doctor being false.

    People are angry over the law! They were angry long before we posted any of this information. They were angry for the simple reason that Pelosi/Reid/Obama passed the legislation with dirty tricks, in secret, and without the participation of Republican representatives in Congress. They have a lot of other reasons to be angry about it but this one is something that should make every honest American angry! So what’s your excuse, Chris? Oh yeah…youths get to stay on Mom’s insurance until they can get a job. YOU have very little skin in the game. YOU don’t (yet) have to think about the negative consequences. We get it…you are an inexperienced child…and you want, you want, you want…

  32. Peggy says:

    I’ve been out of town since Sat. morning. I see I missed some fireworks here and great info. from Tina.

    Thanks Tina for picking up the ball with this a scoring a touch down again.

  33. Chris says:

    Tina: “Gee Chris…suddenly the “no evidence” rant isn’t working so now you have to make more accusations of PS lies?”

    There’s no change there, Tina. When you constantly make claims that you have no evidence for, and thus no reason to believe, you ARE lying.

    “The “cover” you refer to was put forth by people with legal credentials to argue the point in court.”

    No, Tina, I wasn’t referring to that article, as it is totally unrelated to the claims made by Dr. Vecchio, and does not make the same argument at all. She claimed she would be put in jail for recommending mammograms to women under 50 and above 75. The article you cited is about doctors potentially going to jail for breaking the law and accepting bribes. I can’t believe I actually have to explain this to an adult with the ability to read, but those are two different things.

    If the law takes away the provision of intent, that could be a problem, and it might be something I oppose. But it is not evidence to support Vecchio’s original claim!

    You are, just like Peggy, attempting to use totally unrelated articles to prove Vecchio’s point. I don’t know if this is a failure of reading comprehension on your part, or if you are intentionally conflating these issues, but it makes you look stupid either way.

    “YOU lied about the concerns of the doctor being false.”

    What? How? Her claims ARE false. You still have not provided any evidence that they are true. Instead you have tried to completely change the argument, citing an unrelated article that doesn’t validate Vecchio’s claims at all. That is crazy.

  34. Peg says:

    The US Presentative Services Task Force has made the recommendation that women over 75 do not need a mammogram. President Obama did not recommend this. Before we all get carried away with misinformation, hatred and political opinions…we need to do our homework and get the facts to make an informed decisions, based on theses facts that we uncover.

  35. Livvy says:

    Chris, you stated: “I spent a lot of time researching this issue and providing evidence proving my point. Apparently as far as you’re concerned, that was a waste of my time. Your position isn’t based on evidence, but on the ridiculous rantings of one grossly irresponsible doctor who is either profoundly uninformed, or lying. I hope this wasn’t a complete waste of my time; maybe someone else read this conversation and was able to figure out that Vecchio’s claims were bogus, even if you were not.”

    I just wanted to let you know that your time was not wasted. I received an email from a friend with a link to the video. It didn’t pass the smell test for me, and like you, when that happens I start digging to find out the truth. I happened upon this exchange in my research. Thank you for the research you have done. It has helped me frame my response to my friend. I also appreciate the calm and patient way you have tried to present your findings. If you are in fact becoming a teacher, as one of the ladies indicated, you will make a fine one. Patience, perseverance, and a calm, yet assertive manner are important qualities for a quality educator in any field.

    Again, thank you for your time and information. It is much appreciated by myself, and I’m sure others who read it, at least those who reside in the fact-based world of reality.

    Peggy and Tina, don’t bother responding. I will not react, nor respond if you do. My message was for Chris. I taught young children for over 30 years, and I was and still am exceedingly patient when dealing with them. Adults, not so much.
    Good luck, in your future endeavors, Chris, and don’t give up.

  36. Tina says:

    Livvy since I am not one of your pupils, and since you are not my boss or my parent, I will respond to you simply to thank you for expressing yourself on Post Scripts.

    We have always encouraged differing opinions at PS and appreciate careful research and presentation of facts. We also attempt to distinguish between the two and encourage reading for full comprehension.

    Obamcare is a disaster. If there is confusion, fear, and doubt about what the panel of fifteen along with the HHS secretary will foist on the industry, it’s because the law gives them unprecedented powers. This is not a lie; it is the opinion of attorneys that have read the law.

    Obamacare is a complex power and control grab that rubs most Americans the wrong way. It has most doctors very worried about the future of the medical profession, delivery of care, and their own personal ability to practice. The evidence is in the blow back from doctors and industry professionals that see their profession being turned into a one size fits all mess powered and controlled by an unelected government body.

    Chris I missed your last comment; I will do my best to get back to it.

    Once again, I appreciate your taking the time to contribute your thoughts, Livvy.

  37. Peggy says:

    Livvy,

    You are right our opinions are based on the knowledge we receive. They can and do change as the information changes.

    Please take the time to view the enclosed video in the below link starting at 7:00.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=067_1349142844

  38. Chris says:

    Livvy, thank you for your comments; they mean a lot. Sometimes commenting here feels like arguing with a brick wall. No matter how much evidence you present, some people refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn’t confirm their biases. I am glad my time was not wasted and that I was able to help you understand this issue better. I hope you will post here more often, though I’d understand if you didn’t. We need more commenters here who are receptive to evidence and reason.

    Tina, even if all the bad things you said about Obamacare in your previous comment are true, that still does not in any way justify Dr. Vecchio’s completely false statement that she is banned from recommending mammograms to women under a certain age. There is nothing in the law that a reasonable person could interpret to mean that. Just because you believe a law is bad, does not give you the right to make any claim about it you feel like. Why not just say that Obamacare requires doctors to abort all white fetuses? There is just as much evidence for that as there is for the idea that it bans doctors from recommending mammograms.

  39. Chris says:

    Peggy: “You are right our opinions are based on the knowledge we receive. They can and do change as the information changes.”

    And your problem is that you continue to choose to get your information from Glenn Beck, one of the world’s most well-known liars.

  40. Tina says:

    Chris: “that still does not in any way justify Dr. Vecchio’s completely false statement that she is banned from recommending mammograms to women under a certain age…”

    I don’t believe I ever made that argument. I did offer information that could explain the doctor’s concerns about her profession and her ability to do what is in the best interests of her patients as individuals. I did offer the suggestion that she was acting on advise of a lawyer who had read the legislation.

    Since the doctor was addressing concerns she had about the law, based on advise from an attorney, and about the future of her profession, I find your insistence that she is a liar, and I am a liar, over the top. The law may not specify in particular that mammograms shall not be given to certain age groups of women, but it does give the HHS tremendous unprecedented powers to determine protocols in the future in the opinion of many legal experts and it does impose fines (and conceivably jail time) for lack of compliance.

    I believe the following, in my previous comments, is what the doctor is concerned about:

    Specifically, Section 6402(f)(2) revises existing law so that the government can ignore the criminal intent principle in violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKB). AKB prohibits the payment or receipt of remuneration in exchange for referrals or the purchase of goods and services paid for by a federal health care program. It is a criminal statute, the violation of which is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years. Prior to last March, the government could not obtain a conviction under AKB unless it proved that a defendant knew about the law and intentionally ignored it. The authors of PPACA used the health care bill to revise the statute such that “a person need not have actual knowledge of [AKB] or specific intent to commit a violation.” The “person” who will most likely be prosecuted regardless of “actual knowledge” or “intent” is, of course, your doctor or someone with whom he does business.

    As ominous as this surreptitious revision is for physicians and other health care providers, it has even scarier implications for our justice system in general. PPACA’s reduction of the prosecutorial burden for AKB is part of a broad legislative pattern that has been gaining momentum in recent years. Congress has ignored the principle of criminal intent in an increasing number of statutes covering a wide variety issues and industries.

    I don’t mind your presenting information that you deem important to these discussions. I don’t mind your expressions of disagreement. But I highly resent the attitude you bring to these discussions and I resent the inflammatory and completely unnecessary charge that Peggy, the doctor, and I are lying or presenting false information. Both Peggy and I offered information to clarify the points we made. I offered evidence that possible criminal prosecution was baked into the law that could come into play in the future and that apparently undermines our current system. You choose to dismiss this information…I have no idea why.

  41. Livvy says:

    You are welcome, Chris.
    I did watch part of the video you posted, Peggy. I normally do not believe anything that Glen Beck says, nor do I watch or listen to him. He has been proven to be less than reliable time after time after time. I was willing to listen to what he was saying for the sake of this discussion until his guest, Dr. Janda came on. I live in Michigan. I have done research on Dr. Janda. And although I cannot recall the specifics of my inquiry into the doctor, I do recall I found that he is not a reliable source when it comes to healthcare issues, and he frequently discusses issues that are not in his area of expertise as an orthopedic surgeon (though he is respected in his field), so I stopped viewing the video at that point.
    The whole point of my reading this discussion was to find information to determine if the doctor’s statements were true. From the links in this discussion as well as additional sources I looked at, I feel very comfortable saying her claims are not true. Physicians are not prohibited from ordering mammograms for women younger than 50 or older than 70 under the Act, nor do those that choose to do so need to be concerned about fines or prosecution. Why she chose to make such statements is irrelevant to my concerns. This video should not be shared with others as it gives false information. Any other arguments about the Affordable Care Act are irrelevant to the topic of this video as are her intentions in making the statements. I am also not interested in debating the merits of the Act itself. I would prefer to give it some time to begin working and to wait until all aspects of the law have taken affect before passing judgement. Personally, I would prefer the US join the rest of the civilized world and enact universal healthcare coverage. But that is an entirely different topic and like some of the topics offered here is not relevant to the “truthiness” of this particular video clip.
    TY for “listening”. Livvy

  42. Peggy says:

    Pastor offers fiery rebuke to fellow blacks: End your Slavish devotion to the Democrat party

    The Bishop E.W. Jackson, founder of Chesapeake, Virginia-based Exodus Faith Ministries, recently released a controversial video calling for African Americans to make a mass exodus from the Democratic Party. Throughout the clip, Jackson delivers stinging blows to both liberals and the African Americans who continue to support them, while decrying what he sees as a slavish devotion to the Democrat Party.

    Video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi_KaZ53eDg&feature=player_embedded

    Full article here:
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pastor-offers-fiery-rebuke-of-fellow-blacks-end-your-slavish-devotion-to-the-democrat-party/

    ===========

    Chris, When you grow up, hopefully, you will learn to stop calling people liars when they have points of view that are different from yours. Until then you sound like a kid yelling, Liar..liarpants on fire. Your behavior is childish and very tiring. Cant have an adult conversation with someone who insist on acting like a spoiled four year old.

    If you are going to call Mr. Beck a liar please present the proof. When on Fox he predicted all of the ME countries currently on fire, moving over to north Africa and beyond. And for this George Soros and the LSM went after him. He may not be right all of the time and has admitted when hes wrong. So present your proof he lied otherwise keep your opinions to yourself, because I dont like hearing people committing false witness against my neighbors. GET IT!

    Tina and I have provided volumes of written opinions, documentations and now TWO doctors expressing their concerns with how this law will affect us as their patients and them if they do not follow the mandates.

    If you can stand watching Mr. Beck for a a couple of minutes, go watch just that section of the video with the doctor to the very end. What he says at the end is, in my opinion, the most important part.

  43. Peggy says:

    Thank you Livvy for watching the video and giving us you honest opinion. While it remains different from mine I respect your right to have it.

    Sincerely,
    Peggy

  44. Chris says:

    Tina: “I don’t believe I ever made that argument.”

    You have, in typical mealy-mouthed fashion, avoided saying whether or not Dr. Vecchio’s statement is actually true or not. That is hardly a point in your defense. It was not that difficult to do some research and determine that Dr. Vecchio’s statements were 100% false. Yet you continue to defend and make excuses for her. You won’t come out and say that her statements are false, because they are politically useful to you. Even though you won’t go as far as saying she was right, you are trying to legitimize her statements, and you are being cowardly and dishonest.

    “I did offer information that could explain the doctor’s concerns about her profession and her ability to do what is in the best interests of her patients as individuals.”

    You keep using vague words like “concerns” while ignoring the fact that she made very specific claims, claims which were 100% false. You’re avoiding the argument.

    “I did offer the suggestion that she was acting on advise of a lawyer who had read the legislation.”

    That’s not sufficient. It doesn’t take a lawyer to read and understand the relevant portion under discussion. And this doesn’t absolve a doctor of making more of an effort to independently research the issues affecting her field before spreading misinformation to the general public. As a doctor, she has an ethical duty to not misinform the public on medical issues. If she did get this from her lawyer, she needs to fire them and get one who can actually read.

    “Since the doctor was addressing concerns she had about the law, based on advise from an attorney,”

    Tina, do you notice how you leapt from making a guess to talking as if that guess was a fact? You have no idea if she got this information from an attorney or not. Even if she did, she still had a responsibility to verify whether it was true before making a fool of herself on tape and spreading bad info. Attorneys can lie or be wrong. So can doctors.

    “and about the future of her profession, I find your insistence that she is a liar, and I am a liar, over the top.”

    But you don’t find her statements over the top? Come on, Tina. Why is it acceptable for this woman to make blatantly false claims, to use her position as a doctor to add legitimacy to made-up bull crap, but it is out of line to call her out for it? Your priorities are way out of whack. Why do you take issue with me for calling Dr. Vecchio a liar, but you have no problem with the lie she told?

    I’ll add that when it’s a Democrat saying something false, you have no problem calling them a liar.

    “The law may not specify in particular that mammograms shall not be given to certain age groups of women,”

    “May not?” There’s that mealy-mouthiness again. Why not just say, “The law does not specify…” You know by now that it does not. Why are you still treating it as an open question? That’s dishonest.

    “I believe the following, in my previous comments, is what the doctor is concerned about:”

    You have no reason to believe that she was talking about this. Dr. Vecchio never once implied that she was talking about the anti-kickback statute. There’s nothing in her statement to indicate she’s talking about doctors taking bribes for medical care. You’re bringing this issue up out of nowhere in a desperate attempt to provide cover for Dr. Vecchio. Why is it so important for you to defend her, that you resort to such transparently bad arguments?

    “Both Peggy and I offered information to clarify the points we made.”

    No, you offered information that was in no way related to the video in question, and then pretended that that information backed up Vecchio’s claims.

    “I offered evidence that possible criminal prosecution was baked into the law that could come into play in the future and that apparently undermines our current system. You choose to dismiss this information…I have no idea why.”

    I dismissed it as being irrelevant to the topic at hand, since it has nothing to do with Dr. Vecchio’s false claims. I didn’t dismiss it as an issue in and of itself; I even said I wasn’t sure I supported this part of the law. But it had nothing to do with the main topic under discussion.

    Livvy, great to read your comments. Glad to see a voice of reason.

  45. Tina says:

    Peggy, I find it interesting that Chris isn’t content to argue the point, he must also trash the source. He has accused the very prestigious Heritage Foundation with similar disdain.

    Information backed by expert opinion that doesn’t match what he believe to be true is automatically wrong. The source of conflicting information is also automatically wrong (Please apply ugly demeaning label).

    I find this obnoxiously arrogant.

    Livvy reveals her intention, and probably her agenda in driving by, in the conclusion of her last comment:

    Personally, I would prefer the US join the rest of the civilized world and enact universal healthcare coverage. But that is an entirely different topic…

    It is not at all off topic. This legislation was written in such a way as to discourage and limit private sector involvement in the healthcare industry over time. It has already induced doctors to give up private practice in favor of becoming staffed in hospitals to avoid repercussions. Others have chosen to retire rather than work under the regulations and threats baked into the law. Still others are questioning their decision to become a doctor given the expense and time involved.

    Incentive is a powerful thing; this law covertly moves the industry toward universal Health Care. It invests powers to HHS and the board without checks and balances and without taxpayer input through our representatives (in violation of the Constitution). It imposes excessive mandates, regulation, and taxes. It discourages research and development.

    We have applied a sledgehammer when a careful incision would have sufficed to solve the problems.

    The fools (true believing Marxists) that support this law are supportive because they see the “free” stuff for everyone in need. These are the tempting goodies used to mask a terrible loss of power and freedom for the American people that will result in an inferior healthcare system at a higher cost that will ultimately be unsustainable and will add to our already exploding debt.

    The good news is that it is a terribly unpopular law with all but about 38% of the people. Most want it repealed. Now that we’ve “seen what’s in it beyond the fog of the controversy”, we reject it for its damaging, threatening, oppressive content.

    Chris is swift to pin the liar label on anyone who challenges his beliefs and perceptions. It is incredible to me that Obama continues to garner his support after the many lies that he has told.

  46. Post Scripts says:

    Peggy you’re very generous considering Livvy more or less told us adults to stuff it. She said don’t bother talking to her, she was not going to listen to anything we had to say because she knows best. There were two kinds of people who made my life interesting as a traffic cop:
    Blacks: “You just stopped me because I am black, you are a racist. Me: “No sir, I stopped you because you doing 65 in a 25, then I discovered you were black.” Or school teachers, “Don’t you have something more important to do? I’m a teacher at Central School and I’m late for class!” Me: “Gee, I was going to give you a warning, but since I have nothing else to do I think I’ll give you a ticket instead.”

  47. Peggy says:

    Youre right Jack, I missed that dig. But, you know me Im looking for the good in people and thought her/his civil style disserved like treatment in return.

    A red flag Ive never missed has been, Trust me, and now Ive added, We have to pass the bill to find out whats in it. Never again will I believe either statements.

    (Sorry for accidentally coping in the pastors comments too. Didnt see it before I pasted in my comment. Oops, I made a mistake.)

  48. Livvy says:

    Jeez, Tina. Relax! You make me sound like I’m guilty of a drive-by shooting instead of a person just stopping by for some information and a few casual comments. I think I made my intention(for being here) very clear, and in no way indicated I had any other agenda. My statement of my belief in universal healthcare was a way of closing my post, not a taunt or a lead in for further debate. I would never get into a serious discussion with you about the merits of the Affordable Care Act, let alone universal healthcare. I find you far too reactive, and your mind is already set. That’s your right, and I’m not trying to insult you. You are who you are, just as I am who I am. I just know from past experiences it would be a waste of my time trying to convince you otherwise, and highly frustrating for me. It would be the same for you trying to get me to see things your way. It’s just not ever going to happen. So with this as my last comment, I’ll wish you a pleasant evening, and the same to Peggy and Chris as well. Livvy

  49. Peggy says:

    Tina you are to be commended for your patients and perseverance in dealing with Chris and his Im right and youre wrong attitude. Being raise by a master sergeant father Ive developed more of his style of cutting thru the BS and have little patients with whiners people who demand I conform to their way of thinking.

    You and I, assuming we are in the same age decade wise, come from a completely different life from what Chris and the far left progressives have known. We remember our country, while not perfect, was one we knew we could do anything we wanted to if we worked hard enough. This Y generation has heard and believed they dont have to work hard for what they want, they just have to show up and someone else will provide for them. Buy that house you cant afford, no problem well find someone else to pay for it. Go ahead and live off all of those credit cards charging $4 coffee twice a day. Oh and if you want an education dont worry about paying off your student loans because buried in ObamaCare is the Student Loan Forgiveness provision that will guarantee your govt will pick up the tab putting what you left unpaid for your children to pay.

    They just dont get it Tina, because theyve never been raised to be responsible for themselves. They werent given the opportunity to fail so they have no idea what it is to really be successful. They were raise where no one lost. Everyone got a trophy so no one would get their feeling hurt.

    Now that theyre grown up and I use the term loosely, they cant function in the real world without us or someone being there to provide and to continue giving them everything they want. Just because they want it. The concept of saving to buy something is completely foreign to them. I drove a car for 11 years because I couldnt afford a car payment. Car leases didnt exist, not that Id ever use one, but the whole concept of accruing things has changed from save for it to oh go ahead and get it and worry about paying for it later.

    When you, I and Jack try to explain to them there is a different and yes better way they attack us for trying to say, Hey guys if you cant afford it dont buy it. and dont expect me/us to pay for it.

    Our health care had problems, that I agree with 100%, but like you we didnt need a sledgehammer to fix it. Treating it like car, home/renters and life insurance where we could buy across state lines would have forced the insurance companies to be competitive. By offering different plans people wouldnt have been forced to go in to one size fits everyone plans. A young healthy couple could buy one that had minimal coverage with options to expand if they decided to have children and change again as they aged to a major medical only plan.

    Just like if you buy a used Chevy for $10k your premiums would be less then the guy who finally was able to buy that $100k Porsche. Instead we got a $50k car/plan whether you wanted it or not and if you cant afford your share of it, no problem theyll just add your share on to the guy that bought the Porsche.

    It is truly a crazy world we live in and one I dont recognize nor really want to be in when it all comes crashing down, and it will. Im hoping and praying enough sensible people exist who will be able to stop the ultimate end so my grandkids wont live thru it either. They are my reason for what I do. They deserve a better future than my past.

  50. Livvy says:

    Post Scripts,Peggy and Tina: I apologize if that comment offended you. It was not my intent. I truly did just come here for some info, and did not intend to get into any type of debate or discussion, nor was I trying to stir the pot or cause any problems. I addressed my post to Chris because I wanted him to know that his efforts were appreciated and to encourage him to continue to question and seek answers to things he does not agree with.
    Post Scripts: You’re going to have to exempt me from your two kinds of people list. I have a high regard for police officers. Like teachers, police officers are too often under-appreciated, overly criticized, and blamed for many problems that just aren’t their fault.
    Again, have a great evening all. Livvy

  51. Chris says:

    Peggy: “Chris, When you grow up, hopefully, you will learn to stop calling people liars when they have points of view that are different from yours.”

    *sigh*

    Peggy,

    What you presented when you posted this video was not a “different point of view.” It was a bald-faced lie.

    You do understand that there is a difference between “fact” and “opinion,” don’t you?

    If I accused Mitt Romney of being a member of the Klu Klux Klan–without a shred of evidence–and then tried to claim that this was merely a “different point of view,” you would have my head, and rightly so. You would have no problem calling me a liar. That’s what I would be. It would be mindless for me to then complain that you were being childish by calling me a liar. The description would fit to a tee.

    But when someone on your side of the aisle gets up and lies on tape, you don’t take issue with her. You take issue with the people who point out that what she is saying has no basis in truth whatsoever.

    That is unfair and illogical, Peggy. And it shows a preference for partisanship over the truth.

    “Cant have an adult conversation with someone who insist on acting like a spoiled four year old.”

    Pointing out when people lie is not childish, Peggy. Lying about things that are obvious is. Defending Dr. Vecchio’s false claims at this point is akin to a child swearing he didn’t write all over the walls when he’s got the crayons in his hand. I have provided irrefutable proof that the law does not ban doctors from recommending mammograms to anyone. You have not provided a shred of evidence that the law does this–instead, you first tried linking to unrelated articles as if they proved her point, then resorted to essentially saying, “Trust her, she’s a doctor.”

    What is really impossible is having an adult conversation with someone who refuses to admit she was wrong even though she has seen irrefutable evidence disproving her original claims.

    Just admit that Dr. Vecchio was wrong. There is nothing in the law that bans doctors from recommending mammograms. You must know this by now.

    “So present your proof he lied otherwise keep your opinions to yourself, because I dont like hearing people committing false witness against my neighbors. GET IT!”

    Clearly, you have no problem with people committing false witness against those you do not see as your neighbors. Dr. Jill Vecchio committed false witness in this video, and you don’t care. You are more interested in lecturing me on my “attitude.” Well, when doctors lie to the general public about issues affecting their healthcare in order to influence an election? Yeah, I’m going to have an attitude about that. I am not going to pretend that a baseless lie is the same things as a difference of opinion, or that it deserves to be respected. I suggest the solution to this is to do more careful research next time before you promote a lie, whether you mean to do it or not.

  52. Peggy says:

    “Truth resides within each of us. I’ve come to believe that authentic truth is not so much learned or taught as remembered in the deepest recesses of the soul, the ultimate essence of the Spirit of which we all partake.”
    Carlton D. Pearson

  53. Post Scripts says:

    Okay Livvy, thank you for clarifying that. That shows character and we [all] appreciate that.

    We try to confront the issues of the day here and sometimes it gets a little heated, but it’s all for a good cause…understanding. If we can exchange ideas others may learn from that even if our opinions stay the same. It’s all good.

    Hope you will be a regular poster here Livvy.

  54. Tina says:

    Peggy, Chris claims that the concerns expressed by Doctor Vecchio about a possible real world future outcome that could result for her from provisions written in the health care law is a lie. He judges based on what he knows about the law. He fails to consider what he may not know even when presented with it. He claims the doctor’s remarks should be condemned based on his opinion and seems to require others follow his lead in labeling her a liar. I too refuse to bend to his will regarding the doctor or the law and I refuse to be intimidated by his name calling. This is the underbelly of the progressive in my experience…when challenged they go on the attack.

    I disagree with Chris about the doctor and about the law. I think Chris is experiencing an emotional reaction to the unpopularity of this law. He thinks it is based on untruths but he has no practical experience on which to draw his conclusions and he refuses to be informed. The doctor has valid reasons to be concerned, if not for the specifics regarding mammograms today, then for the power vested in the HHS & unelected panel along with the provision I cited: Section 6402(f)(2) revises existing law so that the government can ignore the criminal intent principle in violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKB) to harm her in future.

    The doctor is voicing specific concerns in terms of her practice but they reflect the concerns that a lot of doctors are having about this law. That does not make her a liar…nor does our interest in her concern make us liars!

    http://www.newsmax.com/JamesWalsh/Obamacare-election-doctors-strike/2012/08/09/id/448089

    Many doctors say they will accept no new patients, as doctors and nurses against Obamacare foresee the following:

    Lower payment schedules for physicians who provide Medicare and Medicaid services,
    Excessive government paperwork,
    Failure of Democrats to pass meaningful tort reform to rein in frivolous health-related lawsuits running up the cost of malpractice insurance for physicians,
    Lack of availability of vital medicines and medical devices for patients as the result of federal regulatory restrictions and taxation of drug manufacturers,
    Federal intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship.

    A 2012 survey by the non-partisan Doctor Patient Medical Association showed that 83 percent of U.S. physicians have considered leaving the profession because of Obamacare. In 2010, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that 46.3 percent of New England primary-care physicians believe that Obamacare will be the cause of them leaving medicine. Democrats contend that malcontent doctors are too greedy to leave and that the doctors are just whining.

    (When challenged they attack)

    Peggy you have attempted to discover information that would back the doctors specific claims about mammograms and you have done so in the spirit of discovery without taking a firm position and without taking an unpleasant or demeaning attitude toward others. I have not sensed in you any attempt to prove or disprove the point but rather an honest desire to understand the law fully, and in particular, in the ways that it might play out practically in the real world regarding mammograms.

    I appreciate your interest, and anyone’s interest, in discovering the truth about this confusing, complex, and evolving law and I want to commend you for remaining firmly ensconced in the realm of discovery. Chris was right about the provisions in the law that he cited; he failed , IMHO, to include other provisions that apply and that can and will be applied and have power to affect future outcomes. Thanks for hanging in there…we both do this for our progeny and their future…which also happens to include Chris’s future!

  55. Tina says:

    Livvy…”drive by” was meant only as “someone who pops in and is never heard from again”…since you advised, “Peggy and Tina, don’t bother responding. I will not react, nor respond if you do”…I took you at your word and commented with our regulars in mind. I meant no personal offense.

    Just so you know, I am relaxed. I enjoy passionate debate. I aim to be respectful but I will not pull punches just to avoid conflict.

    I join with Jack in hoping that you become a regular visitor and contributor to Post Scripts. We can get pretty loud, so to speak, but generally speaking we all seem to genuinely like each other. Blogs are an interesting medium. they seem to allow full self expression, perhaps because of the relative anonymity they provide. Come on back; we might bark but we don’t bite!

  56. Tina says:

    Peggy thank you for the quote. I share the experience that ultimate truth is within us. When we happen upon it we say, “ah ha!”…an act of remembrance! Most of life is the journey, and discovery….and seeking, seeking, seeking!

    We are so blessed to have life!

  57. Peggy says:

    Tina, We all are struggling trying to understand this monster law we were told we had to pass before we could find out what is in it. We really have no one to blame but ourselves since we elected our representatives who voted to pass it. We may not have personally voted for our area representative but we own the fact they are there. And well own it if theyre still there after the next election cycle.

    You are right stating my intent was to inform and not to take a side. It was only when I was called a liar or that my information was wrong that I took offense. I understand this is the tactics of the progressive movement and made an attempt to reach Chris to understand we could have differing outcomes from the same information. But, with Chris it is always his way or the highway. He seems unable to understand the concept of agreeing to disagree. He has the right to believe the way he does, but demands we agree with him instead of accepting that we have the right to believe differently. I cant and wont accept this. But, I also know when to walk away. Hes not going to change and no amount of facts or reasonable discussion from now until forever is going to make a difference. He not only thinks hes right he believes it 100%. There is no reaching someone with that strong of a mind set.

    I believe the two doctors I presented provided insightful information to the internal workings of ObamaCare. I was discouraged when Mr. Beck asked the doctor if he thought Romney could deal with getting rid of it and his response wasnt a very positive one. My concern even if Romney does win is the complexity of undoing may still take years to undue.

    I dont think our economy can take another year of uncertainty. People need jobs now, not a year from now. With the cost of everything going up including health care, over a trillion being added to our debt every year gas prices between $4.00-$5.00 a gallon. (I was in Nevada two weeks ago and paid $4.79) Being a doctor has to be one of the most expensive if not the most expensive professions to be in. The educational cost, medical school, residency, licensing, insurance, CEU cost, office, office staff, a PA, more insurance and so on and so on. All for a panel of non-medical appointed members to determine what they can charge and what type of treatment they will be paid for. I wouldnt do it and think many will either give up their practices completely or go become a staff doctor at a hospital and let the hospital worry about all the regulations. So, well all end up back at that expensive hospital ObamaCare was supposed to do away with.

    Doctors are already leaving. Friends in the area have been informed their primary care doctors and specialist are shutting their doors. Mine is still around, but since hes in his 50s Im not sure for how long. Time will tell.

    Post Script is a great site and I enjoy the informative and sometime fun articles you all provide. The comments contributors, on the most part, are awesome too. Love learning something new just about every day and chiming in when the mood strikes . So, keep up the great work and Ill continue to add what I can when I can. Deal?

  58. Tina says:

    Peggy: “We really have no one to blame but ourselves since we elected our representatives who voted to pass it. We may not have personally voted for our area representative but we own the fact they are there.”

    I agree we are responsible for the law. We are responsible as citizens who accept (embrace heartily) the system in which we live. However, it is also true that the Democrats in power locked the Republican representatives out of the process and that is not the way our system was meant to work. It is, therefore up to us to change the makeup of the Congress if we want this crass disrespect for our system to end.

    At least one, maybe two, democrats that voted for the bill because of arm twisting and bribes have expressed regret over their votes. There are two that will step down after their terms end that have done so as well. At least one representative was elected under a cloud suspicion (dirty tricks) through challenges in the vote count…votes were mysteriously “found” in a car trunk a month or so after the election and a judge allowed them to be counted. I think this was also the race where “Mickey Mouse’s vote was allowed to stand. This was the race that Al, the clown, Franken won that gave democrats the super majority. Not one republican voted for this bill or had input into its creation…which is why the left harps on Romneycare so hard. The democrats in power know they shoved this down the throats of the American people. We the people with our eyes wide open know it was a power grab…legislation passed to ensure permanent need and votes….legislation passed so that another large chunk of the private sector is placed under government power…another bid for ending our free republic and “transforming” it to a big government socialist “democracy”. I place democracy in quotes because there is nothing democratic about the thug tactics used to form policy and law…Al Capone and John Gotti would approve.

    “My concern even if Romney does win is the complexity of undoing may still take years…”

    Repeal is the best way and hopefully we will have the votes in Congress to do that AND address the problems that people were concerned with in the process. The issue is not dead. we still need market reforms to bring costs down because even those who have insurance are paying too much. We need insurance to be portable so that people who move can take their coverage with them. We need a mechanism for people with preexisting condition to obtain coverage. We need to empower states to make their safety net programs stronger. And we need to free insurance companies to compete. Obamacare is creating monopolies! I thought dems hated monopolies!!!

    I agree our economy can’t exist much longer under these conditions. Wall Street is doing okay because it’s been infused with cash, mostly by the Fed…the average person is sitting on the sidelines and is still distrustful of another possible crash…and who can blame them? Middle class America has been gutted, most joining the ranks of the poor. It’s disgraceful because it was TOTALLY UNNECESSARY! Obama policies create this condition and if he is re-elcted he will perceive a mandate that will inspire more radical leftist big government policy.

    Peggy thanks, as always, for the encouragement. Our goals for PS certainly include having fun, informing, and learning from each other. Hoipefully we will also encourage people to THINK 😉

  59. Chris says:

    An “honest desire to understand,” a “spirit of discovery…” These traits require an ability to see when a claim is not backed up by evidence or logic, and a willingness to admit that you are wrong when a claim is disproven. It means looking for the best facts out there, researching valid and trustworthy sources, and eventually making a judgment call when you have enough evidence to do so. It means that at some point, you might actually discover something that doesn’t meet your expectations, and if you are truly an honest inquirer, you have to accept that and move on.

    It does not mean, “I get to believe whatever aligns with my political biases, evidence be damned.”

    Tina, Peggy, I have not seen an honest desire to understand anything in your posts. I have seen dishonesty and a stubborn unwillingness to let go of conspiracy theories with zero evidence to support them.

    I have seen you conflate facts with opinion, false charges with different points of view. Again, to clarify this difference–since you don’t seem to get it–if I claim that Mitt Romney used to be a male prostitute in the Red Light district of Amsterdam, that is not a difference of opinion, on which reasonable people can agree to disagree. I would not just be “asking questions, so relax, you PC bully.” Unless I provided direct evidence for my claims, you would have every reason to think I was lying. Especially if you showed evidence that Mitt Romney has never even been to Amsterdam, and I refused to admit I was wrong. You would rightfully call me a liar.

    This is the exact same situation. I have provided evidence to support my side of this argument. You have not provided any evidence to show that Dr. Vecchio was correct, because no such evidence exists. I have documented proof that the law does not ban doctors from recommending mammograms to anyone. I’ve even shown you a memo from the health secretary saying that all insurance plans must cover mammograms for women as young as 40–which directly disproves Dr. Vecchio’s false claims!

    At this point, an adult engaged in an honest pursuit of the truth would have to admit that the evidence shows Dr. Vecchio’s claims to be false, and that the law does not ban mammograms for anyone.

    Instead, you both want to ignore this evidence because it doesn’t fit your biases. You want to change the argument and redirect the focus not to the evidence in front of us, but to my alleged “attitude.” As if I am being unreasonable by expecting you to look at the evidence and base your conclusions on that.

    Tina, you keep trying to change the argument. You write:

    “Peggy, Chris claims that the concerns expressed by Doctor Vecchio about a possible real world future outcome that could result for her from provisions written in the health care law is a lie.”

    You know this is bogus. As I’ve said before, the doctor did not “express concerns” about a “possible real world future outcome.” To do that, she would have had to say that the law MIGHT ban mammograms in the FUTURE. She didn’t say that! She said that mammograms ARE banned for certain women RIGHT NOW. Again, that is not a difference of opinion. That is simply a false claim. You may not call it a “lie.” But you at least need to recognize that it is a false claim.

    Peggy, I am familiar with that Pearson quote, but if you think it applies here then you could apply it to any argument. The quote is about subjective, personal “truths”–it’s not about the realm of the factual. We are entitled to our own beliefs about universal truths–“There is a God,” “Love is the most important thing in the world,” “Life is beautiful;” but we are not entitled to our own facts. Your use of that quote implies that debate with you will always be pointless. After being confronted with facts disproving your side of an argument, you could simply present that quote, and be done with it. How is that constructive?

    There are things called facts that any reasonable person can evaluate and come to an agreement on with other reasonable people. Do we agree with this statement, or not? If not, then there’s no point in discussing anything with you–you’re admitting that you don’t care about facts, only beliefs, and that no amount of evidence could ever persuade you. For some aspects of life–like religious faith–this is understandable, even possibly necessary. For a debate over what’s in a very important law, a law that could decide the fate of a presidential election…that stance is not helpful. For such an issue, you need to look outward–at the facts.

  60. Peggy says:

    Tina,
    “We really have no one to blame but ourselves since we elected our representatives who voted to pass it. We may not have personally voted for our area representative but we own the fact they are there.”

    Sorry for not making myself clearer on who is responsible. I place it at the feet of the democrats, but republicans do share some of it because they didnt show up to vote in significant numbers too.

    And I blame Carl Rove for saying Christine ODonnel shouldnt win because of the witch thing she attended when she was in her teens. If she had won she would have been our 60th vote in the Senate. Instead Chris Coons an extreme leftist won giving control of the Senate to the Dems and Harry Reid the do nothing leader in charge. We need EVERY Republican at the voting booths Nov. 6th or we will again share what happens.

    At least one representative was elected under a cloud suspicion (dirty tricks) through challenges in the vote count…votes were mysteriously “found” in a car trunk a month or so after the election and a judge allowed them to be counted.

    There is more to the problem and a bigger issue than just Al and Frank. There was/is a George Soros funded project to place Democrats in states Sec. of State positions. Since they are in charge of each states election it is their responsibility to certify the process. Thats what happened with Al and Frank and possibly other states.

    Here is an article about it.

    Secretary of State Project

    On Tuesday evening, Glenn Beck informed viewers about the Secretary of State Project, a George Soros-funded organization that began in 2006 as a means to help Democrats secure the position of Secretary of State in certain swing states. Beck said that these states are specifically ones where Sen. John Kerry had lost to George W. Bush in 2004. The main reason, according to Beck, that the left is already managing expectations for the upcoming presidential debate is because its already managing exceptions for the election even before the votes are in (this might explain the skewed poling numbers in favor of President Obama).

    Full article w/ video:
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/glenn-beck-asks-if-you-have-heard-about-the-secretary-of-state-project/

    “My concern even if Romney does win is the complexity of undoing may still take years…”

    In the video where Beck is talking to the doctor the doctor explains that the review and determination panel (forget what its called) was set up under the Stimulus, has gone thru several name changes and been merged with ObamaCare. I was referring to finding all the poisoned needles hidden in fields of haystacks. Even hidden in ObamaCare is the Student Loan Forgiveness Program. I dont think just one action will take care of mess. It will be a big beginning, but the real clean up will be in the details.

    Wall Street is doing okay because it’s been infused with cash, mostly by the Fed

    Agree, but also believe its up so high because thats were the BIG money guys have there money. Instead of taking a chance of spending it on businesses under this administration that has declared war on them, theyve put it where they can make a return on their investment buy supporting each other with each dollar invested. Just watch what happens to the stock market when they feel the barriers are down and they can invest in creating new businesses and developing existing ones. Im no stock market experts, its just a gut feeling from what Ive seen.

    Big money is circular, traveling from what is trending from real estate to stocks to whatever.

    Middle class America has been gutted, most joining the ranks of the poor.

    Yup, sure have. Remember when Wilson was governor and he tried to take the PERS funds to help the states budget? There was soooo much money in there it would have lasted until the moon really did turn blue. Its now not only gone their talking about getting the Feds to make up the deficit. More middle class lost big time with their 401s, 403b and other TSAs. Their whole life savings are gone because they trusted someone who said he not only could make EVERYTHING better he promised he would with his hope and change.

    Didnt you just love hearing Biden admit? The middle class has been buried the past four year. Got to love that guy when he commits a gaffe and actually tells the truth.

    Got to go. Have a good one.

    Ps. There are two doctors on Foxs Megan Kelley right now talking about problems theyre having and see to come with ObamaCare. Doctors are dropping out and We do need to produce more primary care doctors.

  61. Tina says:

    Peggy it is important to remember that on the healthcare and other issues for the first two years under Obama democrats could pass legislation WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE.

  62. Peggy says:

    Tina, I know they could have passed ObamaCare easily if the people in the Democrat’s states hadn’t been screaming not to. Remember all of the backroom, behind closed doors arm twisting, bribing that went on to force them to vote for it?

    If I remember the years right the Democrats had control of Congress during Bushs last two years and into Obamas first year. It was during the special elections of 2010 that ODonnell and Scott Brown wins became so important to take away that control.

    I did remember incorrectly in that Brown ran for his seat in Jan. 2010 to replace Ted Kennedy and ODonnell ran to replace Biden. My mistake was ODonnels election was in Nov. 2010, which was after ObamaCare was approved.

    According to Wikipidia the Democrats held a majority in the 110th Congress from 1/07 to 1/09. So, all of that Blame Bush garbage was also because of the Democrats who were in control of Congress his last two years. Obama, when he was there to vote, even voted for the very legislation he blames Bush for. Ironic!!

    “The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of President George W. Bush. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. census.

    The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes. No Democratic-held seats had fallen to the Republican Party in the 2006 elections.[2] Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House.[3] The House also received the first Muslim (Keith Ellison)[4][5] and Buddhist (Hank Johnson and Mazie Hirono)[6] members of Congress.”

    Again according to Wikipidia the Democrats retained their majority in the 111th from 1/09-1/11.

    The One Hundred Eleventh United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government from January 3, 2009, until January 3, 2011. It began during the last two weeks of the George W. Bush administration, with the remainder spanning the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. Census. In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democrat majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency. A new delegate seat was created for the Northern Mariana Islands.[5]

    Christine ODonnell

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Christine Therese O’Donnell (born August 27, 1969) is an American Tea Party favorite, former Republican Party candidate, and long-time conservative activist best known for her stances against abortion, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and masturbation.[1][4] With strong financial support from the Tea Party movement, she defeated nine-term U.S. Representative and former governor Michael Castle in Delaware’s September 2010 Republican primary for the U.S. Senate.[4][5][6] She lost the November 2010 U.S. Senate election in Delaware, to Democrat Chris Coons by a margin of 57% to 40%.[7][8]

    2010
    See also: United States Senate special election in Delaware, 2010
    Following the 2008 election, Joe Biden resigned his Senate seat to become Vice President, and the Governor of Delaware appointed Biden’s chief of staff, Ted Kaufman, to serve out the first two years of Biden’s six year Senate term. A special election would be held coincident with the 2010 general elections to choose who would fill the Senate seat for the remaining four years.

    Scott Brown
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Scott Philip Brown (born September 12, 1959)[3] is an American politician and the junior United States Senator from Massachusetts. Brown previously served as a member of the Massachusetts General Court, first in the State House of Representatives (19982004) and then in the State Senate (20042010).

    Brown is a member of the Republican Party, and faced the Democratic candidate, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, in the 2010 special election to succeed U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy for the remainder of the term ending January 3, 2013. While initially trailing Coakley in polling by a large margin, Brown won the election and in January 2010 became the first Republican elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts since Edward Brooke in 1972.

    Health care
    Brown supported the 2006 Massachusetts health care reform, which requires all residents to have health insurance, with a state-subsidized plan created for those who cannot afford to insure themselves. Brown does not support President Obama’s health care reform plan in its current form as approved by the Democratic-led House and Senate. He has stated this plan is fiscally unsound, and during his campaign notably pledged to be the 41st vote to filibuster the bill in the Senate.[84]

  63. Chris says:

    Peggy: “Tina you are to be commended for your patients and perseverance in dealing with Chris and his Im right and youre wrong attitude.”

    It’s not an “attitude.” On this particular issue, I am objectively right, and you are objectively wrong. I have provided proof for my side of the argument, and you have not.

    “Being raise by a master sergeant father Ive developed more of his style of cutting thru the BS and have little patients with whiners people who demand I conform to their way of thinking.”

    Again, I don’t ask that you “conform to my way of thinking.” I ask that you acknowledge facts.

    “It was only when I was called a liar or that my information was wrong that I took offense.”

    Peggy, I never called you a liar. I did say you were perpetuating lies, but that was only after I provided proof that the claims made in this video were not true, and you refused to acknowledge that proof.

    Why on earth would you take offense to being told that your information was wrong, if the person telling you this gives you more accurate and reliable information which totally contradicts the information you provided? If you truly had a spirit of discovery, you would not take offense to this. You would be glad to receive better, more accurate information, and you would thank the person who presented it to you.

    Instead you have chosen to remain defensive during this entire discussion. You refuse to admit you were wrong, even though it’s plainly obvious that you were. That’s not open-minded or inquisitive at all.

    Dr. Vecchio was objectively wrong. This is not an opinion. This is fact. The healthcare law does not ban doctors from recommending mammograms to anyone. As I have conclusively shown, the law actually does the opposite of what Dr. Vecchio says. Rather than restricting access to mammograms, the law actually EXPANDS access by requiring all insurance plans to cover mammograms for women starting at 40 years old.

    Again, these are objective facts. This is not a matter of “opinion.”

    When you are ready to admit this, please let me know. Or you could ignore all of the evidence again, respond with yet another “sigh” and nothing of substance, and persist in willful ignorance.

  64. Peggy says:

    You are tooooo funny. Thanks for the laugh.

    Ps. You did call me a liar about 6 months ago and I unloaded on you for it. You even apologized. Remember?

  65. Chris says:

    Peggy,

    Are you ready to admit that Dr. Jill Vecchio was wrong when she claimed that Obamacare prevents her from recommending mammograms to women under 50 and over 75? As you know, the law does not prevent doctors from making recommendations beyond the task force guidelines. As you also know, the law actually requires that all insurance plans cover mammograms for women as young as 40 years old.

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/10/20101005a.html

    If you are not ready to admit this, despite the proof, then I am afraid the term “liar” fits like a glove.

  66. Carolyn says:

    My breast cancer was not confirmed with digital mammogram even though I had a 2cm mass. It was however confirmed with MRI. Is it true that under OBAMACARE I will not be allowed an MRI for check ups?

    Thank you.

  67. Chris says:

    Carolyn, I have heard nothing about the PPACA restricting access to MRIs, and my searches aren’t turning up anything to confirm or deny your concerns. Where did you hear this from? You should know that there are a lot of false charges going around about the law intending to scare people for political purposes, like the ones in this video. My advice is to not trust anything you hear about the law unless it comes from a source you know to be reliable, and even then, you should double-check it by looking at the text of the law itself. Best wishes.

  68. Tina says:

    Carolyn thank you for asking. You should know this is a political and social blog. No one here is either a lawyer or medical doctor.

    As far as I know there is no specific regulation currently in Obamacare that would disallow your doctor from ordering an MRI for you.

    The concerns that many doctors have is in the legal wording within the law that gives the Health and Human Services Secretary, along with the advisory board, tremendous power to determine protocols and guidelines for medical treatments in the future.

    I believe these doctors have good reasons for being concerned. I believe Obamacare should be repealed and replaced with reforms that address the problems we were experiencing without turning over the decision making to government.

    Carolyn, I hope you are doing well and thanks again for asking a very important question.

  69. Chris says:

    Tina: “As far as I know there is no specific regulation currently in Obamacare that would disallow your doctor from ordering an MRI for you.”

    Sweet Jesus, it’s happened! She’s found an anti-Obamacare conspiracy theory that she won’t immediately latch on to as if it’s the Gospel truth! Hallelujia!

  70. Tina says:

    Chris…go to your room and write on the board 100 times:

    The concerns that many doctors have is in the legal wording within the law that gives the Health and Human Services Secretary, along with the advisory board, tremendous power to determine protocols and guidelines for medical treatments in the future.

    And try not to be such a total blithering jerk.

  71. Chris says:

    Tina: “The concerns that many doctors have is in the legal wording within the law that gives the Health and Human Services Secretary, along with the advisory board, tremendous power to determine protocols and guidelines for medical treatments in the future.”

    It’s possible that this is a legitimate concern. However, it is not the concern expressed by Dr. Jill Vecchio in this video. In this video, Dr. Vecchio claims that the law does something it clearly does not. Doesn’t that seem even a little bit wrong to you? Why am I a “jerk” for caring about the truth?

  72. Tina says:

    Chris I think that Dr. Vecchio could have expressed herself with more clarity. She was obviously a little upset after the SC ruling and possibly a little nervous or rattled as she spoke.

    I saw that her concerns came out of her understanding of the law in its entirety. Remember, she has had to implement regulations in the law. In doing so it is likely that she also consulted with legal people to make sure she understood the implications of the law. Doctors have to carry thousands of dollars worth of insurance because they can be held accountable for mistakes. They MUST KNOW the law.

    You are not a jerk for caring, Chris. You were acting like a jerk for being so quick to condemn her (and Peggy) without listening to anyone who was attempting to show you another perspective and in Peggy’s case just to understand what was in it regarding breast exams.

    I don’t expect you to change your mind because of anything I say or anyone else says. I do think it would be wise to come to your own understanding based on all of the information and not just on what this administration promises. I also think you would benefit by giving other people a little more credit for possibly knowing something you don’t know.

  73. Chris says:

    “Chris I think that Dr. Vecchio could have expressed herself with more clarity. She was obviously a little upset after the SC ruling and possibly a little nervous or rattled as she spoke.”

    Tina, there isn’t a clarity problem here. She is very clear in the claim she makes: that Obamacare prevents her from recommending mammograms to women under 50 and over 75. She doesn’t leave this open to interpretation or stumble over her words. The problem isn’t that she isn’t clear, it’s that what she is saying is completely untrue.

    You do understand that what she is saying is completely untrue, don’t you? I do not ask you join me in condemning her as a liar or, at best, deeply irresponsible. But can you at least admit, unequivocally, that what she said is not true?

    “I saw that her concerns came out of her understanding of the law in its entirety…They MUST KNOW the law.”

    This makes no sense as a defense of Dr. Vecchio, Tina. Clearly, as I have shown, she either does NOT know the law, or she is misrepresenting it.

    “You are not a jerk for caring, Chris. You were acting like a jerk for being so quick to condemn her (and Peggy) without listening to anyone who was attempting to show you another perspective and in Peggy’s case just to understand what was in it regarding breast exams.”

    But I have listened. And nothing you are Peggy have told me justifies Dr. Vecchio’s original claim in the video. Instead, you keep trying to take the focus off of what she said, and you seem to be implying that because Obamacare has many other problems, then it doesn’t matter that her specific claim was false. I don’t see how I am being a jerk by pointing out how ridiculous that is.

    “I don’t expect you to change your mind because of anything I say or anyone else says.”

    I would change my mind if someone presented evidence that what Dr. Vecchio is true. But no one has done that.

    “I do think it would be wise to come to your own understanding based on all of the information and not just on what this administration promises.”

    I am basing my understanding on the text of the law itself.

    “I also think you would benefit by giving other people a little more credit for possibly knowing something you don’t know.”

    Are you implying that Dr. Vecchio has access to some secret version of the law which bans mammograms? Your arguments aren’t making any sense. Again: why can’t you just admit that, on this specific issue, Dr. Vecchio was wrong? You’ve seen the proof.

  74. Tina says:

    Yes Chris I will say that I could find no specifics in the law that prevents her from ordering mammograms “to women under 50 and over 75” today. In point of fact, I recall informing you that my arguments were not about mammograms in any case.

    “you seem to be implying that because Obamacare has many other problems…”

    Uh, sorry Chris, it isn’t just “many other problems” that disturb the doctor. It is a clear threat of jail time and fines embedded in the law. It is the extreme power vested in unelected officials that bother the doctor. She is not alone!

    What is not clear is what might be recommended by the board and what the HHS will recommend in the future. The law is a tangled, regulatory nightmare. It is written in such a way that uncertainty is the order of the day. It is embedded with ticking time bombs.

    Speaking of exploding consequences…this was just announced:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/23/more-than-2200-hospitals-face-penalties-for-high-readmissions/

    A provision of ObamaCare is set to punish roughly two-thirds of U.S. hospitals evaluated by Medicare starting this fall over high readmission rates, according to an analysis by Kaiser Health News.

    Starting in October, Medicare will reduce reimbursements to hospitals with high 30-day readmission rates — which refers to patients who return within a month — by as much as 1 percent. The maximum penalty increases to 2 percent the following year and 3 percent in 2014.

    Doctors are concerned the penalty is unfair, since sometimes they have to accept patients more than once in a brief period of time but could be penalized for doing so — even for accepting seniors who are sick.

    “Among patients with heart failure, hospitals that have higher readmission rates actually have lower mortality rates,” said Sunil Kripalani, MD, a professor with Vanderbilt University Medical Center who studies hospital readmissions. “So, which would we rather have — a hospital readmission or a death?”

    This will not serve old people well and it certainly won’t make healthcare for the elderly better.

    “Are you implying that Dr. Vecchio has access to some secret version of the law which bans mammograms?

    Back to acting like a jerk?

    My arguments were not specific to mammograms. My arguments targeted the concerns about fines and jail time. I showed you the provision in the law which addresses this concern. That provision has the potential to harm the doctor regarding mammograms in the future of the board and the HHS make changes in what will be covered. Lawyers have expressed the same concerns!

    You aren’t claiming a super secret version of a law degree are you?

    “Your arguments aren’t making any sense.

    MY arguments make perfect sense to anyone willing to read and understand that the practical application of the law will change the way doctors and hospitals operate…and not always in a good way.

    “Again: why can’t you just admit that, on this specific issue, Dr. Vecchio was wrong? You’ve seen the proof.”

    I believe I already did say that! On the specifics in the law in the portion you cite the law does not prevent her from doing mammograms. My comment above to Carolyn:

    As far as I know there is no specific regulation currently in Obamacare that would disallow your doctor from ordering an MRI for you.

    I also reminded you earlier that my arguments were not specific to mammograms. That was Peggy’s concern and she was, for the most part, just attempting to discover the truth. My arguments had to do with the portion of the law that could prevent doctors in future because of the power given the HHS and the emphasis on cutting costs. My arguments were in support of the doctors fears about the power in the law to limit and control her practice and the hammer it holds over her head!

    It would be great if YOU could acknowledge the idiocy of this law in that respect as written!

  75. Chris says:

    Tina, thank you for acknowledging that the doctor’s claims in this video were false. I honestly had not seen you say that before, and I think you went to great pains to avoid making this clear.

    I’m not interested in debating other parts of the law that concern you on this particular article. I am sure we will get the chance to do that soon.

  76. Michelle says:

    A friend of mine sent the radiologist’s video to via email. I watched it and share her concern. I am a mammographer. I have been performing mammograms for 22 years. When I first trained as a mammographer, I would see patients come to our department with huge palpable lumps, skin retraction, discoloration, and many other symptoms of breast cancer that had NOT been detected early. Their outcomes were not good. With years of public awareness and patient education, finally, it is very rare that I see women come to our facility with horrific, obvious symptoms of undetected breast cancer. Women are coming in for this life saving test and we are diagnosing and treating breast cancer early. Now, thanks to “Obamacare”, I fear that we will begin seeing women too late once again.
    The importance of yearly mammography after the age of 40 is demonstrated to me every day. A mammogram can detect a breast cancer the size of a grain of salt! Yearly mammography is recommended so that small changes in the breast can be detected from one year to the next so that the cancer can be found early and treatment can begin before the cancer metastisizes. For some women, having the mammogram “every OTHER year” will be a death sentence. And please “Chris”, tell me why the panel did not recommend a mammogram after the age of 74. The risk of breast cancer increases with age! My grandmother was 83 years old when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had a mastectomy and lived 8 wonderful years after that. With Obamacare, she would not have been given that opportunity. Is the panel’s decision because it is not cost effective to screen after this age? Are these women not worth it? Sounds to me alot like the “Death Panel” that was mentioned by others before Obamacare became “his law”.
    Chris, you need to do some research before you call this radiologist a “liar”. What she is saying is not a lie. Research the “MQSA” Requirements for mammography. Mammography is regulated by the FDA. Every year, an inspector comes to each facility that provides this service to make sure that they are providing a quality service for all patients. Read the information about the “radiologist’s report of findings”. The radiologist is required to give each mammogram a “BIRADS” category which determines what the findings were and what their recommendation is to the patient for when her next mammogram
    should be. The MQSA follows the recommendations of the American College of Radiology. The ACR recommends that women have a YEARLY mammogram after the age of 40! The ACR and the American Cancer Society did not agree with Obama’s “panel”!
    Because mammography is regulated by the FDA, there are different levels of non-compliance. So, fines and jail time ARE possible!!!!You also mentioned in some of your comments that the panel only gives “recommendations” on the schdule of mammograms and other tests and that patients can have them or get the doctor to order them. This is true, but you must know that the insurance companies follow Medicare and Medicaid in what and when they pay for exams. So, yes, patients can have the test, but they should be ready to pay for it. Someone else commented that the patient could just have her physician right an order with “Family History of Breast Cancer”. That is called insurance fraud!!!! This is just mammography that we are discussing. I am so afraid of what else is in this law. Chris, what if the panel decides that your children do not need immunizations, even though the CDC recommends it? Obama is the one who will cut Medicare for the elderly. He has already begun with Obamacare!!!!!We’ll all have healthcare, but it will be sh8#!

  77. Peggy says:

    Michelle, Thank you for contributing to the discussion on ObamaCare and how it will impact womens health because of the mandates placed upon the health care professionals.

    Being in the profession you provide the insight from the collective analyses that can only be done by informed knowledgeable individuals that is not available to untrained receivers of your care.

    Anyone who has ever dealt with insurance companies knows that they have a list of approved services and that anything not on that list is not covered, therefore, becomes the responsibility of the patient. This covered services list is universal because it filters down from the committee thru Medicare to all the insurance companies.

    It is not just what is covered but how much will be paid that is also mandated by this committee. I recently had to call an ambulance in the middle of the night because I was in so much pain I thought I was having an attack of appendicitis or had a kidney stone. The 10 minute ride to the hospital cost over $4,000. Blue Cross paid over $1,200 and now the ambulance company, that is not a BC provider, wants me to pay the over $1,500 balance due. Believe me I wont call them next time even though I live alone. Ill have to take my chances Ill be able to drive myself without being a hazard on the road.

    Chris is a young man who demands everyone agree with his findings and his points of views even though he lacks the life experiences to validate his opinions. Hes an intelligent student who believes he has a better understanding of the written word and the intent of the writer than anyone else possible could. Only time and life experiences will provide him the level of maturity for him to become an adult and give up childish ways.

  78. Chris says:

    Michelle, thank you for expressing your concerns. You wrote:

    “The importance of yearly mammography after the age of 40 is demonstrated to me every day.”

    I agree that for many women, a yearly mammogram after the age of 40 is important. Thankfully, the PPACA (aka “Obamacare”) requires insurance companies to cover the cost of annual mammograms for all women 40 and over. From a statement by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebellius:

    “The Affordable Care Act, signed into law earlier this year, makes breast cancer screening and coverage for treatment available and accessible by requiring health plans to cover preventive services and eliminate cost-sharing and by making health coverage more affordable and accessible for women.

    If you or your family enrolled in a new health plan on or after September 23, 2010, that plan will be required to cover recommended preventive services without charging you a copayment or deductible. This includes annual screening mammograms for women starting at age 40.”

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/10/20101005a.html

    I am not sure why you believe this law will take away women’s options in regards to breast cancer treatment. It actually does the opposite of what Dr. Jill Vecchio claims; it expands access to mammogram coverage and pays for women 40 and over to get these services.

  79. Dewey says:

    I suggest reading the ACA. The propaganda is thick and sorry that is just not true.

    That is not true. less than 3% of planned parenthood was abortions. That is well documented. planned parenthood provided mammograms and other healthcare.

    Same with all the ACA propaganda. it will need tweaking and is not even in affect yet.

    The insurance companies do not like having to provide any healthcare.

    Bankruptcies from lack of health insurance is now #1
    This will stop when the ACA comes into affect.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

    We all know the longtime Koch agenda for absolutely no healthcare reform so why not just say it?

    Those are corrupt articles that can be debunked with real facts. All day every day more propaganda is written.

    planned parenthood is a good org. And it is not my place to dictate to others.

    The right does nothing but try and stop the law for the insurance companies cause they are losing allot of their rip off techniques and have to use 80% of the premiums for actual healthcare.

    Let us embrace the law and make it better not go back to the corrupt policies that cancel the minute you need them.

    American Citizens who pay the premiums and their healthcare should be more important then shareholders profiting off premiums.

    How many paid propagandists have we already busted? CBS even apologized!

    There was an election on the issue the people spoke and now instead of moving forward we have daily propaganda by people who do not value Human Life over corrupt Insurance company practices. Truth is the enemy.

    Truth is much better. If a person does not like something do not use untrue propaganda to make the point that is too much like the Hitler regime.

    Facts and truth are American, all these paid off nut-jobs need to be shutdown.

    Why is healthcare the enemy of the Tea Party? Why not explain that?

  80. Tina says:

    Dewey: “That is not true. less than 3% of planned parenthood was abortions. That is well documented. planned parenthood provided mammograms and other healthcare.”

    Well documented by a supportive media that willingly misinforms the public to deceive them about the actual numbers of abortions performed.

    An appropriate “document” to site would be Planned Parenthood’s own annual report. That is if you want FACTS and not SPIN.

    In its latest annual report for fiscal year 2011 to 2012, Planned Parenthood acknowledges that it performed 333,964 abortion procedures in 2011 – a record year for the organization.

    CNS News reported the information factually:

    Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States, and according to its 2011-2012 annual report, 333,964 abortions of both male and female unborn children were performed at its clinics nationwide.

    Rachael Larimore writing in Slate about the clever deception:

    …it’s been so long since I’ve seen a reference to the claim that abortions make up only 3 percent of the services that Planned Parenthood provides that I thought maybe they’d stopped trying. It might not be a technically incorrect number, but it is meaningless—to the point of being downright silly— for several reasons. Not the least of which being that Planned Parenthood “unbundles” all of its services so that a pack of pills, an STD test and an exam are three separate services.

    Undoubtedly, some of those services are cheaper than others: To illustrate this, let’s make a comparison with an actual business. Say I open a watch store. I sell lots of those cheap plastic digital ones that you can get at discount stores. And I sell some Timex and Casio, and also some nicer designer watches. But then I also keep a few superexpensive Brightlings and Patek Phillipes in stock. And maybe those only make up 3 percent of my sales. But selling only a handful of fancy watches brings in far more than 3 percent of my REVENUES. And so it is with abortion.

    It’s impossible to know how much money Planned Parenthood brings in for abortion. Because as specific as the annual report is about the number of services it provides, it’s far less detailed when talking about where its revenue comes from (They are within their rights, so whatever). But it’s easy to calculate, as the Weekly Standard did, that Planned Parenthood gets at least a third of its clinic income—and more than 10 percent of all its revenue, government funding included—from its abortion procedures.

  81. jean ross says:

    Wow. I didn’t read all of the posts, but hope you realize that Jill Vecchio is listed at SNOPES. Do a search. Her videos are chalk full of lies and were produced by Tea Party Patriots. So much for nonpartisan. LOL

  82. Chris says:

    Jean Ross, I hope you’re not impugning the honesty or integrity of anyone after this blog. Tina acknowledged that Dr. Jill Vecchio’s claims in this video were false, and it only took her 76 comments and nearly two months to do it. If you couldn’t be bothered to read through all of the earlier comments where she refused to admit she was wrong to get to the one where she finally did, then that’s your problem, pal.

    Now the commenter who submitted the video, Peggy, never admitted that Vecchio was wrong even after being shown irrefutable proof, but that is because she is a lady who sticks to her guns no matter what the evidence says. You could learn a lot from her.

    I personally resent your PC, tyrannical demand that anyone here “do a search” before spreading misinformation on a very important law that affects Americans’ health. Who do you think you are, bossing people around like that? Why should we trust SNOPES, or fact checkers, or journalists, or even the text of the law itself, when we could just trust our gut? Say what you will about the Tea Party, they know what they stand for, and they’re not going to let a little thing like objective proof get in the way of that.

    Dr. Jill Vecchio confirms what most Americans already know: Obamacare is very bad, and scary, and also socialist, and death panels and welfare queens and stuff. Who cares if her specific claim that it bans mammograms is true or not? Do we really need to know every detail about the law, like whether it restricts access to mammograms or expands it, whether it raises or lowers the deficit, whether it destroys jobs or gives employees the option to retire earlier, whether it lowers or raises premiums…

    None of those specific points matter, because the Tea Party is submerged in a narrative soup where they are constantly bombarded with false claim after false claim, so any time one is demolished, they can just move right on to the next one and the next one and the next one.

    Clearly, you need to learn a lot about how this blog works, Jean Ross.

  83. Tina says:

    Thank you Jean, for taking the time to comment on Post Scripts.

    If you took the time to read everything on Post Scripts you would see that this is a free speech forum. The two editors are conservative, at least one is still Republican and both are associated with or supportive of the local Tea Party movement and the principles the Tea Party in general endorses: low federal taxes, limited government and more power in the hands of the people.

    I’m sorry you have chosen to believe the TP…a group that stands for such principles is somehow suspect…perhaps you could benefit from more research. Either way I invite you to share your views with us anytime that we you will add to the nonpartisan nature of our free speech forum.

  84. Tina says:

    Yes Jean I acknowledged a fact that I had not been addressing thus (Emphasis added):

    Yes Chris I will say that I could find no specifics in the law that prevents her from ordering mammograms “to women under 50 and over 75″ today. In point of fact, I recall informing you that my arguments were not about mammograms in any case.

    “you seem to be implying that because Obamacare has many other problems…”

    Uh, sorry Chris, it isn’t just “many other problems” that disturb the doctor. It is a clear threat of jail time and fines embedded in the law. It is the extreme power vested in unelected officials that bother the doctor. She is not alone!

    What is not clear is what might be recommended by the board and what the HHS will recommend in the future. The law is a tangled, regulatory nightmare. It is written in such a way that uncertainty is the order of the day. It is embedded with ticking time bombs.

    It appears my perspective was quite prescient about this abominable, broken, destructive law!

    Chris is one of those who provide alternative voices at Post Scripts.

  85. Dewey says:

    LOL Americans are getting pretty tired of Tea Party Produced untrue propaganda. I consider it Treason to produce Propaganda to overthrow a government of Democracy for foreign donors. Bottom Line the majority of Americans do not like the Tea Party.

  86. Community Communication Prevalent this produce medical education manager

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.