Women air concerns on government takeover of health care

I have seen the British woman (who was in the commercial) on the BBC saying that she was duped into doing the commercial.  She said that while she was not diagnosed quickly in the UK by the NHS she thought the ad was to get women to get tested earlier.  She still supported the NHS and did not think that her appearance on the commercial would make it seem like she did not support the NHS.  

I am very tired of hearing of this fictitious "government takeover of health care."  The public option now being considered would set up a program similar to medicare but for persons of all ages.  This option would coexist with private insurance companies.  Everyone would have the choice to select a government vs private insurer, just as one can choose whether to send a parcel via a privately owned package carrier such as Fed-Ex or UPS or via the government-run US Postal Service.  

Like your private insurance company?  Then keep it, and let the rest of us make our own choices.

The Lewin Group is a front for the health care industry who are against any kind of health care bill especially one that has the public option.

Of course the Lewin Group is  against any health care bill especially one that has the public option because the health care industry would lose $billions if people had a choice.

It is impossible to RATE a similar drug against another for the same disorder because...... When a drug is used on a group of 1000 patients, statistics are gathered to examine what the drug does as to efficacy, safety, side effects (none fatal),  drug interactions and a slew of other possible problems. If you test this same drug on another group of 1000 patients you may get a similar picture of efficacy, however, one particular side effect of obesity or drowsiness is virtually non-existent in the second drug. Many patients have discontinued their drug because of obesity or drowsiness. This new one offers the possibility of giving the patient the opportunity to try another drug that works as well but does not have a particular side effect so that the patient stays on the drug. The second drug is essentially the same as the first, however, a single side effect mat be the difference between the two drugs in SOME, NOT ALL, PATIENTS. A drug recently approved for bi-polar disease and schizophrenia (TO BE MARKETED IN THE 4Q) is in the same class of compounds as prior drugs and is a little more effective, however, the side effect of obesity is  SO MARKED IN THE EARLIER VERSIONS THAT THIS IS ENOUGH REASON TO SWITCH THE PATIENT FROM ONE TO THE NEEWER VERSION. Also, the incidence of obesity with the increased risks of serious stroke, heart disease, etc. warrants changing all patients to the newer version.

The cost of developing a drug that may turn out to be very little better or not as good as the first drug, however, no company will ever invest in a second drug if their market was limited to only the "left overs" of the first drug. There are many "statin" drugs. Most are no better than the first, however, in my case, the first one caused me so much pain in my thigh muscles that I had to discontinue it. I was lucky that there was a second "statin" available that had no effect on my thigh muscles. It happens that my sister and wife had the same problems and shifted to the sec ond with no side effects.

News-medical.net is relentless in their opposition to any health care bill and they care constantly quoting the Lewin Group which as an arm of the health care industry who are out to lose $billions if there is a public option in the upcoming health care bill.

The Lewin Group is a part of Ingenix, which is wholly owned by United Healthcare Group, one of the largest health insurance companies in the country. www.cjr.org/.../hiding_the_messenger_1.php

To imply that it's all the fault of England's healthcare system that the breast cancer survival rate is several points less than that in the US ignores the many other variables that can contribute to such a statistical difference. The fact is that the Lewin Group knows this, and so does the organization that used the data for what I think is the most tasteless scare tactic yet to be aired by opponents of reform.

There was a 12.4-point difference in the five-year survival rate between white American women and black American women from 1999 to 2005 (90.3% for whites and 77.9% for blacks. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html

What does THAT say about the American health insurance model?

Some opponents of reform might be quick to point out that this is a failure of our already-existing public options of Medicaid and Medicare, as they might assume proportionally more black women are enrolled in a government-funded option than white women.

However, it seems that a genuine LACK of health insurance - and possibly lack of coverage for preventive care and screenings among existing public options - may be more the culprit; and it seems to affect everyone regardless of race or education level.

Women without health insurance across all racial and educational levels, are half as likely to receive timely mammograms, according to a report conducted by the American Cancer Society and published in the society's peer-reviewed journal "CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians." This means diagnosis at later, less treatable stages for many women.
www.huliq.com/.../insurance-status-linked-cancer-outcomes

The article in the above link points out that the disparity between five-year survival rates of uninsured and insured American white women is higher than the disparity between American whites and blacks (13 points vs 12.4). And the disparity is even greater (16 points vs 12.4) between insured and uninsured American black women.

To be clear, the study looked at uninsured and privately (or commercially) insured women.

So please, when you see ads like those put out by the Independent Women's Forum, exercise your own independence to look at the real facts behind the scare tactics.