 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
The Long Road to Democracy
HHS Task Force Mammogram Recs Slammed It took less than 48 hours, says Michael Collins, for medical advocates to dismiss an unqualified recommendation about mammograms. Hats off to Diane Rehm, Rebecca Zurrbier MD, and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius!  Cancer doc (left) tops bureaucrat (right) on cancer recommendations (WUSA). The (task force) recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years.A day later, Wednesday, Nov. 18, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a statement dismissing the committee recommendations. The U.S. Preventive Task Force is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations. They do not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government. — Kathleen Sebelius, Nov. 18, 2009The committee is made up of independent practitioners but operates under the sponsorship of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS. The agency states that their task force "recommendations have formed the basis of the clinical standards for many professional societies, health organizations, and medical quality review groups." Sebelius didn't care. Amidst Republican outcries that this was the way Democratic sponsored health reform would operate, she issued her terse statement dismissing the dismissal of mammography for women 40 to 49. The DC flap started when Diane Rehm had task force member Dr. Diane Pettiti, MD on her show yesterday, Nov. 18. She asked the doctor for the name of one cancer specialist on the task force. Petitti was unable to answer (video 1:53). The doctor also told Rehm that "Cost effectiveness was not a part of the discussion. Cost was not uttered in the room." More Special thanks to the White House for making their decision while I was writing this story!
Michael Collins  "The position of the ambassador, Karl W. Eikenberry, puts him in stark opposition to the current American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who has asked for 40,000 more troops. New York Times, Nov. 11 This isn't just any envoy. General Karl Eikenberry has served two tours of duty in Afghanistan, the second as head of the Combined Forces Command. After the second Afghan tour, Eikenberry was Chairman of the NATO Joint Military Committee. He's a West Point graduate with advanced degrees from Harvard and Stanford and is fluent in Mandarin Chinese. General McChrystal has asked for 50,000 troops in early October. By October 28, the president was said to favor a "McChrystal light" number as low as 15,000. On Nov. 7, just four days before Eikenberry's statement, McClatchy Newspapers put Obama's preferred number at 30,000. At this moment, the president is reported have rejected all of the troop increases on the table, according to Associated Press at 12:02 am EDT, today, November 12. How did we get from McChrystal's request for 50,000 troop requests in early October to Eikenberry's "written reservations about deploying additional troops" just days before President Obama's planned decision? More (Hint - it has a lot to do with election fraud!)  Foreign Contributions and the Supreme’s Overdue Decision on Campaign Funding by Michael Collins The Supreme Court of the United States will soon announce a major decision on our lightly controlled system of campaign funding. Will it retain some limitations on corporate influence or will the court blow the lid off and cause a perpetual flood of unrestricted corporate contributions? An additional outcome may surprise and shock the public. Snip During oral arguments before the court, Olson argued that McCain-Feingold unlawfully restricts the First Amendment rights of U.S. corporations. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had this exchange with Olson: MR. OLSON: What the Court has said in the First Amendment context, New York Times v. Sullivan, Rose Jean v. Associated Press, and over and over again, is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Justice Ginsburg created a poison pill by putting on notice any Supreme Court majority that overturns the lower court decision: your actions will allow foreign funding for U.S. campaigns. Any foreign entity could simply exercise an existing or newly acquired ownership position in a U.S. corporation to demand services from that corporation’s latest wholly owned candidate. The current bans on direct corporate contributions and contributions from foreign entities would become meaningless. The influence of the “corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth” obtained through the control of puppet politicians would submit all of us to the vicissitudes of balance sheets and the salary and bonus demands of board chairmen all over the world (to an even greater degree than we now experience). Supremes Green Light Foreign Money in U.S. Elections! How well will that fly with citizens in the current political climate? Does the Supreme Court even care?  Fraud and Death Trump Citizen Health  Citizens Poised to Sacrifice for their Leaders By Michael Collins The priorities of the nation’s leaders are coming into stark relief in the health care reform debate. President Obama has been clear that he will not tolerate any health care legislation that isn’t “deficit neutral.” It can’t cost a penny over budget. We owe him a great debt for clarifying how the so-called leaders in Washington actually view citizens. Link: http://dailycensored.com/2009/10/12/fraud-... Michael Collins reports that the ongoing economic struggle of billions of people didn't deter key
G-20 figure Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke from announcing that the worldwide recession is "very likely over." Of course, there's a qualifier. It will be a jobless recovery which raises the question, just exactly who will be recovering? The G-20 Announces the "New World Order" - Citizens Respond  bailoutpeople.org Pittsburgh -- A new world order is emerging at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh with a decision by the group to become the premier coordinating body on economic issues. Radio Free Europe, Sep. 26, 2009Snip The Pittsburgh Summit focused on changing the regulations governing the world's financial institutions and processes In addition to rewriting the rule book, the "new world order" announced that the G-20 is now the "premier coordinating body on economic issues" which will benefit the wealthiest interests in each member country. But it was more than just about making the banks behave. In cooperation with U.S. and foreign law enforcement agencies, Pittsburgh police and unidentified law enforcement agents unveiled some new programs for citizens. These had nothing to do with much needed jobs and health care, barely mentioned at the meeting. Rather, the G-20 premiered the "sonic cannon," a device designed to cause serious pain from ultra shrill sonic waves beamed at those exercising their rights of freedom of speech and assembly. Snip The Epitome of Failure An objective judgment on the promises of the London G-20 meeting, growth and jobs, shows a complete failure by the group. The world's economy continues to slide into oblivion with no remaining bright spots except for Wall Street bankers and others who caused the crisis. The largest U.S. and European financial groups have cash and credit guarantees of a potential $23.7 trillion (annotation) to preserve their market positions and executive perks. These guarantees were enabled by the actions of some of the very same leaders attending the Pittsburgh conference. It's a tight circle. More: http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_con... or http://coto2.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-... / or http://inteldaily.com/news/172/ARTICLE/119...   The Forgotten Question in the Health Care Debate Tuesday, 28 July 2009, 1:09 pm Opinion: Michael Collins Do you deserve to die? Do your friends and family?  Rationed care. Scenario 1: You've just been diagnosed with a cancer of the lymphatic system. You're told that it requires a procedure within the next two weeks. Unfortunately, you were laid off from your corporate job 11 months, 30 days ago. You are on your last day of COBRA. Your company retirement and savings are all gone. You can't afford the $1,200 a month premium needed to continue your coverage. Without the operation, you will die. Do you deserve to die? Scenario 2: Your spouse has a long history of illness. Then you discover she has a virulent infection that, if untreated, threatens to disable her to the point where she's immobile and requires 'round the clock medical care. You work for yourself. While you have catastrophic health insurance, it doesn't cover the needed treatment nor does it provide for nursing care. Does your wife deserve to experience this untreated sickness and suffering until her premature death? Do you or your family members deserve to die simply because the rulers of this country can't get their act together to provide universal health care? Snip Who among the advocates of rationing are without health insurance? Who among them are unable to afford or obtain their own critical care or the same for their loved ones? Who among them will step forward and tell those denied medical care: "You deserve to die." More: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0907/S003... |
