Rabid liberals attack Liberman's wife

[redrumloa]

In Desperate Attempts to Discredit Lieberman, Libs Attack His Wife

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-ma ... k-his-wife

Liberals are so incensed at Connecticut Senator Joe Liberman's refusal to vote for ObamaCare, that they have taken to attacking his wife, who works for a prominent breast cancer organization. Their ad hominem assaults and wild speculation about the Senator's supposedly evil motives reveal their hypocrisy when it comes to political centrists, and their desperation concerning health care legislation.

Hamsher accuses Sen. Lieberman of working against the interests of the Komen foundation, which actively works to find a cure for breast cancer, by voting against ObamaCare. Though she provides some statistics about cost, she neglects to mention the one critical fact that is indispensable to the debate: the United States has the best survival rate for breast cancer patients 5 years after treatment of any country worldwide. So overhauling our nation's health care system would seem contrary to the interests of breast cancer patients--and those seeking a cure.

After their collective inability to convince Sen. Lieberman to change his mind on the Medicare buy-in, the left has apparently trained its sights on the Senator's wife. In an attempt to discredit the Liebermans, Hamsher tells an entertaining tale without providing many facts to back it up, and, relying on pure speculation, links those facts together into some grand conspiracy on the parts of the Senator and his wife.

Meanwhile, a Daily Kos blogger today called for Mrs. Lieberman to be fired from the board of the Komen foundation for purely political reasons. In doing so, the blogger simultaneously showed a stunning indifference towards the suffering of women with the cancer, and demeaned women by tying their professional lives to their husbands'.

Yup, that is the liberal way! You cannot win on your own merits, so you get as downright nasty and mean as possible. Morally bankrupt is the term that comes to mind.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Yup, that is the liberal way! You cannot win on your own merits, so you get as downright nasty and mean as possible. Morally bankrupt is the term that comes to mind.

Ah, you have mastered the art of politics - to wit:
Criticizing others for what your team also does but not noticing when your team does it.

I liked this quote.

Could his move be a sign to the Democrats that they should tack to the center?

Really? Wouldn't they have to go a long way left to get there?

But that she is a consultant for a lobbying firm while married to a senator? Yes, that is quite clearly a conflict of interest. Thanks for bringing it up because I was unaware of the relationship. It IS unseemly.

I also have some reservations about the direction of the Komen Foundation's work. It seems to be working for the benefit of the Health Care industry, judging by their research.

 

[Glaucus]

the United States has the best survival rate for breast cancer patients 5 years after treatment of any country worldwide.

I bet that carefully worded stat is based on women who were treated, not on women who actually were diagnosed. In most nations with socialist health care all women diagnosed with breast cancer get treatment. In the US, that's not necessarily the case. In other words, the comparison may be skewed.

And for the rest: what Fluffy said + 1.

 

[redrumloa]

I bet that carefully worded stat is based on women who were treated, not on women who actually were diagnosed. In most nations with socialist health care all women diagnosed with breast cancer get treatment. In the US, that's not necessarily the case. In other words, the comparison may be skewed.

Actually Obamacare is looking to reduce the number of covered mammograms and plans to actively discourage woman from getting mammograms.

 

[Glaucus]

They used to recommend women over 40 to get a mammogram, but they're pushing it to 50+. Here's an explanation as to why:

Mammograms don't raise cancer survival: study

• A Canadian study has found that mammograms don't give women in their 40s a better chance of surviving breast cancer.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Actually Obamacare is looking to reduce the number of covered mammograms and plans to actively discourage woman from getting mammograms.

Recent studies show:

1) Mammograms increase the risk of cancer.
2) Many cancers that show up in mammograms resolve themselves without treatment.

The first and second points together mean more (billable) treatment, some of which is caused by (billable) screening and some of which is simply needlessly (and expensively) treated - which itself can lead to death.

While 5 year survival rates are high in the US so are overall breast cancer rates. Immigrants to the US get breast cancer at the rate of US breast cancers. Overscreening may be the cause of the cancers AND the cause of the high 5 year survival rates. If you find a cancer that will kill you in 6 years, 1 year after it starts then you will have a better 5 year survival then if you find it 2 years after it starts (only 4 year survival). If you find a high percentage of cancers that would have naturally resolved then that also increases your 5 year survival rate since they wouldn't have killed anyway.

Over testing leads to over treating. Also, the number of women in the US who opt for radical double mastectomy over single mastectomy even though it has no added benefit is overwhelming. This constitutes needless, though billable medical treatment.

While a public system tries to reduce costs by offering only effective treatments on an as needed basis, a private system tries to increase income by offering as many expensive treatments as possible whether you need them or not.

 

[faethor]

Yup, that is the liberal way! You cannot win on your own merits, so you get as downright nasty and mean as possible. Morally bankrupt is the term that comes to mind.

Pshaw! That's any political way in the USA.

Liberman's wife is fair game. She's part of the lobby interest groups and in the politcal spotlight in her own right. The relationship should be questioned. The other option might be for Lieberman to stop fronting healthcare plans and work on some other projects.

Liberman should be booted from the Democratic Party association. Liberman fronted Healthcare legislation then vetoed his own legislation. It's disengenious tactic. If the party can't even trust this man will support himself he's his own worse enemy. I support removing Leiberman from his appointments.

Ahh to think back to the Gore-Liberman ticket and all the kicking I did of other Dems on why Liberman was just a bad, bad idea. I think they now see why.

 

[Glaucus]

If we're really gonna hash this topic out, we should also say that women considered to be higher risk are still recommended to get mammograms even in their 40s or even 30s. Canada's guidelines are for women between ages 50-69 to get tested every two years, however those are just guidelines. Women could still get tested much earlier then that if the Dr considers the patient to be at risk. I'd be surprised if Obama's health care reform would not allow high risk patients to be screened before their 50th birthday.

As for mammograms increasing the rate of cancer, I only found evidence for that involving women under 30, and that was considered inconclusive. And it's not so much that cancers treat themselves, they're just lumps and not cancer or at least, not malignant.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

And it's not so much that cancers treat themselves, they're just lumps and not cancer or at least, not malignant.

Can't be bothered to look for the study right now but as I recall it followed women who were screened versus those who weren't (but all were screened at study end I think) and found that the screened women had more cancers in total than the unscreened implying that some of the cancers discovered in the screen group would have resolved themselves over time i.e. the screened and unscreened groups would then have similar final counts.