Sarah Palin Causing Global Warming

Thousands upon thousands (300,000) copies of her book, Going Rogue, sold the first day. That’s a lot of paper, a lot of shipping and receiving, a lot of energy expended.

Thousands upon thousands of people crowding her appearances wherever she travels. That’s a lot of coming and going. A lot of transporting going on out there.

Left wing liberals going crazy trying their best to marginalize her and destroy her. All that energy wasted. Of course, no one is watching MSNBC or CNN, but they do use a lot of energy preparing their shows for their “huge” audience.

Newsweek cover photo — that alone will cause global warming — it’s so hot.

Oprah has Sarah — ratings go through the roof — that’s a lot of evil, big screen TVs burning a lot of power for no reason.

Fact checkers assigned to work around the clock — to only find 6 “errors” while AlGore’s book of lies goes unchecked for years. A lot power being used to burn that midnight oil.

Newspapers all over the country printing stories about how she will never hold national office, never amount to anything, isn’t smart, inspires the wrong ideas in the wrong people, etc. That’s a lot of newsprint. I wonder how many of those papers will still be in business to report on Sarah in the next several years? But, I digress, that’s a lot of energy used to smear someone in print and that causes warming, as we all know.

So, there it is, simple and to the point and factual. Sarah Palin is causing global warming.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:48 | Posted in Measure 37 | 61 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Anonymous

    It’s a good thing that Al Gore is not following Sarah and only takes trains and transit and bikes to his events and is living small by only living in a 1200 sq house and does not have vacation homes.

  • D-e-a-n

    Even though I am a liberal gay man I have to say that she is hot. I am a little disappointed that liberal women are pretty much dog pound material battle axes.

  • Anonymous

    Thank god your contribution to this blog is relatively small, Jerry. I was initially drawn here by Steve Buckstein and *cough* Larry Huss (cold-hearted son-of-a-bitch that he is) for their conservative perspectives on the goings-on in Oregon politics. How unfortunate then to continually find your idiotic babble disgracing the blog. What is happening to conservatism? What happened to the days of William F. Buckley, Peggy Noonan and George Will?

    Let’s see what Noonan had to say about Palin way back in October of 2008, shall we?

    “In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It’s no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.”

    https://online.wsj.com/article/SB122419210832542317.html

    The new faces of conservatism are buffoons like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Jerry Dawson? God help us, we are doomed.

    • Anonymous

      I am a little more optimistic about conservatism. I believe that it is thriving today. We just do not hear about it much because of the liberal media.

      • Anonymous

        ?????

    • Jerry

      Sure seems brave of you to comment so strongly and then forget or be afraid to sign your name.
      My contributions to this blog dwarf anything you have done – that’s for sure!
      I stand by all of it.
      Proudly.

    • Josh Reynolds

      Obviously you don’t understand Jerry’s sense of humor. Most of us on this blog get it but this guy is an idiot.

      • Anonymous

        Ooooooooh, this was humor! I get it now. Jerry was actually masking his contempt for Sarah Palin with a satirical post on global warming. I’m such an idiot! Thanks for steering me in the right direction Josh Reynolds.

  • Paltel Slubinski

    Finally someone who writes for Americans. It is frustrating to see our congress and our press continue on and on with their lies and slanted (and whacked) views while we on main street have to continue to turn the page until someone writes something actually reflective of the facts and the mood of the country.

    Thank you

    • v person

      “Finally someone who writes for Americans.”

      Well, maybe 25 or 30% of Americans. The rest of us are not buying.

      • D-E-A-N

        Even though I am a liberal gay man I have to say that she is hot. I am a little disappointed that liberal women are pretty much dog pound material battle axes.

  • Anonymous

    “Sure seems brave of you to comment so strongly and then forget or be afraid to sign your name.”

    I neither forgot nor am I afraid, I am simply not interested in attaching my name to these discussions. Nor do I feel obligated to do so. You are free to discount and/or invalidate the opinions of anonymous posters such as myself, but it does not change the fact that we are living, breathing, thinking individuals whose opinions matter as much as yours do. My comment on this page was meant to remind you that it isn’t just “left wing liberals” that are less than enamored with Sarah Palin. Peggy Noonan, generally considered to be a stalwart conservative thinker and commentator, has made that explicitly clear. Many of us find her vapid presence “on the scene” to be discouraging for conservatism and political discourse in general.

    “My contributions to this blog dwarf anything you have done – that’s for sure!”

    I didn’t realize it was a competition.

    “I stand by all of it. Proudly.”

    Ignorance is bliss.

    • Jerry

      Peggy used to be a favorite pundit of mine, but she has lost it. And, she has lost her audience.
      Big Time. She is a RINO writer.

      How nice of you to call me ignorant simply for pointing out some important facts about a woman’s contribution to global warming.

      With polite, incisive, super intelligent readers like you this blog should prosper.

      Thanks again for your thoughtful contributions.

      • Anonymous

        “Peggy used to be a favorite pundit of mine, but she has lost it. And, she has lost her audience.
        Big Time. She is a RINO writer.”

        That is your opinion and you are certainly welcome to it. I do not share your opinion.

        “How nice of you to call me ignorant simply for pointing out some important facts about a woman’s contribution to global warming.”

        From Thomas Gray’s poem, Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College (1742): “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.”

        It has become a proverb, Jerry, which implies not knowing is better than knowing and worrying. It was not intended to be aggressively insulting, but rather as a simple acknowledgement of your carefree, non self-critical attitude to your postings. I will be more careful in the future so as not to upset your delicate sensibilities.

        “With polite, incisive, super intelligent readers like you this blog should prosper. Thanks again for your thoughtful contributions.”

        Jerry, with all due respect, give me a break.

        Was the following not your contribution to the “Stop Building Public University Buildings” thread: “Oregon educators must be paid more!!” Yes, I sense your sarcasm (I am quite familiar with your position on the matter) and it was very helpful and insightful indeed! Your cynical attitude towards educators, who of course do not deserve our respect, is not the least bit offensive to those of us who have family and friends that have devoted their lives to teaching other people’s children.

        As ever, politeness reigns supreme at oregoncatalyst.com. No, really, it does.

        • Anonymous

          There is a big difference between good teachers and the teachers union and their unsustainable demands.

          • Anonymous

            I’m no cheerleader for the teachers union, but Jerry’s approach generally boils down to attacking the unions by attacking the teachers.

        • Jerry

          I have no cynical attitude toward educators. I was one. I just see some small room for improvement in how we educate kids all those 172 days for the whoe 5 hours.

          • Anonymous

            “I have no cynical attitude toward educators. I was one.”

            Save it, man.

            “I just see some small room for improvement in how we educate kids all those 172 days for the whoe 5 hours.”

            Jerry, that’s exactly what I’m talking about! Do you know what passive aggressivity is? No doubt there is room for improvement, but to imply that teachers don’t work hard is insulting.

          • Jerry

            I know. I worked very hard. Very hard. And for low pay, too. And not one single person appreciated it. I am glad to hear from someone who finally does.
            Thank you!

          • Anonymous

            Hmmm… I think this thread has officially jumped the shark.

            Happy Thanksgiving Jerry.

          • Jerry

            Possibly. Just possibly. And that was my whole point! Success at last!!

          • eagle eye

            Jerry, the last contribution you made, the only contribution you will ever make to education, was when you supposedly left the profession!

          • Jerry

            How nice of you.
            That’s the holiday spirit.
            Thanks much.

      • eagle eye

        Uh, Jerry, last time I looked, Peggy Noonan was still writing for the Wall St. Journal, weekly.

        You’re still writing for this website.

        I would kind of cool it with the sneering routine.

        • Jerry

          No sneering at all. She has abandoned any conservative principles she ever had. Call that what you want. Just because someone gets paid to write doesn’t make what they write any more valuable or correct. In fact, many times it is just the opposite. I have no audience to pander to.

  • Sarah

    Who exactly are these “fact” checkers for Sarah Palin? The only reference I found was to FOX News, and only a fool would think they are politically unbiased. Every other blogger and news organization (left and right) have found major errors.

    The only reason FOX “News” has viewers is because they are controversial and like to stir up vitriolic and call it “journalism.” And conservatives fall for it hook, line, and sinker. Plus, liberals don’t sit around and watch television all day – they actually have lives and USEFUL things to do for this world.

    • Anonymous

      like listening to NPR and watching OPB, NBC, ABC, CBS MSNBC, CNN etc. Reading the Oregonian, Washington Post and NY Times ect.

      Then complain that one station has conservatives on its opinion shows.

    • Jerry

      Major errors! Wow. I will have to stop reading now.
      Cite them please.
      Oh, wait, I forgot, you can’t.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    “So do you have any comment about Palin besides “”She is Stupid””? Lets face it, everyone in the room has heard liberals call every Republican president since Nixon stupid and retarded. Do you have anything new because just calling people stupid is really getting a bit old”

    Get’s the doe eyed liberal in the headlights look every time.

    At that point I usually offer to buy them a kids meal at McDonalds with as play area. That way they can be around a more appropriate age group. The one that thinks calling everyone you don’t like stupid has some meaning. Plus they get to play on the slide too!

    • Anonymous

      I’m not sure who you’re directing this comment at Rupert, but I personally don’t remember stupidity as being the most common criticism of Nixon. Regardless, if you were directing your comment at me… well…. republican. Peggy Noonan? Republican. You can blindly defend Palin’s honor all you like, it’s not going to change the fact that she is genuinely vacuous and seemingly intellectually incompetent. I can appreciate the fact that you are bored by people, on all sides, calling her stupid, but where else would you like the conversation to go? Her intellectual capacity, or lack thereof, is sort of the crux of the issue. Nobody is suggesting that she isn’t charismatic and appealing to many people, we are saying that her brain and its byproduct does not inspire confidence in us.

      But feel free to take the reins on this one, Rupe. Where would you like the conversation to go? So far you’ve responded by calling liberals who call Palin stupid stupid. How do you respond to Noonan? Is she a RINO as Jerry claims (and I know you will claim about me and anyone else who doesn’t adhere to the quasi-religious pseudo-intellectual nonsense of people like G Beck)? Or is she stupid?

      • v person

        This is what I like about Palin. Whatever her smarts or lack thereof, she is clearly a divider, not a uniter. She even seems to divide conservatives from conservatives, which is quite a feat if you think about it.

        When Nixon divided, he did so by clearly placing himself on the side of the majority of voters. Same can be said of Reagan and even George the 2nd (but only just barely). But Palin? Its hard to see her ever gaining a majority vote nationally. And God help us all if she ever manages.

        • D-E-A-N

          As a fellow gay man like yourself, I must agree with you.

  • Anonymous

    Everyone should take time to wise up on glabal warming.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/bishop-hills-compendium-of-cru-email-issues/#comment-230413

    It’s toast.

  • retired UO science prof

    I think Jerry should stick to education policy, where he is obviously an expert, and leave the humor columns to Larry!

  • Jerry

    Science Prof.
    You are right – I knew this would be a bad one – but it is true – and I am just pointing out the facts. In this instance she is no better than the bigwigs from the auto companies who flew PRIVATE jets to Washington.
    You dig?

    • bar tender

      auto companies? PRIVATE jets??!! facts?? science prof? Are you on a bender or something?

  • John in Oregon

    I have to say Jerry’s use of the global warming theme is a cleaver double twist. So much of what is said of Palin by the legacy media is just hot air.

    While hot air abounds in the attacks on Palin the delicious serendipity is just hilarious. Without Jerry’s knowledge a triple twist of the CRU Global WarmingGate email scandal. The breaking news of the IPCC elite caught flat footed by their own emails as they cooked the data and manipulated pier review publication.

    Then consider this. In a short facebook posting of a few hundred words Palin uses the phrase death panels. The resulting screech could be heard for 1,000 miles from the halls of the legacy media.

    This last week one of the death panels spoke. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) demanded the end of breast cancer self exams and mammograms for women under 50.

    Just days prior Family Practice News reviewed a major study which concluded “Only 21% of Massachusetts women older than age 40 years were not in mammographic screening programs. Yet unscreened women accounted for 75% of the breast cancer deaths…”

    Of course HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rushed to assure us that the USPSTF demands were not binding. Sebelius should have included the word *YET.* The Obamacare bills make the USPSTF demands binding.

    Should American women fear the bullhorn amplified voice outside the window? … GET YOUR HANDS OFF THAT BREAST. Talk about invasion of the American bedroom!

    Sarah asked “Who exactly are these “fact” checkers for Sarah Palin?” Well the AP assigned 11 crack reporters to fact check Palin’s book. What did that crack team find? Well the AP said

    *Palin says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor… and not “often” going for the “high-end, robe-and-slippers” hotels*

    THE FACTS according to the AP

    *Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin [did stay one time at the] Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard)…*

    GEE and here I thought Palin didn’t often stay at robes and slippers hotels. Guess I just don’t understand that one time means always.

    But the legacy media like Norah O’Donnell use the big anti Palin guns to attack 17 year old girls like Jackie. Blind sided while waiting at a Palin book signing. I will let Jackie tell it.

    “In one day I met a role model, and met the liberal media and their crafty schemes. I fell prey to liberal bias, but I’d like to think I did an okay job.” Describing Norah O’Donnell Jackie said “Her goal was clear, make this teenager look like an uneducated Palin supporting buffoon. To liberals, and the 5 people who watch MSNBC she succeeded. To conservatives, she was the only buffoon during that interview.”

    But Noah O couldn’t leave it there as she twittered on. As Jackie commented “Norah also claims I told her I voted (on her twitter). That is not true. She never asked my age or if I voted. I’m 17 I couldn’t have voted…and I don’t live in an ACORN district so I didn’t have a chance to even register illegally. Making that statement by Norah completely false.”

    I guess I can see why Progressives and the legacy media fear mothers like Palin and young women like Jackie.

    • Anonymous

      In response to the Norah O/Jackie exchange:

      Is this truly how you (and Glenn Beck) perceive this situation? It is unfortunate that this young woman feels she may be perceived by anyone as a buffoon, but Norah O’donnell (who I’ve never heard of before) was in no way out of bounds with her question. While I thought the young lady seemed like a bright kid (I just youtubed it and we’d be lucky if all people her age had half her curiosity/interest in the world), she clearly has no idea what she’s talking about. The following link is to a brief piece written by a young conservative guy named Dave Weigel on the “controversy”.

      https://washingtonindependent.com/68578/yes-palin-backed-the-bailouts

      “I guess I can see why Progressives and the legacy media fear mothers like Palin and young women like Jackie.”

      Once again, I am conservative and I FEAR PALIN (and Jerry). This young women, despite her support of Palin, inspires hope more than anything else.

      • Anonymous

        …this young woman… typo.

    • v person

      “The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) demanded the end of breast cancer self exams and mammograms for women under 50.”

      BS. They did not demand anything. They presented the clinical evidence that shows that annual mammograms catch very few occurances, and that self exams are next to worthless because by the time a lump is found it is too large already.

      If people choose to ignore the evidence and continue to do medicine out of habit or intuition, then they are free to do so. But don’t complain when the rates go up again.

      All you are doing is fear mongering John. You should be ashamed.

      • Jerry

        How can John be ashamed? Anyone who wants screening should be able to get it whenever they want – not at the whim of some inept, idiotic, stupid fool in some cramped office somewhere.
        You are the one who should be ashamed.
        If you are married, be sure to deny your wife any checkups until she is at least 60. It will save the earth.
        Man, you are so out to lunch it isn’t even funny anymore.

        • v person

          He and now you Jerry (feint hope) should be ashamed for assuming other readers here are dumb enough to believe that a recommendation from a committee of apparently inept fools operating in a cramped office (appointed by Bush by the way) will result in anyone not being able to get annual cancer screenings if that is what they still want even after the scientific evidence says this is not going to make much if any difference to their health.

          If I am out to lunch, it is at a nice smioke-free Bistro that serves local, organic food, Oregon wines, and has interesting reading material strewn about. You are probably out to lunch at MacDonalds.

          • Jerry

            I always eat wherever they have video poker machines because I just know that someday I will win and win big! The state won’t let me lose forever.

  • Jerry

    Finally someone who gets what I am saying! Merry Christmas, Happy Thanksgiving, Happy New Year, etc. to you!

    Thank you for your thoughtful post.

    Everything you said was what I was saying, albeit I chose a more roundabout way. I often chose to do things in a roundabout way and it generally works. And we got some comments, although not all of them very nice.

    It just goes to show, you can’t please all of the people all of the time. I will say this, though, my article is factual. Some people just don’t like the truth.

    And, yes, Sarah would be a much better VP than Biden. Much. Just in case anyone says something along these lines.

    These libs and their followers are such great people. Save money by not checking for cancer. Why didn’t I think of that? Tax people even more – great motivation. Cut services to the elderly – who needs them around? Try terrorists in criminal court. Close Gitmo and bring them to the US. Apologize every day for the evil United States. Give away billions to the highly effective UN.

    These people have all the right answers. It makes me so proud.

  • Jack

    Sarah Palin 2012 ?

    PS: Peggy Noonan voted for NoBama.
    Peggy destroyed her own career

    • eagle eye

      Peggy Noonan voted for Obama?

      What is your source on that?

    • Anonymous

      Peggy Noonan destroyed her career?

      How did all these columns get in the WSJ?

      https://online.wsj.com/public/page/peggy-noonan.html

    • Jerry

      No question that would be better than O in 12.
      None whatsoever.
      None.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Signs we will know Palin is considering running and the left is scared:

    “Sarah Palin is the candidate Democrats would most like to run against in 2012”

  • John in Oregon

    Good comments.

    As to how Glenn Beck perceives the Norah O/Jackie exchange, I have no idea.

    As to how Jackie views herself, her own words which I quoted, show she does not feel she was a buffoon. Jackie used that term to describe Norah O.

    I guess some background is in order. Jackie was wearing a T shirt which said “The U.S. government handed out $700 billion in Wall Street bailouts and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.” When Norah O saw the shirt she got on her blackberry and jotted some notes prior to the interview.

    That’s the point. Norah used crib notes when she submarined Jackie. You can see them in Norah’s hand in the video. And, yes Palin did support McCain’s position on the bailout during the campaign. Duhhhh did anyone expect different?

    I see another point in Jerry’s comments. In many ways I find Sarah Palin an enigma. By that I mean Palin is very visible personality that I don’t much understand. That revaluation came during a conversation with my wife when I happened to comment that the sum total of her direct exposure to Palin was a few minutes of Palin’s speech during the convention. What struck home was that I had no more direct exposure to Palin than my wife. Everything else was filtered through the David Brooks, David Frum, Maureen Dowd, and Norah Os of the legacy media.

    One of the few times that Palin was allowed to speak for her self was the recent interview with Mark Levin. Mark let Palin talk, unedited, without interruption and asked questions without gotcha comments.

    Anonymous mentioned Glenn Back. Beck is one of those direct kind of guys. The words diplomatic or tactful need not apply. BUT I ask is that necessarily a bad thing and does it make what Beck says wrong?

    Example. For some time I have been saying that the latest IPCC assessment report excludes much work that questions the AGW theory of warming. As though the work never existed. I said what I said because it’s just obvious. From those in some quarters the response was, John how DARE YOU question the Scientists.

    Why does this matter? Simply this, the IPCC Assessment Report is the foundation and the ONLY basis for the EPA endangerment finding which puts the EPA in total control of the energy usage of every Building, Vehicle, Business, Manufacturer and Person in the country.

    Apparently others agreed with my observation. Alan Carlin, a 35-year veteran of the EPA and a senior analyst in the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics of the EPA. presented a 98-page analysis arguing that important research was missing from the IPCC Assessment Report. The EPA chose to suppress his report. The Wall Street Journal put it this way. “[The Supreme] Court rulings say rulemaking records must include both ‘the evidence relied upon and the evidence discarded.'” In refusing to allow Mr. Carlin’s study to be circulated, the agency essentially hid it from the docket.” Docket and Rulemaking refer to a federal agency process to create a new rule.

    Last week my observations about the manipulation of the content of the IPCC Assessment Report was my opinion. Notice I said was! The hacker / whistle blower release of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) files is that proof. The CRU emails show a clear pattern of withholding data, adjustment of data, manipulation of the Pier review process, and collusion to control the IPCC assessment report content.

    Lets consider Palin in light of some comments here.

    Since last March I have said that Government Health Care, now known as Obamacare, would ration and prohibit patient access to treatment. On an earlier post in this thread I explicitly so stated with reference to breast cancer screening.

    v-person then stated I should be ashamed. Specifically;

    > *He and now you Jerry (feint hope) should be ashamed for assuming other readers here are dumb enough to believe that a recommendation from a committee of apparently inept fools operating in a cramped office (appointed by Bush by the way) will result in anyone not being able to get annual cancer screenings if that is what they still want even after the scientific evidence says this is not going to make much if any difference to their health.*

    Well I don’t believe readers here are dumb. Lets consult the record.

    This last weekend on one of the legacy media talking head Sunday political programs they had a Republican congress woman debating a Progressive Democrat congress woman. At one point the discussion turned to treatment availability.

    When the Republican congress critter began to speak about breast cancer the Progressive Democrat congress critter immediately began to overtalk her. HOW DARE YOU. In a fit of phony rage. HOW DARE YOU POLITICIZE BREAST CANCER.

    Why was the progressive so upset? Well the Republican was reading from the text of the proposed Obamacare law. The section changing the name U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The very task force VP called a “committee of apparently inept fools operating in a cramped office.” That section of the Obamacare law gives the panel the authority to compel doctors to deny breast cancer screening to women.

    And Sarah Palin cut through the PC BS with two words. Death Panel.

    v person tells us that > *They presented the clinical evidence that shows that annual mammograms catch very few occurances, (sic) and that self exams are next to worthless because by the time a lump is found it is too large already.*

    That is the legacy media take. It’s also wrong. VP is saying that mammograms miss cancer, IE a high false negative. The unrelated study reviewed by Family Practice News reviewed gives us good data. We know that in this large study 21% of women were not screened and 75% of deaths were unscreened women. We also know the death rate from breast cancer. Therefor:

    > The breast cancer death rate is 255 per million women.
    From the study:
    > Of that million women 780,000 were screened
    > Of that million women 210,000 not screened
    Therefor
    > Of the 255 breast cancer deaths, 191 were unscreened women and 64 deaths were screened women.
    This translates to a death rate of:
    > 9 per 10,000 for unscreened women
    and
    > 2.4 per 10,000 for screened women

    Self exams and Mammograms do have a higher false rate. Care is needed to not confuse false positive with false negative. Self exams and Mammograms have a high false positive rate requiring follow up needle biopsy.

    This was the point made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The task force said that mammograms were too costly creating unnecessary alarm for women that with a benign condition.

    That’s all well and good but my question is what about the women that, you know, really do have actual real breast cancer??

    • v person

      “The very task force VP called a “committee of apparently inept fools operating in a cramped office.” ”

      If you go back and read the thread, you wll clearly see I was quoting Jerry’s description of the task force. I do not think they are fools and have no idea what size office they occupy. I was being ironic.

      “VP is saying that mammograms miss cancer”

      No he isn’t. He is saying that the task force found that annual screenings prior to age 50 do not catch enough cancers early enough to make enough of a difference to justify the cost and downsides from false positives.

      Is it the last word on the data or the interpretation of the data? I doubt it. But my larger point is that, even asuming that the task force recommendations are somehow “imposed” on health insurance companies and they stop including annual screenings in their policies, a woman who still insists on being screened annually prior to age 50 would be able to do so by paying out of pocket. Now it seems to me that conservatives like yourself have been making the argument that if people paid more out of pocket for routine health costs, and used insurance only for the big stuff (hospitalization, cancer treatment, etc.) that this would be the best way to control health care costs because it would force people to decide when it was worth it to pay for an unecessary procedure. Well ok then, here we have it. An unecessary procedure that would be paid for out of pocket. Why is this a bad thing John?

      As for the women who would miss being diagnosed because they did not get that annual test? Some would be treated and survive. Others would not. But how about the millions of women with no insurance John? What happens to them if we fail to pass comprehensive health care reform, and not just with respect to breast cancer? How many will die prematurely? The answer is about 20,000 a year from all preventable health related causes.

    • Anonymous

      It is clear that 21% of this sample were not screened and that 75% of breast cancer related deaths had not been screened, but, out of curiosity, does it say anywhere what percentage of the fatal cases were under fifty years old? Or was this study specific to women under fifty (i.e. all women included in these numbers were under fifty)?

  • John in Oregon

    Hi Anonymous. Excellent question. > *out of curiosity, does it say anywhere what percentage of the fatal cases were under fifty years old?*

    As reported in Family Practice News, the study objective was evaluation of screening effectiveness. The population included age 40 up, the age group that had been recommended for regular screening. The article didn’t say however I assume, the age distribution in the study would be similar to the distribution in the general population. In any case the study was aimed at effectiveness for the entire age group.

    Because the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) cut off screening for women 40 to 49 it would be interesting to break out data for that age group. The nature of pre-menopausal breast cancer suggests screening is more effective for the 40 – 49 age group. But keep in mind the USPSTF went beyond the 40-49 age group. They also eliminated self exams for all women and supported slashing screening in half for women 50 and up.

    VP said > * If you go back and read the thread, you wll (sic) clearly see I was quoting Jerry’s description of the task force.*

    That is very gracious of you to allow Jerry the credit for the phrase. You have my admiration for being so gracious. That phrase does fit very nicely doesn’t it? As Ronald Reagan said its amazing what can be accomplished when one doesn’t care who gets the credit.

    A house keeping item. I did say that “VP is saying that mammograms miss cancer”. VP responded that > *No he [VP] didn’t.*

    So I decided to go back and consult what VP said. > *They presented the clinical evidence that shows that annual mammograms catch very few occurances, (sic) and that self exams are next to worthless because by the time a lump is found it is too large already.*

    I see it now. You are correct VP. You did not say mammograms miss cancer. You said that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said that annual mammograms catch very few occurrences. I am happy to make that correction.

    VP did say one thing with which I agree completely. > *But my larger point is that, … a woman who still insists on being screened annually prior to age 50 would [should] be able to do so by paying out of pocket… Well ok then, here we have it. An unecessary (sic) procedure that would be paid for out of pocket. Why is this a bad thing John?*

    That would be ideal. The young family could pay out of pocket with a major medical plan. 19 year old boys could have health care without paying for mammograms. Women could have coverage tailored to their needs.

    But its not about insurance or health care plans. That’s not what Obama governmentcare does. Obamacare authorized the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to prohibit doctors providing screening.

    • v person

      “That is very gracious of you to allow Jerry the credit for the phrase.”

      It was simply factual.

      “Obamacare authorized the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to prohibit doctors providing screening.”

      They don’t prohibit doctors from doing any legal procedure. Its a question of what eneds up being covered under routine preventative care under the various insurance plans that will be offered through the exchange. You need to get your facts straight.

  • John in Oregon

    READ THE BILLS

    Obamacare makes the Preventive Services Task Force and panels like it the determiner by law of best practice and standard of care.

    READ THE BILLS

    So we have a federal panel of “experts” setting policies for medical treatment.

    READ THE BILLS

    The entire purpose of the various new panels created under Obamacare (and already created in the stimulus bill) is precisely to make policy and treatment decisions for patients.

    READ THE BILLS

    The Preventive Services Task Force will play just such a role in the Obamacare world order.

    READ THE BILLS

    The Preventive Services Task Force and panels like it have nothing to do with insurance. Nothing

    READ THE BILLS

    The only relationship between Obamacare and insurance is the mandate compelling the people to purchase insurance, ultimately from the Government.

    READ THE BILLS

    When the direct costs, pre tax / delayed benefits, and mandated purchase are included the cost of Obamacare is $6 Trillion/

    READ THE BILLS

  • Pingback: rubbish removal sydney()

  • Pingback: nike blazer gris et noir()

  • Pingback: pendenti uomo()

  • Pingback: Cartier love imitation collier()

  • Pingback: replica bangle love cartier()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)