Tuesday, November 24, 2009

This Is The Republican Solutions To Health Care Reform And It Doesn't Cost Us A Dime

The American people have spoken. They oppose government-run health care. Republicans are on the side of the American people.

What Americans want are common-sense, responsible solutions that address the rising cost of health care and other major problems. In the national Republican address on Saturday, October 31, 2009, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) discussed Republicans’ plan for common-sense health care reform our nation can afford.  Boehner’s address emphasized four common-sense reforms that will lower health care costs and expand access to quality care without a government takeover of our nation’s health care system that kills jobs, raises taxes on small businesses, or cuts Medicare for seniors:
  • Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
  • Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
  • Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
  • Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
For the full text of Leader Boehner’s address, click HERE.
For more information about some of the other common-sense health care reforms proposed by Republicans, please visit the links below:


  1. Bruce that is real reform not another Pork pay of from the Democrats. So stop lieing and saying the Republicans don't have a conservative solution to health care problems. The Democrats bill doesn't fix any of the problems and it cost more then we can afford. You liberals better start getting real for a change. Money doesn't just flow from Obamas ass you know?

  2. Chris, you may want to read the CBO analysis before you start bragging about the Boehner bill.


    By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share.

    Though some consumers would find their premiums reduced modestly, "in the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law, according to CBO's estimates. The figures are presented for 2016 as an illustrative example."

    The GOP bill does require less new government spending, but that's what you get when you don't insure anybody. And though it does reduce the deficit, it does so by billions less than the Democrats' bill does.

  3. Bruce you might want to compair what the CBO is saying about the Democrats bill. Just click on the Pelosi Plan icon. It looks real bad for the Democrats that support this liberal costly reform bill. There is a lot of payoffs on this bill. The nice thing is the GOP bill doesn't take 5 yrs of paying for it to make it happen. And you know what will happen in 5 yrs don't you? Yep they will raise taxes even more to pay for all the missed expenses of lost cuts in Medicare. What good is paying for something that you can't use for 5 or 6 years?

  4. OK Bruce first it was 47 million then 30 million and now you say it's 52 million elderly without insurance? Yeh like we are going to start believing these numbers now. If the govt can't get the numbers right how can they get the system of health care reform right? You and other liberals are blinded by you wants or things. Like all little kids and spoiled adults you liberals need to hear "NO" for a change. We can't afford what you people want. Sorry end of sentence. The next thing you will want is housing and food vouchers or insurance for everyone. We could change our name to the USSofA

  5. Chris the Democratic bill will in the 9th Congressional district:

    1. Improve employer-based coverage for 482,000 resident in the 9th district

    2. Provide credits to help pay for coverage for up to 112,000 households.

    3. Improve Medicare for 103,000 beneficiaries, including closing the donut hole for 10,800 seniors,

    4. Allow 22,500 small business to obtain affordable health care coverage

    5. Provide coverage for 25,000 uninsured residents.

    6. Reduce cost of uncompensated care forhospitals and health care providers by
    $146 million.

    That's just for starters.

  6. It Does that and it will only cost between $1 and 2 trillion. I bet you think that is a great deal. Most Americans know we can't afford this pok bill. The Democrats bill doesn't do any of that for 5 to 6 yrs. But all those small business and us will be paying for something that no onw will get for 5 yrs. That is just dumb.

  7. Nine days after there was an announcement that their group was going to be investigated? Yup, that’s right: ACORN. San Diego office - just before California AG Jerry Brown came to visit. Alas, if only somebody had had the foresight to wait for this sort of thing to happen, and retrieve the documents…

    Oh. Right.

    They didn’t shred, they didn’t redact, and they threw out people’s sensitive and personal information - including things like copies of Social Security cards, W-4 forms, and driver’s licenses. I’m not a lawyer, but apparently that’s grounds for legal action right there; document disposal requirements are very, very strict. Which is why the local ACORN branch is trying the novel ‘Oops, fall cleaning‘ excuse.

    Which almost might be believable, except of course for the underage El Salvadoran illegal immigrant brothel thing.

  8. A budget expert at a prominent Washington think tank says instead of bailing out the U.S. Postal Service with taxpayer dollars, Congress should remove the government's monopoly on first- and third-class mail.

    The U.S. Postal Service is estimating that it will lose almost $8 billion in the coming year and deliver 11 billion fewer pieces of mail. That follows the announcement last week that the federal agency had lost $3.8 billion in the most recent fiscal year and delivered 26 billion fewer pieces of mail.

    A Postal Service spokesman tells CBS News that the agency currently owes the U.S. Treasury $10.2 billion. Now comes word that Congressman Danny Davis (D-Illinios) is calling for a federal bailout of the Postal Service and elimination of Saturday service.

    Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the Cato Institute, says Davis' comments reflect a mentality in Washington that prefers taking other people's money and throwing it at a problem rather than finding practical solutions.

    "You can get rid of Saturday service, or they've talked about removing a day from the week. You can give the Postal Service more money through general funds, but that's not going to fix the underlying problems at the Postal Service," the budget analyst notes. "With technology changing, people use e-mail; they use text messages [and] cell phones. That's completely undermined the demand for the Postal Service's business."

    DeHaven predicts that because it is burdened by excessive labor costs through a largely unionized work force, and because the current Congress has no interest in undermining union power, the Postal Service will continue to "plod along and lose money."

  9. That is how one legal expert is describing a recent exchange between a Republican senator and the U.S. attorney general regarding the prosecution of suspected terrorists.

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) in a Judiciary Committee hearing last week asked Attorney General Eric Holder a question that the nation's top cop could not answer. Graham asked: "Can you give me a case in United States history where a[n] enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?"

    The inquiry was followed by an extensive silence before Holder attempted to answer, and the attorney general could only verbalize: "I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made...." before Graham sternly cut him off in mid-sentence.

    "We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General," Graham stated. "I'll answer it for you. The answer is 'no.'"

    Robert Alt, deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, says Holder's non-response raises a question about the political nature of the decision to try some Guantanamo Bay detainees in civilian court. (See related video)

    "You would anticipate that any legal decision of this nature would have been highly researched and that the attorney general would have been briefed on the questions of any prior usage," Alt mentions. "The fact that he couldn't even answer that question, I found startling."

    Alt notes that Al Qaeda was able to use the civilian trial of blind sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman in New York as an information-gathering tool -- a list of unindicted co-conspirators was later found in a cave in Torah Borah, Afghanistan.

  10. The union bosses are counting on their handpicked leaders -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- to deliver.

    What Big Labor wants is simple but frightening: monopoly control over every public safety worker in the country.

    And now, with control of the White House to go along with large majorities in Congress, the union bosses believe their time has come.

    It’s up to you and me to make sure they don’t get their way.

    That’s why it’s vital you sign our petition to your Congressman and Senators IMMEDIATELY.

    I'll give you the link in just a moment, but first I want you to understand how serious this situation is.

    You see, Big Labor’s politicians in Washington are primed and ready to ram the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill (H.R. 413) through Congress NOW.

    In fact, the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill has already been introduced, and could come up for a vote within weeks.

    As you know, the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill is designed to FORCE every firefighter and police officer in the country under union boss control -- and is just the first step toward forcing ALL state and local public employees under Big Labor’s thumb.

    The truth is, passage of this Big Labor power grab would mean:

    *** State and local governments -- who are already experiencing budget shortfalls during these troubled economic times -- will be forced to pay the salaries and perks of union bosses.

    In the Post Office alone, taxpayers have been forced to fund over 1.75 million hours of union organizing.
    *** Small communities that depend on volunteer police and firefighters for their safety will be forced to do without them.

    Or communities will have to deal with mammoth tax hikes to pay for union boss-controlled public safety workers.
    *** The Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill will do nothing to stop crime or make our communities safer.

    On the contrary, forcing police and firefighters under the control of power-mad union bosses tends to drive many of the best men and women out of their jobs.
    Big Labor’s dangerous scheme is designed to impose union monopoly bargaining on all state, county and local public safety workers.

    That means that no matter what your state and local officials say, every police officer and firefighter in every town and city in the whole country will ultimately be handed over to union boss control.

    And if your town won’t go along with that, the Federal Government will step in and turn over your first responders to Big Labor anyway.

    And, of course, history shows us, police and firefighter monopoly bargaining has all too often led to strikes.

    Violent. Destructive.


    This legislation would pit honest taxpayers like you against the very people you count on to protect you.

    When your police are ordered out on strike, who will defend your home and loved ones?

    When union militants set up picket lines around fire stations, who will put out the fires?

    That’s why it’s vital you act TODAY!

    The fact is, especially during these troubled economic times, passage of the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill is the LAST thing we need.

    Just take a look at California for the results of this madness.

    Last year, the City of Vallejo went bankrupt after nearly 75% of its budget was spent on unionized police and firefighters!

    And today, despite a $26 billion state budget deficit, out-of-control public sector union bosses aren’t shouldering cuts or taking blame for the problems they’ve caused -- they’re threatening strikes!

    In other states where union bosses have been granted monopoly bargaining privileges over public sector workers, we’re seeing the exact same thing.

  11. This bill looks like someone with common sense wrote it! Good thoughts here!

  12. This whole Health Care Bill is about ONE thing More GOVERNMENT POWER Period!

    Why else would you Start a Completely NEW Program with 1900 pages of "there fores" which down the ROAD will POP up and bite FREE CITIZENS in the ASS! Its like DOG poop you may not see it BUT you can Smell it!

    The Medicare/Medicade Programs that Bruce takes Credit for are Trillions in DEBT. One would think the way to FIXING Health Care would be to ADJUST what we have. Sen. Boehner stated very CLEARLY what could be done to start the FIXING so Why would this Administration take such a STAND on this TRILLIONS of Dollar Program and it may not work down the road which is what these Socialist I beleive are hoping for.

    The Economy should have been the FIRST thing that this Administration Tackled and my QUESTION is WHY havent they and where are they GOING! I thin they want OUR Economy to Fail,what other EXPLANATION can there BE! You dont have to be Econamist to figure out that without a STRONG Economy and JOBS all this is just SMOKE and MIRRORS ! Power/Control Cradle to Grave Government Control Period!
    Voter please VOTE for Canadates who put COUNTRY FIRST not Party AGENDAS!

  13. Social Security Lies

    by Walter Williams (November 5, 2000)

    Here's what the 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: "After the first 3 years -- that is to say, beginning in 1940 -- you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. ... Beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. ... And finally, beginning in 1949, 12 years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year."

    Here's Congress' lying promise: "That is the most you will ever pay."

    Having read the government pamphlet, I consulted Webster's Dictionary. The definition for the word ever contains descriptions like: "at all times," "always" and "at any time." Had Congress lived up to its promise, our maximum Social Security tax this year would be $90 instead of over $6,000. The Social Security Act of 1935 would have never been enacted had Americans back then known that we'd be subject to a $6,000 tax.

    Another lie in the Social Security pamphlet is, "Beginning Nov. 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right." Americans were led to believe Social Security was like a retirement account and money placed in it was our property. President Clinton, Vice President Gore and their sycophants want you to continue to believe that. The fact of the matter is you have no property right whatsoever to your Social Security "contributions."

  14. Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies
    Shikha Dalmia, 07.01.09

    President Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office with a veritable halo over his head. In the eyes of his backers, he could say or do no wrong because he had evidently descended directly from heaven to return celestial order to our fallen world. Oprah declared his tongue to be "dipped in the unvarnished truth." Newsweek editor Evan Thomas averred that Obama "stands above the country and above the world as a sort of a God."

    But when it comes to health care reform, with every passing day, Obama seems less God and more demagogue, uttering not transcendental truths, but bald-faced lies. Here are the top five lies that His Awesomeness has told--the first two for no reason other than to get elected and the next three to sell socialized medicine to a wary nation.

    Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.

    During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he repeatedly ripped Hillary Clinton's plan for proposing one. "To force people to buy coverage," he insisted, "you've got to have a very harsh penalty." What will this penalty be, he demanded? "Are you going to garnish their wages?" he asked Hillary in one debate.

    Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for "making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and making employers share in the cost."

    But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do to those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health care approach: It is called TonySopranoCare.

  15. Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.

    Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast bulk--if not all--of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. "For the first time in history, he wants to tax your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too."

    Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's allegations, McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator's plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals.

    In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in history.

  16. Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector.

    Ignoring the reality that Medicare--the government-funded program for the elderly--has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama wants to model a government insurance plan--the so-called "public option"--after Medicare in order to control the country's rising health care costs. Why? Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower administrative costs and overhead than private plans--to wit, 3% for Medicare compared to 10% to 20% for private plans. Hence, he says, subjecting private plans to competition against an entity delivering such superior efficiency will release health care dollars for universal coverage.

    But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater efficiency. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year chastised Medicare's lax attitude on this front. "The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach," it noted on page 93.

    In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin--not improve--even the functioning aspects of private plans.

  17. Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.

    Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with a public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more options--not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer monopoly. As I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking given that government programs such as Medicare have a history of controlling costs by underpaying providers, who make up the losses by charging private plans more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare will greatly increase this forced subsidy, eventually driving private plans out of business, even if that weren't Obama's intention.

    But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided to run for office--and even during the initial days of his campaign--Obama repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer system. What's more, University of California, Berkeley Professor Jacob Hacker, who is a key influence on the Obama administration, is on tape explicitly boasting that a public plan is a means for creating a single-payer system. "It's not a Trojan horse," he quips, "it's just right there."

    But even if Obama wanted to, it is simply impossible to design a public plan that could compete with private insurers on a level playing field and without "feeding off the public trough" as Obama claims.

    At the very least, such a plan would always carry an implicit government guarantee that, should it go bust, no one in the plan would lose coverage. This guarantee would artificially lower the plan's capital reserve requirements, giving it an unfair edge over private plans. What's more, it is simply not plausible to expect that the plan wouldn't receive any start-up subsidies or use the government's muscle to negotiate lower rates with providers. If it eschewed all these things, there would be no reason for it to exist--because it would be just like any other private plan.

  18. Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.

    Obama has been insisting, including during his ABC Town Hall event last week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run system wouldn't be any more draconian than what they currently confront under private plans. This is complete nonsense.

    The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out an old and tired trope, namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact of life because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But there is a big difference between the two. If I can't afford caviar and champagne every night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real. Genuine rationing occurs when someone else controls access--how much of a particular good I can consume.

    By that token, Obama's stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a scale unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits over $1 billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will evaluate the relative merits of various treatments. That in itself wouldn't be so objectionable--if it weren't for the fact that a board will then "direct financing" toward approved, standardized treatments. In short, doctors will find it much harder to prescribe newer or non-standard treatments not yet deemed effective by health care bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines of the British system, where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a new miracle drug, until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified managed care plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison with this.

    Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health care debate. It is high time he started showing some.

  19. Common sense is something few Democrats in Washington have Now as Malik said there are a lot of lies. Obama has fractured this nation like no president before him. An with Pelosi and Reid in the mix we are lucky there isn't a larger revolution then we already have.

  20. Chris - Get a load of the head whore, trying to line his pockets by using the left's fear of, of all people, PALIN against them!! ROFLMAO, why are the libertards SO afraid of Palin!!!! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA... and Barack WHOREsain Obama is still campaigning; doesn't this whore have a country to run or something!?

    Chairman Zero Tries to Raise $500,000 to Attack Sarah Palin

    Posted by Van Helsing at November 24, 2009 7:29 AM

    As deficits and entitlement spending suck our country down the drain into economic ruin, Chairman Zero is busily trying to raise money — for attacks on Sarah Palin. Matthew Cook reports from his in-box:

    Another e-mail from info@barackobama.com hit my inbox yesterday. The subject: Sarah Palin.
    It begins: "Right now, Sarah Palin is on a highly publicized, nationwide book tour, attacking President Obama and his plan for health reform at every turn."

    The mail goes on to say "It's dangerous. Remember, this is the person who coined the term "Death Panels" — and opened the flood gates for months of false attacks by special interests and partisan extremists."
    "Whatever lie comes next will be widely covered by the media, then constantly echoed by right-wing attack groups and others who are trying to defeat reform [i.e., government seizure]."

    "So we're setting a big goal: $500,000 in the next week to help push back against Sarah Palin and her allies… We need to be prepared. And we're counting on you help."

    Sarah Palin and her nefarious allies must be stopped before they can prevent Obama et al. from nationalizing the healthcare industry, the astronomical cost of which ought to seal the deal on their Cloward-Piven economic strategy.

  21. Malik - Great post, I think you about covered all of Bruce's talking-point lies with those! Of course there are uncountable more lies told by Whoresain Obama, but I guess those 5 are some of the top ones.

  22. Chris, sorry but you can't have the grand canyon of american rifts during the last admin and suggest that Obama has done it. If anything the right has maintained its nasty partisanship that began with Shrub.

  23. Remember that census worker that was found hanging dead with Fed writen on him? Do you remember what those fools on the left said? They said it was proof that conservatives are dangerous and Americans should be afraid. Well it turns out he was a liberal nutjob trying to make it look like conservatives killed him so his family would get the insurance money. Bruce if I remember right you trumpeted the fake fear of conservatives. Once again proof that it is the left that we need to fear. G20 was full of left wing rioters and don't forget the liberal that distroyed Obama headquarters to make it look like we on the right did it. These liberals/Democrats will do anything to get what they want. How many protesters were beaten by these liberals/Democrats. I wouldn't put it past them to start killing people and putting Obama sucks on them. And we know they would do it to an African-American because of their racism towards blacks.

  24. Are you saying Obama,Pelosi and Reid haven't made it worse not better? Yeh JoeC it's all Bush's fault. We are a country more divided then ever and you want to point out that Bush started it. So what Bush started it but it actually didn't start until Pelosi and Reid took over. But whatever you say JoeC.

  25. Bonsai, what do you think about these sick perverted "progressives" (aka liberals)? This is just the kind of thing that all these liberal nutbags support.

    Progressive Leftists and the Wisdom of Twilight Fans

    A progressive leftist group called "Answer" is based at Rutgers University and is devoted to the cause of promoting teen promiscuity. "Answer" produces a magazine called "Sex, Etc" aimed at teenagers. It is distributed in public libraries over the objections of parents. Answer's websites includes a comic strip called "I Am Horny" about a frustrated bisexual girls as well as quizzes on orgasms and oral sex aimed at kids 12 and up.

    Answer justifies their cause by saying, “teens are responsible decision makers.”

    Consider that sentence for a moment. "Teens are responsible decision makers?" Really? Then, why is the drinking age 21? There's something severely detached from reality in people who believe that “teens are responsible decision makers,” but adults cannot be allowed to make their own health care decisions.

    Also, how is it liberals argue on the one hand, "Teens are going to have sex anyway, so we should accommodate them by giving them all the information they want," but on the other hand, "Smoking is harmful, and so we have to do everything possible to discourage teens from smoking." This includes making cigarettes difficult to obtain and severely restricting tobacco advertising. But birth control and pronography are freely available. (The American Library Association fought tooth-and-nail against pronography filters.) Are the health consequences of smoking worse than the consequences of STD's or unplanned pregnancies?

    Liberals use television and film to encourage politically correct attitudes on environmentalism, racial attitudes, animal rights, and whatever other cause is trendy. Many loftily claim that the got into the media business in order "to make people think," or even, "to change the world," because they think their words and images can create messages that affect behavior; they sell billions in advertising based on this theory. Yet, at the same time, they insist that saturating media with adolescent sexual imagery has no effect on teenage behavior. You're not allowed to depict a Muslim as a terrorist, or a black man as a criminal because they claim that imagery would affect people's attitudes. But they can show teenagers and twenty-somethings having promiscuous, consequence-free sex and claim it won't influence people's behavior.

    Because “teens are responsible decision makers.”


  26. John these Democrats in office are nuts. They attack Palin like she is Al Quida and the terrorist are treated like the protical son. We can't call a terrorist a terrorist any more but we can put our focus on the right wing when it comes to Homeland Sec. And now the Obama admin wants schools to teach about facial love between two boys and two girls and multiple partners. That is what you get when you put a sexual deviant in as the School Safty Czar.

  27. Chris - You are right, the racist liberals are already trying to stamp out black women:

    Breast Cancer Guidelines' Impact On Black Women

    White women have higher breast cancer rates overall, but black women get the disease more often before age 40. They also tend to have more aggressive cancers and lower survival rates. That concerns Dr. Marisa Weiss, a Philadelphia oncologist. She tells host Guy Raz how the breast screening recommendations released this week by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force could have an especially rough impact on black women.

    RAZ: Dr. Weiss, you have publically expressed that you worry that these recommendations will have a devastating impact particularly on African American women. Why is that?

    Dr. WEISS: Yes. Well, because already, African American women experience this disease uniquely. They are more likely to get breast cancer under the age of 40. They are not using - utilizing the benefits of early detection as much as other women do. They have cancers that are more - tend to be more aggressive. For example, this cancer called triple-negative breast cancer. That's about two to three times more common in African American women and that comes with a much more aggressive, life threatening type of cancer.

    And so if these women, if they don't start getting their mammogram at age 40, then we will have missed the opportunity, I believe, to save their lives.

    RAZ: So what you're saying is that because African American women are at higher risk of developing breast cancer often under the age of 40 that the recommendations by the taskforce will be sending a message that they no longer should be screened until the age of 50, and that's the risk.

    Dr. WEISS: Yes. That's what I've been hearing this past week. We've seen a significant cancellation rate for mammograms at our hospital and...

    RAZ: Because women are basically saying: Well, I shouldn't do this until the age of 50.

    Dr. WEISS: That's right.

    Liberals. Formerly known as the KKK.

  28. Malik it's as if they want everyone to try and be gay or bisexual. Where will the next generation come from with the govt pushing the gay lifestyle so hard? That is why I send my kid to a Lutheran school. There they learn the golden rule instead of the liberal golden rule of do unto others before they do you.

  29. John I read something just like that on another web site. They even gave referance to some racist sites that approve of the abortions and screaning of blacks in some diseases. They even questioned testing of heart disease and other diseases that kill people of color. Many black preachers are going sideways with many of the things in this bill. It sure does look like they are trying to cull the blacks and elderly.

  30. To Libs Sarah Palin is there WORST FEAR and one thing LIBS do is FEAR Truth! They released their DOGS last year and it will continue until 2012 for in their EYES" They have "Nothing to FEAR but the TRUTH itself"! Associated Press another State Run Out Let has 11 People Fact Checking Her Book for ERRORS!
    If ANY Media did this to LIB the DOGS would come a Howling to there door STEP!
    Libs have one MISSION with Palin and that sadly is to Destroy Her and her Family if NEEDED. That says VOLUMES for their Agenda and them Personally as CITIZENS!

  31. Al, this biggest screams i have heard about errors come from Conservatives and republicans, like Steve Schmidt and the staff that handled Sarah during the campaign and the lady from Alasaka. Don't you get tired of repeating lies and half truths? The best part is that its just rightwing talking points. it even says it above the spot


    But alas, even if they did so what? She lied about so many things it might take eleven people ti find them all. Are you mad that she's a liar or that she got found out?

  32. #1 Lies and half TRUTHS Id have to be a LIB!

    Just cannot IMAGINE one SMALL group of people ,LIBS, so Very Frightened of ONE Person from ALASKA! They have to be Frightened cause the LIB dogs aint been HOME since Last year during the Campagin but then Again OBAMA is still Campaigning so MAYBE all LIBS are doing the SAME!
    Question to Joe What do ONE TERM PRESIDENTS do after 2012 Election,JUST wondering! I bet he could WRITE a BOOK and have all his PHOTO OPS in it!

  33. al, no you are fine just the way you are, a follower of the deceptiCONS. Your side lies about everything. I'd list them all but i gotta go buy some yellow cake Uranium now. Have a good day.

  34. Best way to fight Truth evidently is to IGNORE it, most the LIES involve BOTH Partys and there lies a LIBS Problem! Most still think Carter was a Great President and cant see the Forest for the Trees! Like Carter this Administration could be a One Termer.

    Administration is moving FAST just to get as much of its Agenda in Place Prior to Elections in 2010 and MANY Democrats and a Couple Republicans will be Falling on their SWORDS for this Administration! Liar liar pants are on FIRE! WOW


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.