Let the Rationing Commence

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” – Thomas Jefferson

And so it begins. Yesterday, the government-funded, government-appointed U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [1] released new guidelines for breast cancer screening, suggesting widespread cuts in tests aimed at reducing the 40,000 American lives lost each year to the disease. To make its decision, according to Diana Petitti, vice-chairman of the task force, the group compared the benefits of screening to the “harms of false positive, such as anxiety and unnecessary additional tests and biopsies, which are expensive and time-consuming” [2].

There are several things wrong with this scenario.

First, the report assumes that the “harms” of a false positive could ever outweigh non-identification of the disease. Really? I don’t know about you, but I’d rather I find out I have treatable, early-stage cancer just to find out that it was a false positive a week later than wait another 3 years to suddenly find out that I have six weeks to live. It’s akin to avoiding going to the dentist for fear that you might have a killer cavity. It doesn’t make sense.

Secondly, this report suggests against routine screening for women aged 40 to 49, although it is commonly known that survival rates for younger women are lower than for older women as the cancer tends to be more aggressive at an earlier age [3]. The report even recommends against teaching self-examinations. Why would anyone in their right mind want people to be less aware of methods for preventing a disease killing tens of thousands of Americans every year?

The most obvious reason is worrisome. The government already controls screening for persons on Medicare, Medicaid, and VA programs. It is about to control screening for even more insureds, like those covered under the new public option and any plans in the government-created health care co-op, especially with assistance from the newly-created Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research [4]. These bodies rely on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to define their levels of coverage, instead of the doctors who actually treat the patients.

We don’t want to jump to conclusions. But we also don’t want to sit back, blindfolded, waiting until it’s too late. The government is now realizing a forthcoming dramatic rise in health care costs; it is oddly convenient that they just sponsored a new recommendation to stymie efforts to prevent breast cancer. And while self-serving elitists like Representative Alan Grayson (D, GA) complain that the Republicans’ plan is to hope people die quickly [5], the liberal plan suddenly scores wildly high marks in this category. Waiting until cancer is terminal before identification makes it a breeze for the government to deny spending money on cancer treatments at the cost of American lives. Friends, the stakes have just been raised.

Today’s call to action: Forward this article to a friend who may be on the fence about government-controlled health care.

1. “About USPSTF,” ahrq.gov, November 17, 2009.
2. “Breast-Screening Advice is Upended,” The Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2009.
3. “Breast Cancer Survival Rates,” cancersurvivalrates.net, November 18, 2009.
4. “Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research Membership,” hhs.gov, November 17, 2009.
5. “Alan Grayson ‘Die Quickly’ Comment Prompts Uproar,” cbsnews.com, September 30, 2009.

  • Share/Bookmark

Comments are closed.