Healthcare Plan: New Opposition

Since its introduction, a number of politicians have had it in for Obama’s healthcare plan. First, they ranted about the alleged death panel Obama would run. Then, it was a conspiracy for government take-over.

Now, they’re saying healthcare will be rationed. Why?

Because the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has changed the recommended age at which women should start receiving annual mammograms from 40 to 50.

First off, I’d like to focus on the word recommended. Meaning people don’t have to follow what the USPSTF says. As Dr. Diana Petitti, Vice Chair of the panel, put it, "You should talk to your doctor and make an informed decision about whether mammography is right for you based on your family history, general health, and personal values."
It is funded by the government, specifically the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

But for all you remaining skeptics, the USPSTF is recognized as an independent panel of scientists that gather piles of research to analyze, and based on that analysis, recommend health policies.

Opposing politicians argue that the government is influencing the panel because they fund it, but if you think about it, their argument makes no sense. Consider the National Institute of Health (NIH). It conducts research and publishes its finds frequently about how we can be healthier. It’s a government organization. Consider the Center for Disease and Control (CDC). Same thing. So why is no one squawking over what these organizations have to say? When the CDC declares something””take swine flu or HIV/AIDS, for example””an epidemic or pandemic, I don’t hear anyone complain. Financial support is the only role the government plays in these health-related organizations. Nothing else.

And if that doesn’t convince you, let us visit the USPSTF website, http://www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstfix.htm. If you click on the topic index link, you can find every recommendation the panel has made in its entire existence, organized alphabetically. I counted 61 from the beginning of the As to the end of the Hs. There have been so many recommendations about so many different screenings. Obviously the government didn’t influence all of these decisions, so why would this case be any different?

This December, the USPSTF released a recommendation about screening depression in adults. According to the recommendation, adults should be screened for depression if there is staff-assisted care available. Depression is a serious problem, as is breast cancer. Untreated, it can lead to a depressed person harming him or herself.

I think the main reason politicians are all up in arms about the mammography recommendation is because they are afraid the insurance companies will take mammogram screenings off of general coverage. But why would they? First of all, it would be a very unpopular decision, so there would be a lot of people complaining. And second, the recommendation the USPSTF made was not a strong recommendation, which isn’t enough reason for companies to make such a dramatic change. To put it simply: insurance companies won’t change the policy on mammograms.

But most importantly, this is a scientific find made through studying a compilation of scientific studies.

I don’t see any politicians whipping out their science or medical degrees when they try to make a health decision. Maybe because they don’t have one.

It seems appropriate that scientists with are making recommendations.

Has it ever occurred to politicians that scientists tell the truth as it is? I know this is a concept politicians seem to be unfamiliar with, but seriously. We all let them run the government. Now let scientists do their job.