Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Health care YouTubes ROCK!

By

The internet is absolutely awesome. What fantastic questions about health care for the CNN/YouTube debate tonight, from real people asking questions framed and presented in such a way to make it meaningful to them, and to us. Here was the most powerful, to my mind:

Tough, personal, real, dramatic, awesome. Good luck, Kim — and THANK YOU.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. of who got to speak for how long.  It kinda looked like the Clinton/Obama/Edwards show to me.  But I could be mistaken.

    • Chris Dodd’s campaign has been tracking talk time since the second debate Link here

      <

      p>
      And since the campaign invites folks to embed:

      <

      p>

      <

      p>
      I will note, though, that I watched this debate off a DVR.  According to the recording’s clock, Governor Richardson was not permitted to speak until the 23rd minute of the program.

        • Obama is his running mate — that’s why Anderson gave him first crack at juicy questions and over 20% of candidate fact time.

      • who made the wisest comment of the evening was Mike Gravel when he said follow the money trail of the top tier candidates.  He’s right.  This campaign is about money and how to amass the most to win. 

        <

        p>
        I was disgusted by Edwards, Hillary, Obama, Richardson, Biden and Dodd.  The middle of the road tactic and fear are in evidence (one can only imagine where that tack will go after the primaries).  I saw no spines in evidence from any of them despite the overwhelming support for an immediate switch to universal healthcare and an immediate end to the war.  The Republicans have won even if one of these candidates wins the primary and ultimately the election.

  2. I love the startling directness of Kim’s question — real NY style.

    <

    p>
    I didn’t see the debate, as I’m out of the country and suffering from bandwidth issues and timezone sync problems.  In any case, I do like the format, although since CNN gets to select the questions, it isn’t as “democratic” as they’ve claimed on their web page.  After all, with a million monkeys cranking out questions, an editor could find whichever questions that editor wanted the people to ask…

  3. Well, in addition to continuing to support a single payor system [why are we the only industrial nation without one?  Could it be the insurance/government complex?] I will keep Kim in my prayers.  That does make a difference.

    • First off — good luck, Kim. Fight the good fight!

      <

      p>
      But to her question, it is critical that we understand what our health system would be like under single-payer (or any other proposal resulting in an increase of the government’s involvement).

      <

      p>
      I thought the jury was still out on the use of chemoprevention. Specifically, didn’t the study of tamoxifen, while resulting in decreases in breast cancer, also result in increases of uterine cancer and blood clots?

      <

      p>
      Under the single-payer vision, how would someone have access to treatments that were still in research, or that have been deemed to have only marginal success?

      • Nope.  Mammogram.  With universal health care, she’d have been getting annual physicals, complete with all the age-appropriate woman-care.  I don’t know what it is or how it works, but I know it’s really effective at catching assorted woman-cancers early, which greatly increases the chance of cutting them out before they spread.

        <

        p>
        Being able to go to the doctor for a yearly physical — and then getting the treatment necessary to nip problems in the bud — is why universal health care is cheaper in the long run.  Chemoprevention or whatever the heck you’re referring to is irrelevant.

        • She asks specifically about preventative medication.

          <

          p>
          In the case of breast cancer, for more than 15 years there has been research on the efficacy and effects of preventative medication for high risk patients. This is medication given before signs of breast cancer are detected; it is not a screening or post-diagnostic treatment. In other words, you are medicating an otherwise healthy person (ala an aspirin a day). See the Mayo Clinic for a description of chemopreventioin.

        • Chemoprevention or whatever the heck you’re referring to is irrelevant.

          <

          p>
          It’s precisely what the YouTube woman said:  “…[insurance] would have allowed me to take preventative medicine.”  I was watching the video and thought to myself: there’s preventative medicine for breast cancer?!

          <

          p>
          Besides, the woman is 36.  I doubt, insured or not, that very many womem, south of 36 get regular mammograms. 

          <

          p>
          A sad video — one of those sad facts make bad policy situations — but it’s hard to imagine how universal insurance would have prevented her fate. 

          • It’s also EASY to imagine how universal insurance would have prevented her fate. 

            • For clarity of discussion, let me be sure we are using the same meaning:

              <

              p>
              “her fate” = getting breast cancer
              “prevented” = not getting breast cancer, or reducing risk

              <

              p>
              The only way I can think of medically preventing breast cancer  is through chemoprevention. (And let’s just be clear, even that isn’t 100% and even when successful there is a risk of side effects).

              <

              p>
              There are ways of reducing one’s risk non-medically, for example by living a health lifestyle and bearing children before the age of 30.

              <

              p>
              I’ll pause here and see if we are using the same definitions. If so, under your insurance plan how would you determine who receives the chemoprevention?

              • Will she survive the cancer?  That is Kim’s ultimate “fate” in this story.  If Kim does not survive, could her untimely death have been “prevented” by an earlier diagnosis?  So I would say we are not on the same page here. 

                <

                p>
                Under my insurance plan, if a patient’s primary care physician determines from their detailed medical history that that they are at high risk for X, then the doctor would strongly recommend a preventative for X. 

            • It’s also EASY to imagine how universal insurance would have prevented her fate.

               

              <

              p>
              Alas? 

              <

              p>
              Prithee sayst how.

              <

              p>
              She discovered the lump with self-examination, and it was 4 cm.  4 cm.  Get your ruler. And, she was 35. Quite unusual. 

              <

              p>
              Then, she entered the medical system.

              <

              p>
              How would universal have prevented her fate?  Mandated mammograms starting at age 30?

              • I’d give myself a 4 if I could.  My “very big picture” point may be on target, but the details were completely ignored.

  4. I liked the format … the questions were the best we’ve seen yet (aside from the guy who asked Hillary if Muslim countries — such as Indonesia and Pakistan, which both have had female heads of government — would take a female president).  I didn’t like the question about the candidates’ “sex talk” with their children, mainly because it breaks their children’s privacy.  The RedStateUpdate and snowmen questions immediately following pretty much made up for it.

    <

    p>
    Hey, one doesn’t end up in Congress or a governor’s office without being able to handle oneself in a debate.  I’d say pretty much all the candidates were at the top of their games tonight, giving well thought-out, smart responses almost across the board.  And with nobody stumbling, I don’t really think that there were any real winners or losers as a result of the debate.*

    <

    p>
    *Though the fact that Governor Richardson finally turned in a good debate performance (especially on NCLB and Darfur) may help him a bit.

  5. Keller’s got the deets.  And he agrees that Clinton was the big winner.  I don’t know if I’d go that far — but I do agree (as I’ve said before) that she does very, very well in these settings, and she had another good night tonight.

    • I don’t understand what debate all the media folk were watching. Hillary made herself out to be just as stubborn and undiplomatic as Bush by attacking Obama’s committment to talking to our “enemies”.

      <

      p>
      Overall, Richardson was the big winner, although he started of poorly, he ended up having most of the great lines of the debate. Obama floated by with Dodd and Kucinich for being sensible. Biden was worst for the most part, but his comments on Darfur were right on target. Gravel was at his crankiest and least funny: he’s helping Dennis look like a serious candidate.

        • if a candidate I was already backing — even slightly — didn’t suck totally, I’d say they “won” too.  The poll isn’t worthless, but it’s far from the end-all-be-all.

Archives