Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Independent Women's Forum's VILE ATTACK

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 06:48 PM
Original message
Independent Women's Forum's VILE ATTACK
This is Michelle Barnard's group, again. She's the talking head who appears on tweety regularly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6500512&mesg_id=6500512
Why is health care liar Michelle Bernard hosting an MSNBC special about health?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6442742
Michelle Bernard (Hardball fav) uses scare tactics against Health Care!





http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019904.php

INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM'S VILE ATTACK.... I'd heard about the ad, but I hadn't actually seen it, on my own television, until this week.

The spot is from something called the Independent Women's Forum, and it features a woman, speaking over soft piano music, who insists that American women will not get proper treatment for breast cancer if health care reform becomes a reality. The argument is premised on a variety of bogus assumptions, including the notion that Democratic policymakers intend to base reform on a British NHS system (which, for the umpteenth time, isn't even remotely true).

There have been some pretty thorough takedowns of the IWF ad, but Harold Pollack's recent item was especially good, noting, among other things, that this right-wing attack is backwards.

This advertisement is especially misplaced in light of many studies documenting poor outcomes among uninsured American women with breast cancer. It's been known for many years that uninsured breast cancer patients are diagnosed later, require more invasive and costly treatment, and die sooner than their insured counterparts. Lack of health insurance is a major risk factor for delayed mammography, and for delayed response to abnormal mammography that requires diagnostic resolution.

Not every difference in medical outcomes would be eliminated through insurance coverage. Confounders such as race, poverty and low education matter, too. Yet studies which account for these factors still find large differences in medical outcomes associated with lack of health coverage.

To pick one study among many, a strong recent analysis by Cathy Bradley and colleagues examined treatment outcomes at Virginia's Massey Cancer Center. These authors found that uninsured women were far more likely to present with late-stage cancers and large tumors that required aggressive treatment, were less likely to complete chemotherapy, and -- contra Tracy Walsh -- were many times more likely than others to wait 90 days or more between their initial diagnosis and their breast cancer surgery.

Then there is the other elephant in the room. Women in other industrial democracies do not go bankrupt because they have breast cancer. That's an everyday occurrence across America -- among both insured and uninsured citizens. Democratic health reform bills will not create "nationalized healthcare" or a single-payer system. The current bills are surely imperfect. They would provide every woman the opportunity to buy affordable and decent insurance that covers diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.


Time's Joe Klein called the IWF's argument "lower than dirt" and part of a "disgraceful scam."

Under the circumstances, that's an entirely reasonable critique of a vile campaign.

-Steve Benen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. disgraceful
I guess it's in some way chauvinist of me to expect better of women than I do of men, but when it comes to things like breast cancer and other women's health issues the women in my life are so strong minded it's difficult to imagine women who would whore themselves to the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chelsea0011 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. Independent, they're not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Right Wing Corporate Shills with a dash of Libertarian for spice.
Independent Women's Forum? :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. They claim to be "nonpartisan".
They are about as nonpartisan as the tea baggers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeffbr Donating Member (377 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. Evil liars
well trained by the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. The Lewin Group, the "experts" cited in the IWF vidoe...
Lewin group linked to private insurers
Apr. 17th, 2009 by Andrew Van Dam
Filed under: Conflicts of interest, Health journalism, Hot Health Headline
In the Columbia Journalism Review, Trudy Lieberman, president of AHCJ’s board of directors, scolded journalists for not mentioning that Lewin Group, the consultants who released a recent study claiming that a public insurance option would cost doctors and hospitals money, is ultimately part of a major insurance company.

(Lewin Group is) part of Ingenix, which is owned by United Healthcare Group, the insurance behemoth that has been buying up insurance companies left and right, expanding its reach into just about every segment of the health-insurance market. Its flagship, UnitedHealthcare, helps make it the largest health insurer in the country. It’s a safe bet that United is not too keen on a public plan that might shrink its business.

The relationship is disclosed in the study and Lieberman turned up evidence indicating that there may be no formal protections in place for Lewin Group’s editorial independence. She wondered why journalists, particularly those behind a widely used AP story, did not provide readers with any information or context on Lewin’s insurance industry ties and called on reporters to remedy their error next time Lewin Group comes up.

http://www.healthjournalism.org/blog/2009/04/lewin-group-linked-to-private-insurers/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Thanks for the info. They are sleazy. m$nbc needs to hear that loud
and clear, especially tweety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC