"Democratic health reform bills will not create 'nationalized healthcare' or a single-payer system.

More's the pity.

I lived in the UK for several years. My dear neighbor found out that she had breast cancer a year before we left. I had a love/hate relationship with the UK health system myself -- some of it was wonderful, other parts horrible, but everyone received care. Everyone. My neighbor received many different treatments, including mastectomy and reconstruction, endless chemo, & much much more. She died a few months ago. She & her husband had a few conversations with my husband and I about the differences between the health care systems. To test or not to test? Well, in the UK if you want an annual pap you can go outside the system to pay for it. If you're determined to have issues that require an annual you will get it. I had annual skin checks for skin cancer. Free, in spite of the fact that there were only 3 doctors doing the service in the public health system in Scotland. Ultimately this is not about which system is better for checks, surgeries, etc., so much as the fact that every citizen should have the same access to healthcare, period.

Someone like Ms. Myrick should not be able to comment on the UK public health system until she gets her facts straight by virtue of doing actual research, rather than spout b.s. GOP talking points. Is there any hope that a serious news media outlet (paper, television) will call these fools out?

In our reality, no one is proposing a Canadian or British-style system.

You can't be serious ! This is what it is all about and blather about "public option" fools no one.

ukwren, tell us about the five year survival rate for breast cancer in the US and UK.

How many women in Canada die of cancer because their health-care system impedes early detection ? I'd like to see some statistics on this, along with, perhaps, a response from the Canadian government officials responsible for their system. Just wondering, you know.

So, nine years ago she was diagnosed with cancer, and it was treated by here gov't sponsored program (she was a congeresscritter then, no?).

So, what's her point about gov't paid healthcare?

Let's not forget the amenable death rate, which is the statistic by which health care delivery is judged -- that is, the number of deaths/100K that could have been avoided if health care were available -- Canada's rate is better than US's, as is the UK's.

" Nine years ago, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. I knew something was wrong with my body -- but it took six doctors, three mammograms and one ultrasound before they finally they found my cancer. This process took only a few weeks. "

So, is she advocating government health care for everyone, since that is what she had at the time?

Try telling that to Crystal Lee Sutton, congresscritter Myrick. She had health insurance and cancer right here in the good old USA.
Oh, never mind, you can't.
She died on September 11th 2009 because her insurance company delayed authorization for treatment. Gah!

How many women in Canada die of cancer because their health-care system impedes early detection ? - rbe1

You're asking because all the women in the US without insurance coverage have such un-impeded access to early detection?

Hey, you conservative trolls. Yeah, you, the guys who actually work for the insurance companies and big pharma. When *you* start providing facts and figures for *your* claims (which you can't, since you're all lying through your teeth), then you can start insisting that the rest of us here provide such.

Until then, go take a long walk off a short peer.

Here. Let me fix that.

She died on September 11th 2009 because her PRIVATE insurance company delayed authorization for treatment.

Better?

ukwren, tell us about the five year survival rate for breast cancer in the US and UK.

Mike K., why don't you tell us about the five year survival rates in the U.S. for uninsured women who don't get regular mamograms or put off seeing a doctor about a suspicious lump because they are uninsured and cannot afford treatment.

And no, we aren't talking about government run health care. We're talking about extending health insurance benefits to the uninsured. Try to pay attention.

A government-backed public option, or even universal single-payer healthcare, in no different from the FDIC backing bank deposits and bank depositors.

Bank depositors (Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike) are the "potential patients" who might require medical attention, while their deposits in the banks are the assets which keep them from going bankrupt in paying for any medical attention.

Just like the FDIC regarding banks and deposits, Medicare and Social Security provides safeguards for the elderly in our society (Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike), with OUR democratically-elected government assuring their assets and health-coverage costs in their senior years, trying to keep them from going bankrupt and ending up dumpster diving for food or being left on the side of the road to die (Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike).

Which makes any right-wing arguments against Medicare, Social Security, universal single-payer healthcare and/or even a public option (or the FDIC) sound completely, stark-raving insane.

Our current corporate-friendly sickness-profiteering healthcare system bankrupts people and their families (Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike).

Our current corporate-friendly sickness-profiteering healthcare systems kills a whole lot of American citizens (Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike) and of all ages.

So, just like Glass-Steagall separated banks from investment houses after the stock market crashed in 1929, while at the same time the FDIC was established to guarantee that bank deposits were safe, essentially keeping the potential runaway greed of investors apart from real assets locked up in banks, OUR democratically-elected government needs to stop, or at least diminish, the influence of runaway greed that is so evident in our current corporate-driven sickness-profiteering healthcare system, which would benefit all U.S. citizens of whatever age (Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike).

We saw what unbridled, ravenous greed looks like during the Bush/Cheney years with almost every man, woman and child in America, Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike, suffering the consequences of this unbridled, ravenous greed, with only a small cadre of ultra-elites, the greedy ones, reaping the benefits of their unbridled, ravenous greed...just like in any Banana Republic or any other totalitarian, elitist-run regime.

Our children deserve better. All of our children (Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike).

I am so sick and tired of the lies being spewed by the right-wing idiots about the Canadian health care service. Basic health care includes testing for various cancers and if a problem is found, it is considered an emergency and is quickly treated. Everyone I know who has had cancer (or other serious conditions) got timely and appropriate care. And we don't have to worry about coverage or bankruptcy. We just have to concentrate on getting better. Well if that is socialism, I say bring it on!!

I've come to the conclusion that Republicans are just bad people. They lie, they are malicious, they are hateful, and they are hypocrites. The ones who claim Christianity are like the Bible's Pharisees, who pray loudly calling attention to themselves and their ostensible piety, but they spit on Christ, lacking empathy and compassion, and do their best to break this country down the middle in hopes that their half will be the slightly bigger one. In fact, some of them are reaching the level of domestic terrorists. How soon until they kill someone again, like they have on two occasions already? I'd say that I wouldn't pee on one of those Republican hypocrites if they were on fire, but that would make me have the morals of a Republican. We're better than they are, and that's a fact.

Shade Tail: "...go take a long walk off a short peer [sic]..."

Limbaugh's pretty short, I think; maybe he'd work.

In our reality, no one is proposing a Canadian or British-style system.

Maybe they should be. But I'm getting very pissed off about these slurs on the rest of the world going pretty much unchallenged, even here.

Costs:
Per capita health spending, Canada: $2931 (#7)
Per capita health spending, US: $5274 (#1)
Source, World Health Organization, via nationmaster.com

Results:
Life expectancy at birth, Canada: 81.16 years (#8)
Life expectancy at birth, US: 78.14 years (#47)
Source, CIA World factbook, 2008, via nationmaster.com

Canada is surely making mistakes in their health care, but we are surely making more mistakes, else our life expectancy would not be three years shorter, especially not given how much we spend.

Reform critics, if you have something to say, I'd like numbers, citations, and links -- otherwise, you're just wasting time, wasting money, and arguing on the side of killing people (3 years before their time, according to real world measurements). If saving money and lives were that important to the right, they would be falling all over themselves to institute a system like Canada's (or France's, or Australia's). That they do not, says lots about what's really important to them.

A small, but important semantic correction: Medicare is not government run health care, it's government run health insurance. The doctors, hospitals are still outside of the government, either for profit or non-profit, usually privately owned. And no one is proposing that Medicare start buying clinics and hospitals.

Steve, do you read these comments?

Extremely disappointed that you couldn't do better than "In our reality, no one is proposing a Canadian or British-style system.", in response to Myrick's first and biggest lie.

Do I have to pull out the anecdotes again? Do some research, Steve. Canada does not impose unnecessary delays on treatment for life-threatening conditions.

Whatever advantages the US system might have over that of other country's can only be enjoyed by the very wealthy. It doesn't look as if Obamacare is going to change this. Canada may not have this mythical sliver of platinum care that the US defenders boast about, but we come pretty damn close and, more to the point, we give everyone access.

I expect idiotic arguments from the wingnuts and the corporate status quo, but I'm flabbergasted by the apathetic mewlings from the liberal side of the argument.

So if you and your fellow citizens get some half-assed reform that still leaves people unprotected or courting bankruptcy, don't blame the right wing. They are in the minority. Blame yourselves, American liberals, for not fighting harder when the opportunity arrived.

Mortality rates are meaningful and comparable between counties. "Survival" rates, for a number of reasons, simply are not. Anybody quoting the latter to make a point is either ignorant or engaging in deliberate deception.

The Democrats should be doing a weekly response to speechs like Myrick's, immediately following the weekly Republican Lieing Time.

Myrick's comments about delay are medically astute, but in practice they undermine her argument (if she had one). Every time a test or treatment is postponed an average of 45 days -- into the next earnings reporting quarter -- someone at an insurance company gets a bigger bonus. And things are getting worse very quickly: nine years ago I would not have thought my doctor would yield to insurer pressure to fudge my diagnosis and delay my treatment; today I think he probably would, unless I were vigilant in insisting upon standard of care.

"Under the government-run healthcare system they have in Canada and the United Kingdom, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to get those tests so quickly"

Bullshit. Canada does not delay emergency diagnostic tests. In an extreme example, does anyone think that a person having a car accident would wait months for a head CT scan?

There is a tiny bit of evidence that SOME diagnostic tests, like some imaging, do have slightly longer waits than in the US. But that data is by no means consistent, nor conclusive, nor a non-controversial conclusion.

Japan's system hands out MRIs like they are candy, you get them for anything, and they cost just a couple hundred bucks. (With no ionizing radiation, they are considered risk-free). Here in the US, they can cost a *self-pay* patient from $1,000-$8,000. (And I personally have been waiting for months and months to see a specialist in San Francisco).

There might be some gray areas between *emergency* and routine diagnostic testing, but Canada uses a triage concept (I've read) to determine access to some scarce resources.

"Extremely disappointed that you couldn't do better than *In our reality, no one is proposing a Canadian or British-style system.*, in response to Myrick's first and biggest lie"

I think that is because Mr. Benen tries fastidiously to stay on message. And his (and his political team's) most important point, deemed most effective by PR pros, is to reassure idiots that we're not imposing Canadian or British systems. (The same problem occurred with the liberals when they effectively legitimize and accept Republican framing for foreign policy and terrorism, either through laziness or trying to forge a middle, acceptable ground).

If SOMEBODY was playing hardball, on Tuesday morning, Representative Myrick's Capitol office would have a few dozen women from Meckelenberg and Gaston County, wearing pink ribbons and armed with statistics about how long uninsured women in her district have to wait for the treatment that saved the Congresswoman's life. No, they wouldn't have an appointment. Yes, there would be TV cameras.

this mythical sliver of platinum care.

I think it's known as CheneyCare among the elites.

You seem to use an inordinate amount of verbiage, Steve, to say that a Republican is obviously full of shit, particularly when such things are simply a given nowadays.

Speaking of uninsured, how many breast cancers were missed due to the Urban Health Initiative ? Michelle earned every penny of that $300,000 salary.

So Mike K lost the argument, and to salve his wounded pride he attacks Michelle Obama as if she's responsible for the state of our health care.

Stay classy, conservative.

Yes Mike K, how many? Do you have any figures or facts? If not, just STFU. or is it just the usual sly innuendo?

BTW, what sort of medical insurance do you have?

Mike K: "You can't be serious!"

Speak only for thyself, impertinent fool. What thou knowest about health care in Her Majesty's realm would fit in a robin's egg, with ample space still for the tiny hatchling. Now, bugger off.

You can't be serious ! This is what it is all about and blather about "public option" fools no one.

ukwren, tell us about the five year survival rate for breast cancer in the US and UK.

Posted by: Mike K on September 19, 2009 at 2:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------

"In fact, a 2008 report in the British Journal of Cancer examined survival rates for women in England and Wales diagnosed in the late 1990s, finding that their five-year survival rate was 80 percent. The report said that "[b]reast cancer survival rose rapidly and significantly during the 1990s" and predicted that the rate would be 80.9 for those diagnosed in 2000-2001. Data from the U.K.�s Office of National Statistics show a large increase in five-year survival rates: Those diagnosed in 1991-1993 had a 68.2 percent rate, while those diagnosed in 2001-2003 had an 80.3 percent rate. Rates in the U.S. have been increasing, too, but at a much slower rate: For those diagnosed in 2001, the five-year survival rate was 89.8, according to the National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/a-false-appeal-to-womens-fears/

Mike K: "Speaking of uninsured, how many breast cancers were missed due to the Urban Health Initiative? Michelle earned every penny of that $300,000 salary."

Has anyone ever told you that when it comes to debate, you're a limp-dicked coward? Well, then, consider it done.

A striking death-per-minute ratio

Steve linked to this story yesterday: Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance.
We are talking here about the results of an article in a refereed science journal:

Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

They want death panels... GIVE THEM DEATH PANELS.
One death in every 12 minutes.
That's the system we have right now: 45,000 deaths a year.
Can every democrat please memorize that?
Can we make it a meme?

I mean really...

We have been given statistics that defy comprehension.
These numbers are so offensive they demand us to use them offensively...

Here's your meme, Koreyel: It's the equivalent of a 9/11 event every 3.5 weeks.

Speaking of uninsured, how many breast cancers were missed due to the Urban Health Initiative ?

Uh, they don't generally have a mammography machine in the emergency room, so I think most emergency rooms miss breast cancer. You did notice that the article you linked to was specifically about the emergency room at the University of Chicago and not cancer care, right?

Keep in mind, a huge percentage of anti-reform trolls are actually sock puppets for employees of the insurance or big pharma industries. These are paid shills who deliberately poison the discourse with lies, innuendo, and fear mongering.

Proof that this country is fucked:

Tens of millions of Americans who have no insurance pay taxes that are then spent to provide health insurance for members of Congress who will fight to the death any attempt to expand health insurance to those same uninsured taxpayers.

ukwren, tell us about the five year survival rate for breast cancer in the US and UK.

Mike, tell us about the survival rate for respiratory disease in the U.S. compared with the other OECD countries. Actually don't bother, let me tell you:

In terms of respiratory diseases, the United States ranks 24th out of 30 countries, with twice as many people dying from respiratory diseases in the United States compared with the top-ranked countries, France, Switzerland, and Italy.

If we're cherry-picking health outcomes, that certainly isn't good, is it?

How about infant mortality, Mike? How does the U.S. rank there? Not good. Life expectancy? How come people in all those socialist countries live much longer than we do? What about deaths from medical errors? The U.S. is the third worst offender out of 30 countries. And we haven't even begun to factor in the cost dimension in these arguments.

The U.S. is number one in the world in oncology, no question -- so idiots like you go on television and pretend that health care is made up of nothing but oncological results to fool the public. Meanwhile, we're getting our asses kicked in other areas and fewer and fewer Americans have health insurance each year, and fewer and fewer Americans have adequate health insurance each year.

All for the bargain basement price of up to three times what other countries pay to provide equivalent care.

If no signifigant health care reform passes this year, it will be at least as much the fault of democrats as republicans. Republicans simply don't care what liberals or democrats have to say about their policies: those speeches aren't for us. However, what we have to say about democratic proposals on the table might conceivably make some difference. (Either that, or the democratic party is hopelessly corrupt - unfortunatley, a real possibility.) Lets stop the pointless criticisms of vapid republican rhetoric which doesn't acccoplish anything, and start pressuring democratic lawmakers to pass something worthwhile.

The U.S. is number one in the world in oncology, no question -- so idiots like you go on television and pretend that health care is made up of nothing but oncological results to fool the public.

No, I don't go on television but I know that things you can measure are less likely to be pure bullshit. Sorry for the obscenity.

"...Our children deserve better. All of our children (Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike)..."-Oracle

"...I've come to the conclusion that Republicans are just bad people. They lie, they are malicious, they are hateful, and they are hypocrites..."-eclectic

What oracle just doesn't get is that the current republican party is no longer part of the equation. Thanks to FOX and hate radio they have been cultivated into the sickest of America and our covertly used to do the bidding of the wealthiest Americans. Hypocrisy is their main manifestation, only believing in "Democracy" when they are in power shouting things like "Country First" while telling the majority they don't represent "real" America.

They have become so vile and hate filled that they cheer at the idea of assassination as long as it is a democratic president. They cheer at the idea of a petty representative yelling out "you lie" at an address by the president to both houses of congress.

They hold a rally claiming a period when all Americans forgot their differences and came together united to help heal America's wounds after being attacked on 9/11 which became a march on Washington to condemn, threaten and divide our nationl...saying NOTHING about coming together...nothing about understanding or working together...just divisiveness and insults showing the worst of America and promoting fear and hatred and violence. One stupid even brought a huge sign saying "this time we came without our guns". I hope next time they do bring their guns and their (indoctrinated)children...we wouldn't want to miss any on them. 70-100,000 against the tens of millions of Americans that oppose them.

It is naive to fail to recognize just how detrimental the republican party has become to our democracy. They offer nothing, they bring nothing but divisiveness and a return to serfdom. They are no longer a part of our democracy. They obstruct and impede the progress of our nation at every turn and are willing to use violence to regain corporate power over our government. They are enemies to our democracy who are trying to bring us down.

Hitler knew this: Make sure there is high unemployment; rob the treasury; drive people from their homes so the wealthy need protectors;(the people are not only angry but desperate) and then give the people someone to blame it all on.

The current republican party with leaders Beck, Hannity and Rush (all millionaires) are destroying our democracy for fun and profit. Just look at what they've cultivated...tea baggers. They are making it "us or them" and the majority is always wrong unless it agrees with their minority...that's their version of democracy.

Republicans are hypocrites and failures intent on making sure that if they fail then everyone else must fail also.

Okay, this really pisses me off. An employee at my work had serious hypertension. He's sitting down, dizzy and short of breath. He refuses to go to the ER because he can't afford it. He's eligible for company provided health insurance, but he didn't sign up because he can't afford $150 per month for his portion of the premium.

But, wait. It gets better. Because he's a seasonal employee, he would have to pay $650 per month while he's laid off to keep his coverage for the three months he's off. Well, he sure can't afford that.

At my company, if the average hourly worker elects to enroll herself, her spouse, and children in our health insurance plan, she can expect to pay 27% of her gross income on insurance premiums. Throw in three months of COBRA at $4,800 for her seasonal lay-off and now 53% of her income is devoted to insurance premiums. Needless to say, most do not enroll.

If these people have shortened life spans because they cannot afford good health care, that's okay according to Mike K and his GOP. Talk about your fucking death panels.

Strongly agree with Henry Lewis (and in part with Flubber--don't pretend to know SB's motives).

Difficult as it can be, it's vitally important to try to combat *all* the lies that Republicans manage to pack into a single statement. Going after only one one of them, implicitly concedes the truth of the others. Spmething like this is needed: "Present proposals are not for a UK or Canadian style system, which are in fact better by many measures than what we have now--a further argument that we need to do something."

After all, it is in good part because we do so poorly by comparison with all comparable countries that we need to act. If it really were the case that, as is constantly claimed, we have the best system in the world, the case for action would be far less urgent.

No, I don't go on television but I know that things you can measure are less likely to be pure bullshit

Sorry the statistics just gutted your argument, that has to be really embarrassing when you pose as an authority on the issue.

Speaking of things you can measure, you were claiming here a few weeks ago contra shortstop that 20,000 weren't dying due to lack of health insurance, and you called her claim "bullshit" as well.

Now the latest study is showing that more than twice that number die every years in the US due to lack of insurance. Man, there is nothing you won't lie, prevaricate, or be wrong about, is there?

Why would anyone want a physician who lies about access to health care, lies about deaths resulting from access to health care, and puts Republican party politics ahead of the health and well-being of patients?

Here in America we aren't scared of things that actually kill people, we are only afraid of LOSING OUR FREEDOM. So while tens of thousands of us die from lack of health care, obesity, drunk driving, smoking, heart disease, car accidents, etc etc etc we are willingly manipulated by our for-profit corporations to fight for their right to wring every penny out of our bank accounts and keep us as virtual slaves with low wages and no benefits.

All they have to do is pay a lot of money to a PR firm to try and figure out how moving jobs offshore, maintaining the criminally negligent health care system, busting unions, closing factories, giving tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of social programs etc etc etc is actually MAINTAINING OUR FREEDOM.

Anyone who is trying in any way to do anything for the working people in this country is immediately attacked for TRYING TO TAKE YOUR FREEDOM. The sad thing is they are getting better and better at it and it always works. Americans are suckers for the word freedom and will fight to the death, ironically, to maintain a freedom that is a complete and utter illusion.

Getting more than tired of comments, from people with no obvious knowledge of either the UK or Canadian health care system, making stupid, stupid, statements.
I know both -plus the US system -and I know where I want to be if I become ill-not the USA.

In the USA, if you have the money, money,money, you can have deluxe treatment. My (then)6 year old son's 'greenstick' fracture cost $900 (20 years ago-a bargain) . The Ventolin inhaler relacement-$80 (1994)-cost in UK $7!!!
My brother-in-law broke his ankle while visiting in Canada-the ortho in Washington DC had nothing but praise about his treatment-however, his insurance company denied him physio!!
While living in the UK, on turning 45, I received an automatic appointment for a mammogram-and a yearly medical check at a 'Well Woman's Clinic'.
Explain to me how Americans would not envy and crave that

"No, I don't go on television but I know that things you can measure are less likely to be pure bullshit. Sorry for the obscenity."

Typical. The little boy got his ass burned and so refuses to even try to address the points brought up. Anyway, there was no need to apologize for the obscenity. Your brazen ignorance and dishonesty are far more offensive.

Tell me, child. Are you one of the insurance sock-puppets I mentioned above, or are you one of the "honest" idiots who got convinced by them?

What I'd love for someone to find out, is what kind of coverage and benefits Rep. Sue Myrick would get if she were no longer a public employee and wouldn't have any access to any spousal benefits if she were married.

Would she be denied coverage? Would the premiums for the individual coverage be exorbitant. Would the breast cancer be considered a pre-existing condition so any follow up symptoms would not be covered?

Actually, I would love that for every elected official with government benefits, that they would get several anonymous quotes of what they'd get if they were subject to the whims of private insurance. What would happen if they were reduced to COBRA coverage? Would kind of coverage would they get on the individual market?

A huge influence on survival from breast cancer (and many other cancers) is the type of cancer cell, presence of hormone receptors, etc., which determines the aggressiveness and treatability of the tumor. Delay in diagnosis for weeks or even a few months rarely makes a difference in outcome. If you've got the wrong cancer, you're not as likely to have a good outcome.

But complete lack of access to care for years does kill. And that's the problem we face - convenience for the lucky ones with adequate insurance, and death for some of those without.

Of course they keep lying. They have nothing else. They haven't had anything else for 50 years. From a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam, to Reagan's version of trickle-down, supply-side economics (the two-Santas lie), to privatizing Social Security, to any one of a thousand lies the GOP has been telling for 50 years..all they CAN do is lie. On the evidence, anyway. They lose every time on actual policy.

The GOP decided to lie its way into power at the end of the Eisenhower administration. I suspect ol' Dwight knew what was coming too. He knew what kinds of crap and swill the Goldwater wing was spewing.

Until Americans finally get just smart enough to understand that the GOP has been lying its collective ass off for 50 years, we will keep dealing with this craziness, and people will keep dying as a result.

This is also why Obama should have risked insurance company propaganda and the biggest hissy-fit of all time, to push for Medicare-for-all and surtaxes to pay for it. Mainly on the rich. Hell, raising the tax on investment income would probably pay for much of any Medicare-for-All system.

Obama is a coward. Rahm is a gutless, corrupt ward-heeler, who, in the immortal words of Hunter S. Thompson, should be stuffed in a bottle and sent out on the Japanese current. Those two sacrificed the best chance for true Universal, Affordable, Quality medical care for all Americans on the altar of re-election, and if there were a Hell, they'd spend eternity in one of the lower circles just for that act of pure selfishness.

You GO LL...the little fact this lying b-word forgot to tell you, is that she has HEALTH INSURANCE!!! DO go to church tomorrow and pray, you horrible idiot.

trex: The U.S. is number one in the world in oncology, no question

I did a little more research and I have to qualify my earlier claim about the U.S. being number one in oncological outcomes. It turns out that in a number of specific cancers, treatment in the U.S. leads to lower survival rates than in other western countries.

The U.S. is still number one overall, but as Joe B. pointed out it really matters what kind of cancer you get.

"I knew something was wrong with my body" -

I have to question even her statements about her own treatment.

I have early-stage breast cancer. Early-stage cancer presents as a lump you or your doctor can feel, or on a routine mammogram. There are no general, systemic symptoms. You don't know "something is wrong with my body." You feel fine.

Anyone experiencing general, systemic symptoms would be diagnosed with late-stage, terminal/inoperable cancer. IOW, she'd be dead by now.

Her statements imply that she didn't feel a lump, she just felt bad in some way, and then demanded tests which resulted in a diagnosis of breast cancer.

Doesn't sound right to me.

I'd also like to point out that breast cancer is frequently brought up by conservatives who'd like us to believe that U.S. care is the "best in the world." In fact, breast cancer is (according to my oncologist) one of the very few diseases where U.S. outcomes are among the best in the world.

So if you wonder why they keep bringing up breast cancer, that's why.

On her web site there is a link that says, "Sue says No to Government Healthcare'. We all should email her and ask if this means she have given up the health care provided her by her government job!

As a 57 y.o. Federal government employee I have health insurance under the Federal Employee's Group Health Benefits Program, just as Rep. Myrick does. I now realize how good it is. I pay 27% of the full premium ($167.00 a month) for a plan that does not exclude pre-existing conditions, and no recissions allowed. I have never had a claim or procedure denied, because under the government's contract any insurance denials are subject to a final arbitration by the Federal Office Of Personnel Management in accordance with the contract the insurance carrier signed as a condition of their participation in the program.

When I retire (and I am eligible now) I will be able to keep my group insurance at the same premiums with the same benefits.

Each year there is an "Open Season" where I can change plans if I am dissatisfied and again there are no health questions asked and no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. I have a choice of 9 nationwide plans (these plans cover all enrollees throughout the U.S.) and a choice of about 11 regional plans. Some of the insurance companies participating in the program such as United Health Care, are the same companies that are rescinding non-Federal private policies because the company profit margin is threatened when a policyholder develops a chronic medical condition.

The premiums for these plans are the same for all age groups -- there is no age rating. One of the lower cost plans offers family coverage (which covers all members of your family) for about $333 a month. The employee or federal retiree pays a premium of $111.00 A MONTH! All this and no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. (This would be a good start for a nationwide public option).

Now of course all of these plans have co-pays and deductibles, but they are reasonable. And, there is a yearly limit on out-of-pocket expenses, usually $2,500 - $5,000. And the plans do not have a lifetime limit on paymements.

Of course, the insurance companies that participate in the government program must limit their profits in order to become part of the program. But, there is no shortage of health insurance companies competing to be part of the Federal Employees Health Insurance Program.

I believe health insurance can work and work well if the companies are subject to the same conditions as the insurance companies in the Federal Government program -- no exclusions for pre-existing condition, no recissions, no age ratings for premiums, and real competition.

To see more about how the Federal Employee's Health Benefits Program works go to www.opm.gov/insure/health.

lot about you