by Jerry Agar

Obama says that that the government needs to be responsible for our health.  Should they also be responsible for our death?

The AP reports, "A government task force said that most women don't need mammograms in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50 — a stunning reversal and a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position. What's more, the panel said breast self-exams do no good, and women shouldn't be taught to do them."

A report in the NY Times finds that cancer was found 33,800 times "among women aged 40 through 49 last year. Furthermore, when curable breast cancer is found in younger women, it results in more years of life saved, including lives of women with young families."

The Illinois Policy Institute's Executive Vice President, Kristina Rasmussen shared her story with me:

 I found a lump when I was 17, and a biopsy proved inconclusive. So I had the lump removed surgically. Turned out to not be cancer. But I wouldn't have known that without direct intervention. When someone tells me to back off of breast cancer health and screenings, I get mad. I was one of those "false positives" that "gunk up" the system from "too much testing" -- I'm sure glad that I got tested and treated. I wouldn't have it any other way for any other woman.

The panel's recommendation to Rasmussen would have been to just not bother doing self exams, and then, supposedly, there would have been nothing to worry about.

Rasmussen recommends health savings accounts (HSAs) which allow women to make their own choices about their own health care.  "If I want to spend my money on a mammogram - or not - that is up to me.  I have my best interests at heart." 

In response to a bureaucracy running the numbers and deciding on "acceptable" death tolls, Rasmussen said, "The women of America should not be collateral damage."

Karen Palasek, of the John Locke Foundation, writes that this is all about money.  "By reducing timely detection of breast cancer the federal government will save many dollars, both up front (in mammography and diagnostic consultation costs), in denial of treatment for cancers "too far gone," and for patients too old to justify the extraordinary expense and physical demands of treatments for advanced breast disease."

Palasek also notes, "Do we think the wives and family of federal officials -- the president's wife, legislators, and other federal officials -- will be bound by this new restriction? Don't make me laugh (or cry)."

Those people who have government insurance because they can afford nothing else will be captive to these kinds of bureaucratic decisions. 

The AP quotes Amber Smart, "I think it's kind of sad that they're basically saying, 'We can't afford to pay for the few people who may have it in their 40s, so a few people are going to die,'" Smart said.

Bureaucrats deciding on life and death based on federal money.  Kind of sounds like a death panel, doesn't it?