Arvanities: A Pink Slip For Congressman Frelinghuysen
Photos
October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM).*
Many of us buy products in the traditional pink, a percentage of profits going to cancer research organizations or to the NBCAM alliance. Nationally, there are fundraisers including marathon runs and walks for the cause.
Even the Giants and Jets get in the act padding their goalposts in pink. And of course all of us can contribute our time or money directly to organizations such as the American Cancer Society or Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure.
But most importantly, more American women will get the message and start a process that includes regular breast screenings.
The statistics are brutal: 1 in 8 women will develop invasive breast cancer in her lifetime with 1 in 36 succumbing to it, making it the second most deadly cancer for women, right behind lung cancer.
Thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Medicare and most private health plans now cover women’s preventive health care – such as mammograms and screenings for cervical cancer –with no co-pays or other out-of-pocket costs.
This means women can receive the services they need to detect or prevent breast cancer before it spreads or becomes fatal, without worrying about paying for these services out of their own pockets.
According to Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, more than 6 million women with Medicare received free mammograms last year because of the health care act that we now refer to as Obamacare.
The facts are clear: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a powerful tool that protects women and their families.
Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen voted against the Affordable Care Act. He is on record – as recently as an article published Oct 11, 2012 – supporting the Republican plan to abolish the Affordable Health Care Act.
The conclusion is obvious: Rodney Frelinghuysen does not have women’s best interests at heart and doesn’t deserve their vote.
Editor's note: We have decided to re-feature this blog post by Arvanites to provide a refresher for Nutley voters; Arvanites is the Democratic candidate for Congress in the 11th District. Election Day is Tuesday.
Jake Smith
12:22 pm on Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Another liberal making claims about a fake war on women. the only war on women comes from the left.
Bastiat
1:21 pm on Wednesday, October 17, 2012
" a bill that provides millions of women with free mamograms (sic)" Liberal's definition of free = someone else pays the bill while the government handles the money and slips a little something to its special interest friends. There is such a thing as a free mammogram or a free lunch
Mark Emerson
11:16 pm on Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Let me make sure I'm understanding the 2 comments above. A bill that allows woman to get important health screenings that could possibly save there lives and you guys are politicizing the issue. Maybe you haven't heard but cancer kills people. Many woman wouldn't get these screenings without the bill mentioned above. Maybe Jake Smith and Bastiat don't understand the importance of early detection of these cancers. I can only hope that no woman in your lives are ever get these cancers. So maybe you should think about what you are saying before you make some snide remarks about how this isn't an important issue for woman. It wasn't that long ago that these tests weren't covered at all by insurance. The men making the decisions didn't think it was important enough for woman to get this coverage. So yes it is a war on women when you try to alter the coverage for these tests. I've had woman in my life who benefited from early detection of breast cancer, Obviously you don't get it.
lhurley
12:24 pm on Thursday, November 1, 2012
Actually, it looks to me like YOU guys are the ones politicizing the issue. In fact, doctors are discovering more and more that mammograms do not detect many cases of breast cancer. Other cancer screening tests are the same. ANYONE can develop cancer BETWEEN screenings, especially since the GOVT. guidelines are increasing the time between screenings. Just because you have a screening doesn't mean you are not going to suffer from cancer. That has happened in my family as well. Do screenings catch some? Yes, but many more are not caught whether you have the false sense of security from the screenings or not. My larger question is, once someone is diagnosed with a cancer, is s/he going to receive top-notch treatment? Just because someone is covered by Obamacare or whatever does NOT mean s/he will receive adequate care, nor does it mean that people will all at once stop dying. Just ask those who have experienced centralized control over their healthcare.
Butterfly
11:59 am on Thursday, October 18, 2012
Frelinghuysen is also one of the Norquist signers. He belongs into retirement
Bastiat
11:35 am on Friday, October 19, 2012
Mark,
No one said this is not an important issue for women!
But it is also important to know that when the government pays for something it is NOT free and the associated rules and regulations stifle innovation and reduce everyone's freedom, that is the freedom of everyone except the political hacks doling out the bread and circuses.
montclairgurl
12:24 pm on Saturday, October 20, 2012
The act stipulates that private insurers and Medicare cover these screenings. This is about insurance covering basic preventive care, which could actually save money in the long run since it can be less costly to treat cancer in it's earlier stages. This has no impact on innovation or personal freedom, any more than covering the cost of Viagra prescriptions and screenings for prostate cancer.
John Lee
12:24 pm on Saturday, October 20, 2012
which regulations stifle innovation? would these be the regulations that were ignored and resulted in the peanut butter-salmonella outbreak? or are these the regulations that could have saved 20 lives (and counting) that have been taken because of the viral meningitis outbreak?
Barry
12:24 pm on Saturday, October 20, 2012
Bastiat,
This is not government controlled health care. The government is not paying for the mammograms, they are paid for by the insurance companies. To the extent that this provision may or may not result in some rate increase to the insurance, the idea is that with 30 million or so new people buying insurance, more companies will get into the market where competition will keep cost down. In any case, since you acknowledge that this is an important issue to women, and to all of us, doesn't it make sense to provide this care without cost at the time service is given so that more women will take advantage of it. We will save lives, and by the way, we will save a lot of money in the long run. It's called preventative care. It is not about political hacks.
\
i
lhurley
12:24 pm on Thursday, November 1, 2012
When gov't. regulations force insurance companies to cover a certain item, we ALL pay for it in higher insurance premiums, higher taxes, etc. whether we use the service or not. The insurance companies don't pay for these things WE THE INSURED do. I also want to see your studies that prove that "we will save a lot of money...preventative care." There is NO reliable, valid study that says that. In fact, studies say the opposite, "preventative care" does NOT save money. How could it when you are spending boatloads of money testing healthy people to tell them they are healthy, rather than treating sick people? Please, take your emotions out of this thing and rationally think this through, and, oh yes, it would be helpful if you actually read what was passed in this 2000+ page monstrosity. There is a LOT to really hate, very little to like.
WMB
4:09 pm on Friday, November 2, 2012
But failing to pay for screenings means things are not caught till they are emergency room serious, and then the cost for treatment (which still comes out of your pocket) is much higher.
So you would rather pay for emergency room visits than simple screening tests? (I know, you dont want to pay for emergency room visits either, just let them die on the street, and then pay for someone to collect the bodies)