Targeting Hadassah Lieberman
The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and affiliated Susan G. Komen for the Cure spearhead efforts to raise funds for and awareness of breast cancer. Joe Lieberman’s wife, Hadassah, has a compensated position as a “global ambassador.”
But Joe Lieberman doesn’t tow the leftist line on nationalizing health care, so Hadassah is being targeted in a campaign by Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake in reaction to an article by Joe Conason at Salon.com.
Hamsher is urging her readers to send a form letter to the Komen Foundation demanding that it terminate Hadassah. The letter, which Hamsher already has sent, reads in part:
It is widely known, however, that not only has Senator Lieberman been an instrument of obstruction to the kind of health care reform advocated by Susan G. Komen for the Cure, but that Mrs. Lieberman is also a former lobbyist for APCO Associates, which represents the interests of the same major, private health insurance and pharmaceutical companies which Mr. Lieberman seeks to protect.
Mrs. Lieberman’s relationship with Susan G. Komen for the Cure is unethical and misleading. Important and often very personal donations made to Susan G. Komen for the Cure to benefit the sick and dying are essentially undermining their intended use. And as Hadassah travels the globe under the banner of Susan G. Komen for the cure, decrying the inadequacies of our health care system and the desperate need to reform it, her husband is at home to kill the reform efforts we so desperately need.
Considering that cancer survival rates under the U.S. medical system exceed those under socialized systems, there is no truth or logic to Hamsher’s allegations that there is a correlation between Joe Lieberman’s positions and the health of cancer patients in the U.S. There also appears to be no truth to Hamsher’s allegation that the Komen Foundation supports the specific public option “reforms” opposed by Joe Lieberman, as Conason notes in his article.
But that is beside the point. Politicizing breast cancer is what we’ve come to in the fight by supporters of nationalized care to impose on the American public a system the majority of Americans do not want. And the fact that Hamsher is a breast cancer survivor is no excuse.
Add to it another nail in the feminist coffin. Since when is a woman to be deprived of her livelihood and her own professional accomplishments because of her husband?
So it’s a twofer.
Update: It also appears that Hamsher is wrong that Hadassah is a “former lobbyist.”
And, see Sister Toldjah, for a complete round-up: Targeting Hadassah Lieberman: Two-faced “feminism” strikes again
Dems to Lieberman: “You Lie”
10,000 Unnecessary Cancer Deaths (in Britain)
Grayson Death Number is Fiction
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
The lefties could not get Senator Lieberman out of the Senate so now they are trying to go after him through his wife. Never mind the falsity of feminism (which is something most women in this country realized decades ago-considering the majority of women would never consider themselves a feminist), how about just plain old vindictive hubris on the part of the left.
On the other hand, considering Susan Komen foundation would have acquiesed to the anti-semitism of the Egyptian government if not for conservtive bloggers who started a campaign against the Komen Foundation, I think Hadasah Lieberman should ask herself why stay connected to such a fatueous organization. They are not the only breast cancer foundation. I am sure she could find one that has some ethics.
I don't understand the associations here. Our government had a panel of "scientist" and "medical doctors" that determined that women should not examine their breast and that test to screen for cancer should be markedly reduced. Now in the current system, this type of advice is used for toilet paper. If the socialized system passes that is proposed, this type of advice would be the law of the land.
Joe is attempting to prevent socialized medicine and the consequences that it imparts, namely rationed care, long waits for procedures, people in Washington determining what is best for you and government panels deciding policy. Yet this organization is against Joe for preventing this blight. If this makes sense to someone, I need help.
Also note that they are using the same methods as in climategate.
One can only hope that the views of someone who uses these tactics will never have any currency and that those in elective office she supports will be soundly defeated. This isn't politics. This is the kind of predatory behavior some women employ that many of us decry as the kind thing that keeps women from being taken seriously. Step aside, sister.
Your link to US cancer survival rates besting EU rates is behind a subscription wall.
I assumed it was a nonsense claim that couldn't be born out, and you didn't. Figures.
@lately im lilac – don't know why that hyperlink now brings up the subscription log-in. Here is a public link that should work, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737. And here's the money quote from the article, which is titled "Cancer Survival Rates Improving Across Europe, But Still Lagging Behind United States": "New reports from EUROCARE suggest that cancer care in Europe is improving and that the gaps between countries are narrowing. However, comparisons with US statistics suggest that cancer survival in Europe is still lagging behind the United States. The reports are published online August 21 in Lancet Oncology and scheduled for the September issue …. Survival was significantly higher in the United States for all solid tumors, except testicular, stomach, and soft-tissue cancer, the authors report. The greatest differences were seen in the major cancer sites: colon and rectum (56.2% in Europe vs 65.5% in the United States), breast (79.0% vs 90.1%), and prostate cancer (77.5% vs 99.3%), and this "probably represents differences in the timeliness of diagnosis," they comment. That in turn stems from the more intensive screening for cancer carried out in the United States, where a reported 70% of women aged 50 to 70 years have undergone a mammogram in the past 2 years, one-third of people have had sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the past 5 years, and more than 80% of men aged 65 years or more have had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. In fact, it is this PSA testing that probably accounts for the very high survival from prostate cancer seen in the United States, the authors comment."
So sorry to disappoint you, but it is true that our medical system does a better job at detecting and treating cancers, including breast cancer.
Wow. Try to influence a politician's stance on an issue by creating conflict in the employer/employee relationship of the politician's spouse. What a tactic.
Let's say the foundation director decides to fire Mrs. Lieberman. Does Hamsher think Senator Lieberman will then change his position? No chance. I guess Hamsher will derive pleasure knowing she hurt someone close to a senator who may not share her political view.
What a vile, hateful, vengeful person.
Sorry, but still stats are misleading. Some cancer rates the US is lagging, and considering the unneeded testing and exposure to radiation done because of the unnecessary testing, who knows how many cancers are caused by the excessive US testing.
I have studied several sites and comparative study results. On most sites, two major reasons why US stats are higher: 1. Faster diagnosis and access to treatment. 2. Faster access to needed drugs. My brother was just spared a 6 week life expectancy from lymphoma through participation in a clinical trial to which the Lance Armstrong directed him. Also, remember all of our private treatment centers that do good research and treatment such as St. Jude's Hospital for children. These are not state run programs. It is a testament to private initiative, donation and commitment. Finally this 2009 article found at:
"One of the reports compares the statistics from Europe with those from the United States and shows that for most solid tumors, survival rates were significantly higher in US patients than in European patients. This analysis, headed by Arduino Verdecchia, PhD, from the National Center for Epidemiology, Health Surveillance, and Promotion, in Rome, Italy, was based on the most recent data available. It involved about 6.7 million patients from 21 countries, who were diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2006.
Survival was significantly higher in the United States for all solid tumors. The greatest differences were seen in the major cancer sites: colon and rectum (56.2% in Europe vs 65.5% in the United States), breast (79.0% vs 90.1%), and prostate cancer (77.5% vs 99.3%), and this "probably represents differences in the timeliness of diagnosis," they comment.
Further analysis of these figures shows that, in the case of men, more than half of the difference in survival between Europe and United States can be attributed to prostate cancer. When prostate cancer is excluded, the survival rates decreased to 38.1% in Europe and 46.9% in the United States. For women, the survival rate of 62.9% for all cancers in the United States is comparable to that seen in the wealthiest European countries (eg, 61.7% in Sweden, 59.7% in Europe), and the slightly higher survival in the United States was largely due to better survival for colorectal and breast cancer, the authors comment."
BuckJohnson – you would be surprised at how little radiation exposure is involved in most testing over against treatment options. If the current Health Care legislation had included a cap on legal settlements then excessive testing would diminish. Stats are open to interpretation and can be misleading but if you review them and their interpretation, you will find a great deal of similarity re cancer. Organizations who put their reputations on the line re their analysis should tell you that this is a serious effort that is not taken lightly and skewed for political or monetary gain. Visit the Lance Armstrong Foundation site and you will learn how Cancer will soon be the number one killer. Live in Europe for my care? Not. PS – environmental causes from their older infrastructure that deliver water; their limited areas of chemical and other hazardous waste disposal, etc. may be environmental "triggers."
Consider this, the amount of radiation exposure for the medical screening is likely less than the radiation exposure you receive in going through the new monitors at the airport used by the TSA. No one is protesting that exposure, which is likely as useless in finding terrorist as the whole screening process.
There is no CURE without healthcare reform!
I am a stage 3 breast cancer survivor who (under current health care law) is unable to get health insurance because of my "pre existing condition." Without insurance, breast cancer victims are unable to afford the aggressive and expensive treatments (CURES) that American medicine offers.
Susan G Komen employs Mrs. Lieberman as a Global Ambassador for Komen for the Cure. Senator Lieberman opposes every attempt to change the status quo. Mrs Lieberman proudly brings her husband to Komen events such as Race for the Cure (see photo on Hamsher's cite). In the aformentioned photo Mr. and Mrs. Lieberman are smiling and embracing each other while wearing their pink CURE t-shirts. What is wrong with this picture? It's very obvious to me and to any other breast cancer victim!!
I don't know what state you live in but I am in Louisiana. As poor as we are, somehow we are able to take care of our citizens. If you moved down here you could go to the charity hospitals and receive the very best of medical care. If you desired insurance, you could apply under our system and receive a policy. I know this as I had a similar situation occur with me as you indicate that you are experiencing. Lieberman is not opposing insurance reform. He is opposing socialization of our system. If this bill were to pass, you would not be treated for your breast cancer. As a physician, I know this and that is why we are opposing it.
I live in Georgia and insurers are allowed to refuse to sell me a policy under current federal and state law. I see that La. has a high risk pool. Georgia apparently does not.
I also notice that Congressman Cao (sp?) of Louisiana voted for the reform bill because his constituents supported it and because he felt it was the moral thing to do. Perhaps they do not feel (as you do) that Lousiana's health care system is fine just the way it is. ( By the way, currently, Louisiana ranks 47th in the nation in healthcare and 894,000 residents do not have health insurance.)
You may be a doctor, but I know for certain that I would be treated for breast cancer if this health reform bill were to pass. I would have to pay the same amount for insurance that any other individual my age has to pay–that's fine–I don't want charity; I expect to pay for insurance just like anyone else. I just don't want to be discrimated against based on the fact that I have had a life threatening disease.
You may not know that Senator Lieberman's state of CT is home to many large insurance companies. Over the course of his career, Lieberman has received 1,033,402 dollars from insurance companies and 2,395,369 dollars from the health care industry.
Some of what you say is indeed true. But let me phrase it a bit different. We are 47th in the nation in health, not healthcare. There is a big difference in concept. Most of our fine citizens are massively over weight, smoke, don't do much other than push the buttons on the remote control, have exceptionally bad genes with considerable inbreeding, have high blood pressue and diabetes for which they don't bother to take their meds. Now 894,000 people is a large portion of the state. They do have insurance in the form of medicaid or medicare. Those that do not qualify for either program go to the charity system that covers everyone. So yes, they do have a form of health coverage. If the bill passes, these same people will not sign up for its benefits as that would require too much effort on their part. I know what I am talking about here as I have to take care of these folks. Cao voted for the bill as he represents the lower ward of New Orleans. That is the individuals that you saw in the Katrina videos. They are exceptionally socialist and desire everything be given to them. As you noted, they would not do hardly a thing to care for themselves in the disastor. What you did not see was the other individuals in the conservative wards that were taking care of themselves.
I disagree with your concept of what the bill will cover. With a country the size of the US, it would be impossible to provide coverage for health issues without rationing. This is figured in and has been pointed out to us. Those individuals that have a recurring illness will not be covered, unless intially and then dropped as cost rise. Note also that most of what you pay in health care cost is for the hospital. The doctor gets only a small portion of the health dollar. That will change with socialized medicine and it will come in the form of medical unions. This is already in the planning stage.
Besides, with the taxes and other aspects of this bill our economy will come to and end. Note also that benefits do not start till 2014.
894,000 people in Louisiana are currently uninsured. That means they are not covered by Medicaid or Medicare or any kind of insurance. That is because insurance is either unavailable or unaffordable. 74% of these people work. 51% work full time.
I agree that escalating hospital costs need to be brought under control. I also agree that patients have a personal responsibility for their own well being. Should tort reform be a part of the answer? Absolutely. But only if insurance companies are regulated. Georgia has had tort reform in place for quite a while. Doctors have not seen a decrease in insurance costs and neither have patients. Insurers have been the only ones who have profited so far.
As I mentioned earlier, I just want to be able to purchase health insurance. Health insurance companies have deemed me unworthy of coverage.–I don't want insurance given to me, but under the current system, I can't even buy it!
I believe that you are right when you say that the country's health services will be strained if everyone is covered by health care. With so many currently uninsured, we will have to struggle until more doctors and P.A.'s can be trained to serve everyone. Is this a reason to refuse to insure people? Keeping the status quo is itself a form of rationing. Millions are left uninsured. Some people (those with good insurance) benefit from this.
Obesity and smoking are indeed the causes of much disease in Louisiana. Preventive care and education are forms of health care that may help stop some of these diseases of poverty. One of the problems with the current system is that many people don't receive health care until they are so ill that they have to go to the emergency room. That being said, people do have a responsibility for their own health.
David, do you honestly believe that our health care system is fine just as it is and that nothing needs to be done to reform it?
I don't think you understand me. Our system is not working. Cost are far higher than where they should be. But the very last thing that we need is more law from Washington. This bill is horrible. Did you know that it actually lifts the ceiling on malpractice awards that states have set in place? Regulation of the insurance companies could occur overnight with very simple laws. Obama and group will not do this as they are using a manufactured "crisis" to fundamentally change our government. Again, I seriously doubt the figure on uninsured in Louisiana and of those that I know are without insurance, it is out of choice. Another thing that has increased the cost of care in the Federal government. Their regulations have created a whole new industry attached to the billing process. Get the government out of the hospital and doctors lives and do simple regulation of insurance companies and the problem is solved. But that is not what Obama desires.
I guess we will have to agree on one thing: Our system is not working and has not been for many years. It's been interesting talking to you and I appreciate your civility.
David. I got it wrong. 1.3 million Louisianan's (sp?) are uninsured. Here's the link: http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/americans-at-risk/louisiana.pdf