About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Limbaugh likens breast cancer screening recommendations to "death panels"

November 18, 2009 1:18 pm ET

From the November 18 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (November 18, 2009 1:22 pm ET)
         
      Someone on Good Morning America this morning called it "the beginning of rationed care."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Major Tom (November 18, 2009 1:27 pm ET)
           
        Ann Coulter agreed with that sentiment on Beck's radio show today.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by rkcomments (November 18, 2009 1:27 pm ET)
        5  
        Bet Limbaugh thinks a lot about mammograms given the size of his 'man-boobs'.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (November 18, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
             
          I didn't know this until fairly recently but men can get breast cancer too. Don't know if it's relate to size though.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by progressiveright (November 18, 2009 1:27 pm ET)
         
      This is total stupidity. Big suprise from a man how tells his liteners to let him do their thinking for them.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (November 18, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
         
      Limbaugh likens breast cancer screening recommendations to "death panels"


      Limpy, I'll bet you liken diet and exercise recommendations to "death panels," too . . .

      Report Abuse
      • Author by toombsie (November 18, 2009 1:59 pm ET)
           
        Do you think Limbaugh checked with his doctor before taking all that viagra?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mjh (November 19, 2009 1:11 am ET)
             
          "Do you think Limbaugh checked with his doctor before taking all that viagra?"


          Which one?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by temphandle tearfully55timetable (November 18, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
         
      How low will this man go? I've heard some say this vile rhetoric is his radio persona, but I don't buy that excuse for a minute. Now he's invoking a horrible disease to further his hatred of Obama and Health care for millions of ppl. What a sick bunch of ppl., are all of listeners covered in medicare? have any of them been diagnosed with Breast cancer, or a family member or a close friend? Just when I think they can't get anymore twisted
      Report Abuse
    • Author by toombsie (November 18, 2009 1:57 pm ET)
         
      Do you think there are really people who can listen to this man every single day? He'd have to drive you crazy one day the more outrageous he gets.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (November 18, 2009 2:00 pm ET)
         
      The timing here is a tad suspect.

      A skeptical person might wonder if this change in opinion was due to cutting costs just incase the public option makes it into healthcare reform.

      Just sayin....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by rtwmd1230 (November 18, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
           
        The USPSTF is made up entirely of physicians and epidemiologists, none of whom are involved in legislation or financing regarding health care. It is one of the most independent (i.e., no funding by corporate interests) bodies you can find in medicine today.

        If anything, one can assume that the Obama administration would have preferred that this not come at this time.

        So, the timing is not suspect, but your intelligence is.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by liberalXtian (November 18, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
         
      Yes, it may ration care. Watch how our PRIVATE insurers start using these new guidelines to start denying coverage.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by peace4all (November 18, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
         
      actually if you want an example of a death panel try using the example of my wifes insurance company when they denied her breast cancer treatment because they considered it a pre-exsisting condition. now THAT is a death panel.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (November 18, 2009 2:56 pm ET)
           
        Or the insurance company of my young friend which has denied his treatment for a malignant blood disorder . . . TWICE.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by liberalXtian (November 18, 2009 5:02 pm ET)
             
          I have a very difficult time wrapping my head around the idea that a person could tell another human being that they are being denied payment for life saving treatment. Do they have any trouble going to church the next Sunday? Do they assume that the person will get care out of pocket? I guess making a person broke and homeless is less of a moral problem than a possible death sentence.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by MaineiacMan (November 18, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
        3
      Funny, I thought that Pres Obama said that prevention was going to be BIG thing in this health care bill. Didnt he say that prevention saves money in the long run? Now some government panel recommendsthat women wait 10 more years (until age 50) to start getting mammograms and then do it every other year instead of every year. Let the cost cutting & rationing begin!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (November 18, 2009 2:55 pm ET)
           
        This didn't have anything to do with Obama nor did it have anything to do with "cost cutting and rationing." These were RECOMMENDATIONS only . . . the panel further stated that the ultimate decision should be left to the doctors and their patients. Try LISTENING . . . it'll relieve a heckuva lot of stress.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by peace4all (November 18, 2009 3:02 pm ET)
           
        my god, did you even read the report? at least make an attempt at showing some sign of intelligence
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (November 18, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
         
      It was a RECOMMENDATION regarding routine screening . . . women and health care providers were also advised to do what was best for the patient.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by MaineiacMan (November 18, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
          3
        Do what is best for the patient? This is a recommendation to hold off on screening for breast cancer for 10 years! Is that what is best?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by peace4all (November 18, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
             
          did you read the report? yes, the panel thinks that it's best for women to wait. the reason is because if women get the tests in their 40's it leads to many false positives and can cause a lot of worry and unnecessary procedures which can be harmful to the woman.
          please do a little research before you post, it will make people take your opinion more seriously.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by MaineiacMan (November 18, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
              1
            I have. I have also read the original report in 1996.

            http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/Breastcancer/brcanrr.htm

            Why the change? Across the country, there are thousands of women in thier 30's and 40's whose lives have been saved because of early detection and you are worried about a false positive?

            You just keep believing what your government feeds you. I dont.

            Doesnt look like doctors are 'a-ok' with this 'recommendation' either. I'll trust doctors before I'll trust the governement.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by dadre (November 18, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
      1  
      Didn't we already tell rush that there is rationing of care under our current system...so why are people still projecting on reform if you have clear evidence that the current system has "death panels" then why are people like rush against reform? It makes no sense. It's like saying If I leave this burning building then I'm going to burn to death...no if you stay you will burn....leave the house. It reminds me of the old problems with factory waste. Individuals willing to damage someones health or allow them to die just so they can make a buck.
      Report Abuse