Abbreviated Pundit Round-Up

Your one stop pundit shop.

Otis W. Brawley, the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society says:

On Monday, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force took a step backward in the fight against breast cancer. The task force announced that it would no longer recommend routine mammograms for women between the ages of 40 and 49, a group that accounts for about one out of six breast cancers.   [...]

We think the task force may underestimate mammography's lifesaving value. In 2003, an expert panel convened by the American Cancer Society conducted an extensive review of the data available then. Our panel reviewed data similar to that examined by the federal task force as well as recent and large population-based studies of modern mammography. Those studies show much stronger benefits from screening compared with the limited data examined by the task force. The task force also restricted its analysis to a certain kind of trial. While those trials are the strongest type, their use meant the panel was limited to reviewing an older body of evidence that underestimates the benefit of modern mammography.

... the American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40. The test is far from perfect, but it's the best way we have to find tumors early. How many lives are enough to make routine screening worth it?

Gail Collins has the laywoman's take on the 'breast brouhaha':

The report triggered two immediate and inevitable responses. Doctors and patients began an animated discussion. And Republicans declared it was all a Democratic plot.

“I mean, let the rationing begin. This is what happens when bureaucrats make your health care decisions,” said Representative David Camp, the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Representative Camp is definitely on to something. Whatever happens, we do not want the government conducting any studies on whether current health practices actually do any good. Let this continue and soon you will not be able to get your hands on a good leech when you need one.

There is no possible political advantage in coming out against medical testing, so the Obama administration scurried away from the report. The task force did not consider the matter of cost, but, of course, people like Representative Camp depicted it as the first step toward rationing. The current position of the Republican Party seems to be that it is not possible to spend too much money on medicine. Party on.

(Has anybody noticed that the people who darkly warn about government bureaucrats forcing insurance companies to cut back our coverage appear to be the same ones who just voted to force insurance companies to stop covering abortions? Where’s the sanctity of the marketplace when we really need it?)

Nicholas Kristof -- read it.

E.J. Dionne, on incompetence and obstructionism, asks:

... what do real Americans see? On health care, they read about this or that Democratic senator prepared to bring action to a screeching halt out of displeasure with some aspect of the proposal. They first hear that a bill will pass by Thanksgiving and then learn it might not get a final vote until after the new year.

Is it any wonder that Congress has miserable approval ratings? Is it surprising that independents, who want their government to solve a few problems, are becoming impatient with the current majority?

Democrats in the Senate -- the House is not the problem -- need to have a long chat with themselves and decide whether they want to engage in an act of collective suicide.  [...]

The extra-constitutional filibuster is being used by the minority, with extraordinary success, to make the majority look foolish, ineffectual and incompetent. By using Republican obstructionism as a vehicle for forcing through their own narrow agendas, supposedly moderate Democratic senators will only make themselves complicit in this humiliation.

Donald Lambro thinks that Markos is "fiery" and we're all his "devoted foot soldiers." Apparently Mr. Lambro isn't a fan of pie. Oh, and objecting to Democrats who align with the GOP is good news for the GOP.

Cal Thomas seems to have been afflicted with starburstitis, and says of Sarah Palin:

Still, if she is as bad as her detractors say, why are they wasting so much time dumping on her? One might think they would be cheering the prospect of her becoming the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, thus guaranteeing in their mind a second term for President Obama.

It's mocking, Cal, mocking. And I'm guessing that along with myself, millions of Democrats are cheering at the prospect.

Suzanne Fields has the same affliction as Cal Thomas. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Daniel Henninger says never mind about 9/11 -- that's old school terrorism -- because the Republicans have 13 dead soldiers that they can politicize.

Karl Rove says that once someone is in office, they must:

...  live with the consequences of a policy decision.

So, why isn't he in prison yet?