So ask him if he misspoke. This thing has been gaining velocity for three or so days now and Collins hasn't done anything to counter it.
Hochul campaign rips quote out of context to try and slur opponent
Submitted by Howard Owens on July 3, 2012 - 3:22pm
The Kathy Hochul campaign just released the following statement:
“Chris Collins has demonstrated a stunning lack of sensitivity by saying, ‘people now don’t die from prostate cancer, breast cancer, and some of the other things.’ Tragically, nearly 70,000 people will die this year from these two types of cancer alone. We can disagree about public policy without making these kinds of outrageous and offensive statements."
That's the statement, with no reference to the source nor the full quote so people could judge the context for themselves.
The original source is The Batavian (both as a courtesy to The Batavian and as a matter of complete transparency, the Hochul campaign should have included this fact in its release).
Here's the full quote from Collins:
"People now don’t die from prostate cancer, breast cancer and some of the other things," Collins said. "The fact of the matter is, our healthcare today is so much better, we’re living so much longer, because of innovations in drug development, surgical procedures, stents, implantable cardiac defibrillators, neural stimulators -- they didn’t exist 10 years ago. The increase in cost is not because doctors are making a lot more money. It’s what you can get for healthcare, extending your life and curing diseases."
On its face, the opening part of the quote from Collins sounds outrageous, but in context, clearly, Collins misspoke. More likely, he meant to say. "Fewer people die from prostate cancer, breast cancer and some of the other things."
That's not what he said (I taped the interview and the original quote as published is accurate), but the rest of the quote clearly explains the larger point he is trying to make, which is that medical advances have driven up the cost of healthcare.
To rip this quote out of context and try to use it to paint Collins as some sort of insensitive boob is the kind of below-the-belt, negative campaign tactic that keeps people from being engaged in the process and casting intelligent votes. Frankly, I think of Kathy Hochul as somebody who is more dignified than this sort of mudslinging.
lol @ using "insensitive boob" in an article.
It gave me a good laugh after a long day. Thanks
Trust me Micheal, once the PACs and candidates pick up steam, I think we are going to have many laughs this season.
Show me a candidate that has never mispoke, and I will show you someone who can walk on water.
I think Collins is an idiot. You think maybe he would have called you and mentioned this at some point in time? He probably misspoke, but he -actually- doesn't give a damn about it either way.
Of course, that's going to change sometime this evening and the damage is already done.
This is what politics has become, a battle of half truths. I wouldn't hold your breath, I'm sure Collins will release something similarly untrue. The plan is to vilify your opponent as uncaring, liberal, un-American, Socialist, Communist or worse a Muslim. This is the game plan that is destroying our political system.
Kathy Houchel is better than this, she should stay above it.
I guess it took less than 1 year in office to show she is the same as most politicians by taking something clearly out of context.
Actually, I am kind of dissapointed in her, the one thing I really liked about her was that she avoided the sewer and kept to the issues whther I agreed with her or not, I did respect that. This is just another example of how politics these days corrupts
Wow this is not a Hochulgasm coming from you Howard. Maybe there is a speckle of journalistic integrity in you, rather than being a partisan hack
You know all people have to do is address issues and they would clearly see that Chris Collins is a hack. You don't need this.
You know what's wrong with this system though? Watch how many Republicans that voted for Bellavia will now vote for Collins just because he has an R. Just like Romney.
This showed that Hochul is not that much different, she'll do anything to get elected. And while many will vote for Collins only because he is a R, many will vote for Hochul only because she is a D.
True, which just illustrates further why our current system is a joke.
You got coverage on WGRZ, channel 2, out of Buffalo, today on Hochul's stunt.
You made WIVB on channel 4 this evening as well
Howard - How is this ripped out of context? If he misspoke, why didn't you ask him to clarify his answer? This isn't mudslinging, it's holding a candidate accountable for what they've said.
I also don't think you did a disservice to anyone by writing that article, you gave Collins a fair chance to explain himself and he did. What perplexes me is that you're trying to walk back what he said instead of letting him accept responsibility for himself.
Tuesday evening Collins sent out another statement:
"As the brother of a breast cancer survivor, I am grateful for the medical advances that saved my sisters life, which would not have been possible a generation ago. I find it troubling that Kathy Hochul would politicize the seriousness of cancer."
This should never have even come up, Chris Collins should never have had to even comment further on it, and the Hochul camp should never have tarnished themselves by pointingh out what even the simplest of minds can see was a mere slip of the tonque.
If a race isn't about REAL issues, then why bother even voting.
Writing in David Bellavia is becoming more and more attractive an option.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Collins' sister probably had health insurance and early detection may well have increased her chances of survival. Not all women are so lucky and many uninsured cannot even afford a basic mammogram. Maybe he should not only be thankful for the medical advances that saved his sister's life but also thankful that it was detected early enough that he can now call her a survivor. Many aren't so lucky. Preventative healthcare, which is stressed in the health care law that he vehemently opposes, will save many lives so many others can also call themselves survivors.
Yes Mark - I am aware there are many programs like that one but they do not reach every woman in the country and there are both age and income guidelines. For instance, in Texas, to qualify, a woman must be:
• Low-income (at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines).
• Uninsured or underinsured
• Age 40 – 64 years for breast cancer screening and diagnostic services
• Age 21 – 64 years for cervical cancer screening services
• Age 18 – 64 years for cervical cancer diagnostic services
Women over the age of 64 do get breast cancer.
Do you actually think Beth that the AHC is going to change the numbers of those tested.
The hard truth is, that there is a limit to how many test can be performed, so at some point criteria is going to have to be established to determine who gets tested. That is where the criteria actually came from, the numbers were not arbitrary but based on need vs availability.
That is inherhently the problem with a one size fits all approach to healthcare. That is also why, the 5 year survival rate for all cancers is 66% in the US and a paultry 47% in Europe. (Journal of Onocolgy)_
When test are offered enmass without regard to symptom or prior history, those truly in need of the test are potentially sidelined, so in essence, a law or program intended to enhance access in fact reduces access to those who truly need.
Heredity and lifestyle no matter how much anyone would like to say differently are the markers for all cancers, blanket enmasse testing is not only the most costly approach, but the most inefficient. (BTW, I am not a Collins Supporter)
EDIT: Corrected number, the90% survival rate was for Breast cancer NOT all cancers which is 66% Still far better in US than Europe and other universal HC countries
Beth, you should read the governments final guidelines on breast cancer screening and prevention.
When the health care law was passed, I read it.
One of the many things that jumped out at me was the bill's creation of 3 agencies within the DHHS: the United States Preventive Health Services Task Force (USPSTF), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC).
I googled each one and found that websites already existed for each and signed up to receive automatic updates from each agency.
From the USPSTF website:
"The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) systematically reviews the evidence concerning both the benefits and harms of widespread implementation of a preventive service. It then assesses the certainty of the evidence and the magnitude of the benefits and harms. On the basis of this assessment, the USPSTF assigns a LETTER GRADE (emphasis added) to each preventive service signifying its recommendation about provision of the service."
From the NGC website:
"The NGC is a public resource for evidence-based clinical practice guidelines".
From the AHRQ website:
"The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) mission is to improve the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of health care for all Americans. As 1 of 12 agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, AHRQ supports research that helps people make more informed decisions and improves the quality of health care services. AHRQ was formerly known as the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.
Research: Approximately 80 percent of AHRQ's budget is invested in grants and contracts focused on improving health care."
The letter grades assigned to a preventive or clinical service are VERY important. Only services that are assigned an A or B are recommeded to be covered by insurance either as basic preventative care or clinical care for a specific disease or condition.
I would encourage anyone that suffers from a specific disease or conditon to search the NGC for themselves to see how the government intends to cover care for that condition and additionally to see what types of preventative care is covered and for whom.
Mark I couldn't agree more. The truth doesn't even play a part in these campaigns for national office. What we get is a list of vetted talking points engineered to achieve emotional reactions. These parties are so morally bankrupt they have now decided its in their best interest to pit citizens against each other. We are just pawns in their struggle for power. Screw them all.