Nina Dobrev Poses Topless In Support Of Obamacare

[Warren DeMontague]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/nina-dobrev-topless_n_4043641.html

The 24-year-old "Vampire Diaries" star stripped down Oct. 3 and posed for an Instagram photo as a means of drawing attention to the issue of healthcare. In the snapshot, Dobrev poses topless with a sign reading "#getcovered" in front of her chest. The hashtag denotes the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which makes preventive care accessible and affordable for millions of Americans who may have otherwise been uninsured.

"Im Canadian. We have healthcare for all. If you dont have insurance go to http://say.ly/cdi6TN2 and #GetCovered, Because w/o it, youre naked," she wrote.

[Scuba]

1. "... posed for an Instagram photo as a means of drawing attention ..."

That part I believe.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

2. We should get Nikki Menage a sign. She already poses topless on her instagram

might as well get some Obamacare press out of it.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. What would I do without DU.

I swear, it keeps me totally hep to what the kids are listening to! I thought it was still this "New Wave" thing.

This band called The Cars, they're the new hot thing, right?

[Bunnahabhain]

3. That's sort of funny

given the Administration tossed their expert panel on breast screening under the bus. I was exceedingly disappointed Sebelius and Obama turned out to be just as anti-science as the most rabid bagger. For me that was a very defining instance for the hope of rational healthcare reform.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. they did? I missed that.

Link?

[Bunnahabhain]

8. How did you miss this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5698251-503544/sebelius-mammogram-recommendations-wont-set-policy/

Expert recommendations won't set policy?

[Warren DeMontague]

10. That was 2009. Is it still in effect?

[Bunnahabhain]

11. Far as I know.

But even so, it happened just like I said, and I can see the reaction I'm going to get from others.

[AtomicKitten]

15. Did you read the material you posted?

It's about standard protocol for mammography screening. Some new recommendations have women concerned and that's what Sebilius was addressing. She rightfully advised women to discuss screening with their doctors.

How you mangled that to become some sort of anti-science wheeze is beyond me.

[Bunnahabhain]

17. You're not reading.

Here's another link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/health/19cancer.html?_r=0

Summary of original link: expert panel makes recommendations based on empirical evidence. Sebelius says recommendations will not change policy.

I know you do not like to read this but if the supposedly smart people in the room refuse to set policy based on scientific recommendations we're going to be in big trouble. Oh wait. We're in big trouble.

From the original link:

"The U.S. Preventive Task Force is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations," Sebelius said in her statement. "They do not set federal policy, and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government."

"There has been debate in this country for years about the age at which routine screening mammograms should begin, and how often they should be given," the secretary added. "The Task Force has presented some new evidence for consideration but our policies remain unchanged.

[AtomicKitten]

20. The point at issue is at what age should screening begin.

The standard age has been 50 ... the panel is saying as young as 40. But the money point that escapes you is the advice to make these healthcare decisions with one's own physician. If something is found on exam or if the patient has a family history of breast cancer, that would be the rationale for earlier screening. You don't seem to understand that mammography is ordered by and under the direction of a physician.

Nobody is throwing science under the bus.

[Bunnahabhain]

22. Recommendations were made

and then the head of HHS said that the research would not impact policy. End of story.

Of course the recommendations included caveats concerning family history, etc.

Before I bother posting to you more can you explain to me alpha/beta errors or the issue with specificity vs. sensitivity? You see, the reason this might have stuck in my head, is because I actually have some graduate education in bio-stats and epi and might have worked in public health before. Might have.

To get all the disclaimers out there I 100% want universal healthcare. Unbunch all the panties that think I'm against that. I'm just pointing out politics will still get science rejected even by Dems.

[AtomicKitten]

23. never even mentioned universal healthcare

... your arguments are spilling over into other arguments.

I AM in the medical field and know of what I speak. Again, NOBODY is throwing science under the bus. It's as simple as that. It's about protocol for screening mammography. If a patient falls outside those parameters, it is the doctor's call, as it was, is, and always will be.

Have a great rest of the day.

[AtomicKitten]

5. "Obama is just as anti-science as the most rabid teabagger."

Ah, no. Not by a longshot.

[Bunnahabhain]

7. You know

My post is right there. You could at least quote me properly given the screen proximity.

[AtomicKitten]

9. Here ya go.

I was exceedingly disappointed Sebelius and Obama turned out to be just as anti-science as the most rabid bagger

Let's see: I eliminated the beginning of the sentence because it's not relevant, I omitted Sebelius' name, and I used "is" rather than "turned out to be" for brevity.

Nope. Looks like an accurate representation of what you wrote. And it's still .

[Bunnahabhain]

12. There you go

Was it that hard?

In this case Obama rejected science. I think that was a crying shame and where was the outcry from those mocking those creationist idiots? What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander or folks lose credibility.

[cali]

13. Atomic Kitty is far more couth than I've ever been

it's a steaming pile of dog shit to claim that. And boy, am I not known as an Obama defender around here.

stupid fucking hyperbole of the worst kind, honey.

[Bunnahabhain]

14. Did he reject the panel of scientific experts?

Yes. He did. You curse all you want but rejecting science is bad no matter who does it. It as at that point I knew for sure the ACA was not going to be rational overhaul like I wanted so badly.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Thank you for clarifying things in this thread.

[AtomicKitten]

28. cheers

[Cha]

31. Yes, mahalo, Atomic Kitten for shutting down the "rabid as rw" garbage..

I hope I got that quote right!

[sibelian]

6. Ohhhh, here we go....

[leftstreet]

16. What a fucking moron

She thinks the ACA is the same as Canada's national health system?

Jesus

[Warren DeMontague]

19. is that what she said?

Crap, she's supporting universal coverage. That's a good thing. I can't imagine what part of that is causing a tantrum, here.

[LittleBlue]

18. Nice one, Nina

Never heard of her before, but liberal + hot is a great combo

[Warren DeMontague]

21. I agree.

[Deep13]

26. Yup, boobs = winning argument. I guess.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. don't know about that, but it doesn't equal losing argument. I guess.

Why should the other side be the ones constantly shoving their giant boobs in our face?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

29. pics or it didn't happen

http://instagram.com/p/fBt4umn3RY/

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Here is the -relatively tasteful- image she posted to instagram. Probably even SFW.