Monday afternoon, four Democratic presidential candidates (Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, and Kucinich) participated in the LIVESTRONG Cancer Forum, moderated by Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Much like the CNN/YouTube debate last month, this forum addressed the concerns of "real" America, not "corporate" America. I applaud that.
Republican or Democrat, I want our next president to be "for the people" not "for the party". So these types of debates are exactly what I hope we will continue to see more of. I also happened to post on the issue of universal health care on Friday, so this forum was particularly interesting to me.
Before we go any further, take a moment to view this short video about how devastating cancer is to American families. (Warning: If you cry easily you might want to wait until you're alone.)
It was disappointing not to see Barack Obama at this forum, but even more disappointing is the fact that none of the leading Republican candidates will attend the forum on Tuesday, only Brownback and Huckabee will be in attendance. Personally, choosing fund-raising events instead of taking time to address the critical health care needs of the American people, is quite telling.
As he did on Meet the Press yesterday, Armstrong expressed his disappointment that other candidates chose not to attend. "It is my belief, like a lot of other Americans, that the next occupant of the Oval Office must discuss this critical issue with voters," Armstrong said at the beginning of the forum.
I didn't catch the whole debate. But fortunately, through the miracle of YouTube, I'm able to bring you a brief video-recap.
In this clip, Lance Armstrong talks briefly about why he is sponsoring this debate.
Cancer is the number one killer of Americans under age 85, and the candidates need to "answer the cancer question".
The cancer forum was held in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. This news clip is a quick overview of the debate and also has some reactions from the audience.
This was the opening statement of John Edwards...
The next clip begins with Hillary Clinton, talking about the importance of quality affordable health care and the need for universal health care. Then it goes to John Edwards, where he tells us how universal health care will cost 90-120 billion dollars a year, money he will get by ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Bill Richardson wants to increase cancer research by by 206% over 10 years, and Dennis Kucinich wants the health care system to support the people when they need it.
The video was taken by Cedar Rapids Gazette photographer Jim Slosiarek...
There seemed to have been a lot of talk about a "war on cancer"...I'm not sure I like that analogy very much.
From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum Right off the bat, Richardson called for a renewed effort in Richard Nixon's war on cancer. "This president wants a surge in the war in Iraq," Richardson said in his opening statement. "I want a surge in the war on cancer." Instead of simply allocating more money for research funds, Richardson said presidential leadership is needed to win this war. He promised to use both the bully pulpit of the president to promote healthy lifestyles and to have the same motivation John F. Kennedy had when he said America would go to the moon within 10 years.
This is a clip of Richardson's whole interview (13 minutes), and he did have a lot of smart ideas, and interesting comments.
Hillary takes the war theme even further, with an explanation of the current administration's "war on science". Don't get me wrong, I agree with Hillary 100% on this one, I just don't like the "war" analogy very much...
"The president of the united states has been leading an assault on science and research, and it's not only in their budget priorities. I mean think about it. The two priorities of this president have been the war in Iraq, and tax cuts for the wealthy. neither of which he's paid for, while he has cut the budget for the national institutes of health and national cancer institute."
Personally, I believe the forum was a very productive, informative, and beneficial tool for the American voter, me included. The one aspect that was a turning point for me, was when Edwards explained that he differs with Hillary Clinton on who should be involved with putting together a universal health plan. Hillary believes the drug companies and the insurance industry should have a seat at the table, John Edwards does not. I have to agree with Edwards on that one.
Well, that's a wrap on my wrap-up. I didn't have a chance to surf the BlogHer blogrolls to see who else was posting on this topic, so if you did...please add your link to comments. Thanks.
While I hold no love for insurance companies or big pharma, they all need a seat at the table. Without them, we have no health care programs in this country. Without them we have very little research to help advance health care. Leaving them out makes absolutely NO sense.
Edwards is saying what he thinks Americans want to hear and if by some crazy twist of fate he was elected, he would not be able to deliver what he has "promised". You cannot leave pharma or insurance companies out of the discussion. Like it or not, they play a huge role in our health care system. Unless we're planning on doing away with one (or both) completely, they deserve a seat just like anyone else who has a stake in these decisions.
Hey Denise. Hillary did great and I'm still undecided on who I will vote for...A very large part of me wants to be able to vote for a woman.
As far as the universal health care issue...It's such a complicated problem and it is going to take a complicated solution...And that very well may include taking the pharm and insurance industry to help.
Personally, I just feel that the best solution would be a "not-for-profit" solution. Like you, I'm just not sure if that is possible...But I would just like to know that the option was given great consideration before we just jump in bed even further with the insurance industry. I think they (the insurance industry) are a large part of the reason we are in this mess. But really...That's just my opinion, and I'm no expert in this area at all.
Overall, I think all the democratic candidates handled themselves well during this forum...But, Clinton and Edwards did the best (in my humble opinion).
We (in a US-centric perspective) don't have money to fund health care. Ugly but significant facts just insist on raising their heads, don't they?
Universal health care, education, living wages, alternative energy, sustainable manufacturing all depend on the massive outpouring of outrage by U.S. women against our war culture and our coddling of corporatist greed.
As someone who has lost family members to cancer (father and two brothers) -- including a brother who wouldn't have to have died had there been decent health insurance that would have paid for the "preventive" monitoring for cancer recurrence) I know how much health care costs.
Every day we stay silent about the theft of our tax money by a corrupt government and the theft of our capital resources by corporate administrators who earn 800 times as much as the regular Janes who work for them we give them our blessing.
Do something about this today!
Does the candidate you support back vast over-funding of U.S. aggression both militarily and through direct support of corrupt, violent governments? If so then any words spewed about funding healthcare are just gaseous erruptions. We cannot do both. We can work for the betternment of our lives here in the U.S. and the lives of everyone in the world or we can continue to attempt to police the world with violence, invasion, occupation, and the backing of military dictatorships and absolute monarchies.
Hi Nancy. Edwards says he will fund his health care plan by getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy...I'm not having a problem with that...but I guess "the wealthy" might have a problem with that.
As far as...
"Every day we stay silent about the theft of our tax money by a corrupt government and the theft of our capital resources by corporate administrators who earn 800 times as much as the regular Janes who work for them we give them our blessing."
I hear ya. When I think of all the ways we could have helped not just the uninsured, but the poor, the homeless, the hungry, etc...with the billions our government is spending in Iraq...it makes me soooooo mad.
Anyway, I agree with you 100%. Thanks so much for your comment.
As a cancer educator, and a woman who lost her mother to breast cancer as a child, I have strong opinions about the fact that, as Hillary Clinton mentioned, the cancer research funding has been slashed dramatically.
In fact, while at the National Institutes of Health in 2005 for a conference on skin cancer prevention, nearly 90% (of the dwindling cancer research funds are funded by the Department of Defense and the only two cancers the DOD funds are prostate and breast cancer.
According to the World Health Organization, Americans spend more than 100 billion on cancer treatment alone. Yet, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of treatment. WE NEED TO BE TEACHING PREVENTION and FUNDING PREVENTION. Granted, many cancers have a strong hereditary link, such as breast cancer does, but even still there are ways to teach prevention in effort to significantly reduce cancer incidence and mortality (such as melanoma, which is killing more women in their 20s and 30s but is largely preventable).
I have long thought that cancer research and funding has become politically tainted. For some reason, we are willing to spend millions of dollars on treating AIDS in Africa (which is important!) and not on cancer prevention and research here in our own country. WHY?
While I'm not the biggest fan of Hillary Clinton, I do think she has a more clear grasp of the economics of health care than many of the other candidates. And I'm disappointed that two cancer survivors did not make it a priority to attend such a pivotal and important forum discussion on cancer.
And while I generally have a poor opinion of insurance and how they have failed to protect, provide for, and care for cancer patients over the past 20 years, I agree with Denise that to assume universal health care is possible for all cancer patients without considering insurance companies is a bit naive.
Anyway, I just wanted to THANK YOU for posting this forum and making it available to all of us.
In closing I would say that CANCER PREVENTION is something that we cannot lay at the feet of the government; we must be individually proactive about proper prevention such as wearing sunscreen, avoiding tanning beds, annual mammograms and pap smears, monthly skin checks, monthly self breast exams (and, for the guys, monthly self testicular exams), and EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION. It is not enough for us to simply raise awareness, rather we must provide hands-on PREVENTION EDUCATION. We do need the government to make cancer a top health priority but we must also take personal responsibility to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and neighbors by promoting and providing PREVENTION, as well. Until the government "steps up" its efforts, let us not forget that we can still make a difference, too. Each of us has a moral responsibility to fight cancer and save lives.
I agree that we can lower the risk of developing some types of cancers with prevention. And for adults this needs to be the first line of defense. But, the thing that came as a surprise to me while putting together this post, was the fact that it has been almost twenty years since a drug to treat children with cancer has been developed (first video clip). That is just so sad, and an example of why this country needs to devote more money to research.
Instead, we have spent four-hundred and sixty-two (B)illion dollars on a war in Iraq...with no end in site. The Growing Cost of the Iraq War
I wonder how many cures we could have found for cancer with even a fraction of this money?
Comments
Everyone needs a seat
While I hold no love for insurance companies or big pharma, they all need a seat at the table. Without them, we have no health care programs in this country. Without them we have very little research to help advance health care. Leaving them out makes absolutely NO sense.
Edwards is saying what he thinks Americans want to hear and if by some crazy twist of fate he was elected, he would not be able to deliver what he has "promised". You cannot leave pharma or insurance companies out of the discussion. Like it or not, they play a huge role in our health care system. Unless we're planning on doing away with one (or both) completely, they deserve a seat just like anyone else who has a stake in these decisions.
Again, Hillary wins this one for me.
~Denise
Fast Times @ Homeschool High & Flamingo House Happenings
I think Hillary did great too.
Hey Denise. Hillary did great and I'm still undecided on who I will vote for...A very large part of me wants to be able to vote for a woman.
As far as the universal health care issue...It's such a complicated problem and it is going to take a complicated solution...And that very well may include taking the pharm and insurance industry to help.
Personally, I just feel that the best solution would be a "not-for-profit" solution. Like you, I'm just not sure if that is possible...But I would just like to know that the option was given great consideration before we just jump in bed even further with the insurance industry. I think they (the insurance industry) are a large part of the reason we are in this mess. But really...That's just my opinion, and I'm no expert in this area at all.
Overall, I think all the democratic candidates handled themselves well during this forum...But, Clinton and Edwards did the best (in my humble opinion).
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at Women 4 Hope and Informed Voters
Did any candidate seriously discuss how to
fund health care?
We (in a US-centric perspective) don't have money to fund health care. Ugly but significant facts just insist on raising their heads, don't they?
Universal health care, education, living wages, alternative energy, sustainable manufacturing all depend on the massive outpouring of outrage by U.S. women against our war culture and our coddling of corporatist greed.
As someone who has lost family members to cancer (father and two brothers) -- including a brother who wouldn't have to have died had there been decent health insurance that would have paid for the "preventive" monitoring for cancer recurrence) I know how much health care costs.
Every day we stay silent about the theft of our tax money by a corrupt government and the theft of our capital resources by corporate administrators who earn 800 times as much as the regular Janes who work for them we give them our blessing.
Do something about this today!
Does the candidate you support back vast over-funding of U.S. aggression both militarily and through direct support of corrupt, violent governments? If so then any words spewed about funding healthcare are just gaseous erruptions. We cannot do both. We can work for the betternment of our lives here in the U.S. and the lives of everyone in the world or we can continue to attempt to police the world with violence, invasion, occupation, and the backing of military dictatorships and absolute monarchies.
Write your Reps, your Senators, your favorite presidential candidates.
Nancy
Build Peace
My Life As An Avatar
Edwards says he will fund his health care
plan by...
Hi Nancy. Edwards says he will fund his health care plan by getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy...I'm not having a problem with that...but I guess "the wealthy" might have a problem with that.
As far as...
"Every day we stay silent about the theft of our tax money by a corrupt government and the theft of our capital resources by corporate administrators who earn 800 times as much as the regular Janes who work for them we give them our blessing."
I hear ya. When I think of all the ways we could have helped not just the uninsured, but the poor, the homeless, the hungry, etc...with the billions our government is spending in Iraq...it makes me soooooo mad.
Anyway, I agree with you 100%. Thanks so much for your comment.
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at Women 4 Hope and Informed Voters
As a cancer educator, and a
As a cancer educator, and a woman who lost her mother to breast cancer as a child, I have strong opinions about the fact that, as Hillary Clinton mentioned, the cancer research funding has been slashed dramatically.
In fact, while at the National Institutes of Health in 2005 for a conference on skin cancer prevention, nearly 90% (of the dwindling cancer research funds are funded by the Department of Defense and the only two cancers the DOD funds are prostate and breast cancer.
According to the World Health Organization, Americans spend more than 100 billion on cancer treatment alone. Yet, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of treatment. WE NEED TO BE TEACHING PREVENTION and FUNDING PREVENTION. Granted, many cancers have a strong hereditary link, such as breast cancer does, but even still there are ways to teach prevention in effort to significantly reduce cancer incidence and mortality (such as melanoma, which is killing more women in their 20s and 30s but is largely preventable).
I have long thought that cancer research and funding has become politically tainted. For some reason, we are willing to spend millions of dollars on treating AIDS in Africa (which is important!) and not on cancer prevention and research here in our own country. WHY?
While I'm not the biggest fan of Hillary Clinton, I do think she has a more clear grasp of the economics of health care than many of the other candidates. And I'm disappointed that two cancer survivors did not make it a priority to attend such a pivotal and important forum discussion on cancer.
And while I generally have a poor opinion of insurance and how they have failed to protect, provide for, and care for cancer patients over the past 20 years, I agree with Denise that to assume universal health care is possible for all cancer patients without considering insurance companies is a bit naive.
Anyway, I just wanted to THANK YOU for posting this forum and making it available to all of us.
In closing I would say that CANCER PREVENTION is something that we cannot lay at the feet of the government; we must be individually proactive about proper prevention such as wearing sunscreen, avoiding tanning beds, annual mammograms and pap smears, monthly skin checks, monthly self breast exams (and, for the guys, monthly self testicular exams), and EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION. It is not enough for us to simply raise awareness, rather we must provide hands-on PREVENTION EDUCATION. We do need the government to make cancer a top health priority but we must also take personal responsibility to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and neighbors by promoting and providing PREVENTION, as well. Until the government "steps up" its efforts, let us not forget that we can still make a difference, too. Each of us has a moral responsibility to fight cancer and save lives.
Danielle M. White
The Cancer Crusaders Organization
info@cancercrusaders.org
http://onlyskindeepbook.blogpspot.com
Children with cancer.
Thanks so much for your comment Danielle.
I agree that we can lower the risk of developing some types of cancers with prevention. And for adults this needs to be the first line of defense. But, the thing that came as a surprise to me while putting together this post, was the fact that it has been almost twenty years since a drug to treat children with cancer has been developed (first video clip). That is just so sad, and an example of why this country needs to devote more money to research.
Instead, we have spent four-hundred and sixty-two (B)illion dollars on a war in Iraq...with no end in site.
The Growing Cost of the Iraq War
I wonder how many cures we could have found for cancer with even a fraction of this money?
Thanks again for your comment Danielle.
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at Women 4 Hope and Informed Voters