Life Mimics Art, Hillary’s War on Cancer

[amicus]

Senator Hillary Clinton, Presidential candidate, during an interview agreed that ‘Yes, If I were President, I would declare a ‘War on Cancer.”

An episode of “The West Wing”, a fiction about a left wing President, Josiah, Bartlett, during a White House dinner party attended by the Nation’s top cancer physicians and researchers, had a sudden epiphany during the polite conversation over whine and cheese.

In the words of another darling of the Left, the late John F. Kennedy, “We will go to the moon within this decade…not because it is easy, but because it is a hard thing to do…” (I paraphrase).

In the same vapid, irrational, detached from reality left wing intellectual viewpoint, Bartlett wanted legislation marshaling the efforts of all Americans to conduct an all out, “War”, on Cancer. Cost not an issue, tax ‘em to death.

Poor Hillary must not have watched the conclusion of that episode of “West Wing”.

The idea was rejected as ‘wishing it so’, or ‘legislating it so’, does not make it so. Another version of the Socratic concept that all is illusion and reality does not exist.

I wanted to get this posted quickly, before it appears on political blogs all over the place, because it most certainly will over the next few days.

I will have another thread on the “Inhumanity of Socialism”, later today, perhaps, that addresses this issue on a more fundamental level.

Amicus…

 

[sr71plt]

Edwards came out with a full plan on "fighting cancer" today. Given the choice of making proposals and trying to get a handle on actually getting it done and working instead on adding three more dimensions between what a corporate CEO and someone working the assembly line makes and/or tossing money and bodies down the Iraq "pit," I'll go with the former.

 

[JamesSD]

Gotta love the Wars on abstract concepts. Ronnie's "War on Drugs", Georgie's "War on Terror", not to mention the poorly fought "War on Poverty".

Of course, I have self interest to support more cancer research funding, so I favor it.

 

[amicus]

Edwards came out with a full plan on "fighting cancer" today. Given the choice of making proposals and trying to get a handle on actually getting it done and working instead on adding three more dimensions between what a corporate CEO and someone working the assembly line makes and/or tossing money and bodies down the Iraq "pit," I'll go with the former.

~~~

Not sure if I correctly unwrapped the 'meat' of your above. Cancer research has been ongoing as long as the disease has been identified.

It has reached a point, in the United States where very few people actually die from Cancer, or Aids for that matter. No cures, as yet, but treatment methods that prolong life and alleviate pain.

Government funded and therefore ''scrutinized", research quickly becomes bogged down in procedural lethargy and stifle innovation.

Progress in Cancer treatment, like all cutting edge research must have the maximum amount of individual freedom to progress at the optimum rate. Government, even with infusion of huge amounts of money, only slow the process.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

Gotta love the Wars on abstract concepts. Ronnie's "War on Drugs", Georgie's "War on Terror", not to mention the poorly fought "War on Poverty".

Of course, I have self interest to support more cancer research funding, so I favor it.

~~~

It is a political issue, of course, and in your examples, both parties seem prone to the socialist concept that government can solve all problems.

I regret your personal 'self interest', in cancer research, I trust you are being helped and have some optimism. Good luck.

Amicus...

 

[JamesSD]

It has reached a point, in the United States where very few people actually die from Cancer, or Aids for that matter. No cures, as yet, but treatment methods that prolong life and alleviate pain.

Got these stats from cancer.org:
Lung cancer remains the top cause of cancer death in the U.S, with an estimated 174,470 new cases and 162,460 deaths expected this year.
Breast cancer remains the most common cancer other than skin cancer among women in the U.S., with an estimated 212,920 new cases and 40,970 deaths expected in 2006.
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer other than skin cancer among men in the U.S., with an estimated 234,460 new cases and 27,350 deaths expected in 2006.

All rates of cancers are dropping (although some have leveled), but 220,000+ deaths in a year is still more than I'd call "very few". Admittedly I didn't see a demographic spread, so if a large % are in the 75 year+ demographic it's less concerning. Biologically, our bodies just aren't meant to live a century, much less longer.

Government funded and therefore ''scrutinized", research quickly becomes bogged down in procedural lethargy and stifle innovation.

Progress in Cancer treatment, like all cutting edge research must have the maximum amount of individual freedom to progress at the optimum rate. Government, even with infusion of huge amounts of money, only slow the process.

You don't understand how scientific progress is made. Private research is notorious for only thinking "In the Box", quickly killing projects that might be promising, but don't look particularly profitable. The major drug companies have a "blockbuster or bust" model, where diseases that only affect small but significant percentages of the population are largely ignored. On top of that, commercial interests have far more incentive to treat but not cure diseases. Pfizer, Amgen, and others rely on publicly funded research to supply a lot of the background "pure research" that is necessary for drug discovery, but not directly related to the development of treatments.

Public funding of scientific research is what made the US the world leader from the 50s to roughly the 90s. Since then we've lacked the will to fund innovation, which is part of why Europe is becoming more and more significant scientifically.

 

[JamesSD]

I regret your personal 'self interest', in cancer research, I trust you are being helped and have some optimism. Good luck.

I should have been more clear - I presently work in a publicly funded research lab, and part of our funding does come from cancer research, although we get a lot more from heart disease funding. While I do know people directly affected by cancer, I was talking more disclosing my personal financial interest in fully funding scientific research.

 

[sr71plt]

Yeah, I thought Amicus's response was a bunch of barf too--but decided arguing against that wasn't going to go anywhere.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Government funded and therefore ''scrutinized", research quickly becomes bogged down in procedural lethargy and stifle innovation.

Progress in Cancer treatment, like all cutting edge research must have the maximum amount of individual freedom to progress at the optimum rate. Government, even with infusion of huge amounts of money, only slow the process.

Mmm. Here's the difficulty, though, that leads to that government + slowing down approach:

On the one hand, coming up with a cure for any given sort of cancer looks, at the moment, like a long and expensive quest. You could try half a dozen promising avenues only to be pipped at the post by someone who guessed the best one faster, or you could try them all and find nothing. That makes investment in the research both long-term and uncertain - not a combination that a lot of investors are looking for. Just imagine if someone came up to you and asked you to invest your life savings in his quest for a cure for cancer. I'm not sure that the big investors are any happier about that kind of guesswork, particularly when the market will only reward you if you're not only right, but also first. Given that scientific advancement tends to be a communal thing, with each researcher's publications adding a bit more to the knowledge that all possess, it's almost certain than any cure for cancer will involve a small number of people who make the final breakthrough and get the patent building on the work of loads of people who won't see any real money out of it.

For that reason, people might reasonably think that investment isn't likely to be all that great in the field - because it's too long-term and uncertain for people who just want a return on their money, and too slow to be of direct use to anyone who currently has cancer. Nonetheless, we want a cure for cancer, and so people ask the government to help. They ask for the same reason that they ask the government to help regulate pollution or run the police force: because it looks like a job that needs to be done, but that at the moment no one can see a way to make a profit from it. Instead, they club together their money (via taxes) and ask an adminstrating body (the government) to use it toward the job, eliminating the need for the person performing the job to create a profit.

Now, I'll just pause to say that if you can find a better way to get a job acomplished when it both must be done and doesn't generate a profit for anyone, now would be a grand time to lay the answer on the table.

If, on the other hand, one still wants the job done and feels that a non-profit organization like a government is the right choice to do it, then there's another issue that has to be addressed. For-profit institutions have a built in mechanism for monitoring their efficiency and accuracy: their profits. They can tell pretty clearly when they are meeting their goals and whether everyone is doing his or her job. Non-profits, on the other hand, don't have the same feedback that profit groups do, and so they need to have some other way of measuring their advances, determining their efficiency, and making sure that the money they are given is well spent. That's where that lethargic beaurocracy creeps in. It's a nuisance, yes, but if you sacrifice it for the sake of speed, you do lean more and more toward putting up a "Free Money!" sign, and people tend to take advantage.

All of that is not to say that I think this is the only way to deal with a problem like cancer research. Rather, it's more of a challenge asking how we could solve the same problems without governmental support. Given that it's difficult to get people to invest in something that may not pay off for forty years or ever, no matter how valuable it might theoretically be, how do you speed and maximize cancer research without a model that steps aside from profit as the primary motivator?

And, of course, if you're still feeling chipper, what's contrary to human liberty about people voting to set aside money and use it for a common purpose, anyway?

 

[amicus]

Mmm. Here's the difficulty, though, that leads to that government + slowing down approach:

On the one hand, coming up with a cure for any given sort of cancer looks, at the moment, like a long and expensive quest. You could try half a dozen promising avenues only to be pipped at the post by someone who guessed the best one faster, or you could try them all and find nothing. That makes investment in the research both long-term and uncertain - not a combination that a lot of investors are looking for. Just imagine if someone came up to you and asked you to invest your life savings in his quest for a cure for cancer. I'm not sure that the big investors are any happier about that kind of guesswork, particularly when the market will only reward you if you're not only right, but also first. Given that scientific advancement tends to be a communal thing, with each researcher's publications adding a bit more to the knowledge that all possess, it's almost certain than any cure for cancer will involve a small number of people who make the final breakthrough and get the patent building on the work of loads of people who won't see any real money out of it.

For that reason, people might reasonably think that investment isn't likely to be all that great in the field - because it's too long-term and uncertain for people who just want a return on their money, and too slow to be of direct use to anyone who currently has cancer. Nonetheless, we want a cure for cancer, and so people ask the government to help. They ask for the same reason that they ask the government to help regulate pollution or run the police force: because it looks like a job that needs to be done, but that at the moment no one can see a way to make a profit from it. Instead, they club together their money (via taxes) and ask an adminstrating body (the government) to use it toward the job, eliminating the need for the person performing the job to create a profit.

Now, I'll just pause to say that if you can find a better way to get a job acomplished when it both must be done and doesn't generate a profit for anyone, now would be a grand time to lay the answer on the table.

If, on the other hand, one still wants the job done and feels that a non-profit organization like a government is the right choice to do it, then there's another issue that has to be addressed. For-profit institutions have a built in mechanism for monitoring their efficiency and accuracy: their profits. They can tell pretty clearly when they are meeting their goals and whether everyone is doing his or her job. Non-profits, on the other hand, don't have the same feedback that profit groups do, and so they need to have some other way of measuring their advances, determining their efficiency, and making sure that the money they are given is well spent. That's where that lethargic beaurocracy creeps in. It's a nuisance, yes, but if you sacrifice it for the sake of speed, you do lean more and more toward putting up a "Free Money!" sign, and people tend to take advantage.

All of that is not to say that I think this is the only way to deal with a problem like cancer research. Rather, it's more of a challenge asking how we could solve the same problems without governmental support. Given that it's difficult to get people to invest in something that may not pay off for forty years or ever, no matter how valuable it might theoretically be, how do you speed and maximize cancer research without a model that steps aside from profit as the primary motivator?

And, of course, if you're still feeling chipper, what's contrary to human liberty about people voting to set aside money and use it for a common purpose, anyway?

~~~

Shang, as I have said before and say again, I respect and cherish your thoughts on just about any subject, this one not excluded.

Just about everything you presented is rational and logical and fully understandable, even reasonable at first glance.

And I am not going to put words in your mouth, nor speculate or impugn your motives, but I do sense some apprehension when I read your reference to 'profit motives', that ole bugbear of the 'usual suspects', they hate it with an ideological passion.

Every major corporation in every field has an R&D, Research and Development, component that does not function on the profit/loss mode of operation.

Taking into consideration that CEO's and Administrative Boards are also human and function individually, no two are identical, a general observation can be gained, in that most innovative thinking, by results, has come from the private sector.

From another direction, if Planet Earth were threatened by alien invaders from outer space, intent on destroying mankind, a total effort of amassing all resources to defend the species might well be in order.

In a spectrum ranging from zero to one hundred percent, the resources of mankind, or a portion of it, could be directed at any one problem in need of solution and Cancer Research would be one of those aspects of human endeavor.

Although government has been tasked with many obligations in the past and fulfilled some, reasonably well, it is not a question, in my mind, as whether government is the best choice to conduct such an effort.

We are not a democracy, we do not function entirely according to the will of the majority; the people of this nation are not free to choose the direction government may or may not move in.

Our form of government is that of a constitutional republic, the government is limited in the authority to act by the intent and the letter of the laws that guide it.

I am in philosophical, economic, moral and political agreement with our form of government and I do not wish to change it.

By definition I accept the premise that a 'free' people provide the most efficient and effective means of providing the resources the people require to exist.

I can and do have no objections to people donating their resources to a fund to research Cancer; from my observation, little plastic jars all over the place accept supermarket donations of spare change for such research, we are a 'good hearted' people, one of the things I love about America.

So while, yet again, I reiterate my appreciation of your valuable input, I continue to maintain that I stand upon firm ground in all aspects to defend my understanding of individual and corporate freedom and its eventual success in all fields.

Regards...


Amicus...

 

[cloudy]

It has reached a point, in the United States where very few people actually die from Cancer, or Aids for that matter. No cures, as yet, but treatment methods that prolong life and alleviate pain.

As I've come to expect, you do no research to verify your beliefs before blurting them out as facts. *sigh*

That said, I agree with plenty of funding for cancer research - my family has been hit by it several different times - but I don't think a "War on Cancer" will be anything more than a campaign slogan...and just as stupid and useless as the other "wars" mentioned above.

Here's a shocker for you, ami: I detest Hilary Clinton. She's very good at what she does, has the money and the experience to win, but simply because I'm one of your "usual suspects" doesn't mean that I like her even a little bit, or plan to vote for her, for that matter.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=JamesSD]Got these stats from cancer.org:
Lung cancer remains the top cause of cancer death in the U.S, with an estimated 174,470 new cases and 162,460 deaths expected this year.
Breast cancer remains the most common cancer other than skin cancer among women in the U.S., with an estimated 212,920 new cases and 40,970 deaths expected in 2006.
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer other than skin cancer among men in the U.S., with an estimated 234,460 new cases and 27,350 deaths expected in 2006.

All rates of cancers are dropping (although some have leveled), but 220,000+ deaths in a year is still more than I'd call "very few". Admittedly I didn't see a demographic spread, so if a large % are in the 75 year+ demographic it's less concerning. Biologically, our bodies just aren't meant to live a century, much less longer.


You don't understand how scientific progress is made. Private research is notorious for only thinking "In the Box", quickly killing projects that might be promising, but don't look particularly profitable. The major drug companies have a "blockbuster or bust" model, where diseases that only affect small but significant percentages of the population are largely ignored. On top of that, commercial interests have far more incentive to treat but not cure diseases. Pfizer, Amgen, and others rely on publicly funded research to supply a lot of the background "pure research" that is necessary for drug discovery, but not directly related to the development of treatments.

Public funding of scientific research is what made the US the world leader from the 50s to roughly the 90s. Since then we've lacked the will to fund innovation, which is part of why Europe is becoming more and more significant scientifically.[/QUOTE]


~~~

You make some sound, good arguments in opposition, JamesSD, but not telling or conclusive ones.

My choice of words in decreasing cancer deaths was overly optimistic, I apologize for that. To have made an unassailable statement, I should have stated that cancer deaths are diminishing and more is being treated successfully than ever before.

Lung cancer as related to smoking, is a political realm that I do not wish to get into at the moment, both breast cancer and prostate cancer may also have symptomatic relationships to behavioral patterns that again, I do not wish to address as I do not have the knowledge or skill to speak with certainty.

I maintain my opposition to government science regardless of your assertions. We have had a 'mixed' economy for over a hundred years with government tax monies funding chosen research facilities in competition with the private sector.

If you believe that only tax supported, government funded research only can provide innovations in science, then you will continue to believe that regardless of how many times I point out that the 'major' scientific discoveries have all come from the private sector.

While science does progress with individual scientists publishing their discoveries and then building from the accumulated knowledge, I know, without a doubt, that a single mind creates that 'new idea', not a collective of scientists in mutual pursuit of truth.

Were it not for the competition with unlimited government funds, private sector scientists might have done wonderful things in the past century. The degree of hindrance provided by government directed research will never be known, but I propose it is monumental.

As it seems with all threads on this forum, it seems to come down to those who advocate human freedom and liberty and those who do not.

I do.

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

As I've come to expect, you do no research to verify your beliefs before blurting them out as facts. *sigh*

That said, I agree with plenty of funding for cancer research - my family has been hit by it several different times - but I don't think a "War on Cancer" will be anything more than a campaign slogan...and just as stupid and useless as the other "wars" mentioned above.

Here's a shocker for you, ami: I detest Hilary Clinton. She's very good at what she does, has the money and the experience to win, but simply because I'm one of your "usual suspects" doesn't mean that I like her even a little bit, or plan to vote for her, for that matter.

~~~

I modified my statement on cancer deaths to reflect the progress that has been made, is being made, in understanding and treating the disease. While government subsidies and grants to both research and treatment centers, 'clouds', the distinction between private and public to the degree that separation is near impossible, I still advocate the private sector over the government.

Your, 'shocker', doesn't shock, only confirm, Cloudy, but in all fairness, because I truly hate the socialist agenda I cannot ever see myself supporting a democrat, so, our opposition effectively cancels us both.

Amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

Shang, as I have said before and say again, I respect and cherish your thoughts on just about any subject, this one not excluded.

Just about everything you presented is rational and logical and fully understandable, even reasonable at first glance.

*grin* You know, I may just have to change my title. I have warm affection for the title of "silver-tongued Papist" given to me by Pure, but at such time as I choose to take that down, "reasonable at first glance" would be a delightful next step.

And I am not going to put words in your mouth, nor speculate or impugn your motives, but I do sense some apprehension when I read your reference to 'profit motives', that ole bugbear of the 'usual suspects', they hate it with an ideological passion.

I understand your apprehension, as this is indeed a loaded topic. It can be difficult for people to reconcile profit and health care; no one quite likes the idea that someone is making money from their suffering, whether that's really a fair way to characterize it or not.

With that said, however, my concern wasn't so much whether it was right for a profit motive to operate in this case as whether it was really possible. I have to say honestly that I would hesitate to put my own money into it, because it's such a thorny problem and progress often relies on published scientific work - meaning that anyone else could be working on it as well, and so even if I make it through a very long haul to find a cure, I might make it a year too late.

Every major corporation in every field has an R&D, Research and Development, component that does not function on the profit/loss mode of operation.

I think that this needs a little qualitification. While it's true that the R&D division may not require as immediate a profit as the rest of the company, eventually it's got to produce something profitable. Otherwise, it's more than just a drain on the finances of the company; it's actively preventing them doing anything more than knocking off other ideas as cheaply as they can. Different industries have different time tables, but I'm wondering if any have one long enough to sustain a serious quest to actually cure a form of cancer. After all, we've been looking for that since the dawn of modern medicine, at least, and we haven't got a great deal to show for it.

[But as a side note to believers in "Big Cancer" conspiracy theories: British health researchers released another report this past month indicating that our rates of cancer could be hugely cut with a few simple lifestyle choices like getting exercise, eating fruits and vegetables, cutting back on animal fats, and not smoking. Given that all of that advice is free and some of it actually saves you money, it looks like "Big Cancer" really dropped the ball.]

As for the rest, I feel very silly, having forgotten the glaringly obvious "independent acts of charity and voluntary contribution" option. Sorry, with you, makes perfect sense. Gets the job done, doesn't have to turn a profit, and doesn't muddle up matters by getting the men with guns and police powers into the cancer business.

I shan't even add the phrase "at first glance." I will voice a titchy bit of doubt as to whether people really actually volunteer cash in the kind of amounts and the large, centalized amounts that will do the job, but I concede the philosophical point that it might be better to work on our own discipline and backbones than government programs to replace them. I'm just wondering if we're likely to change people enough in their behavior to get a fast enough response to heal their bodies.

Here's a shocker for you, ami: I detest Hilary Clinton. She's very good at what she does, has the money and the experience to win, but simply because I'm one of your "usual suspects" doesn't mean that I like her even a little bit, or plan to vote for her, for that matter.

And then there's this. I have to agree. Her lips are shaping the words "War on Cancer," and yet somehow my ears are hearing "a cause my strategists have identified as having broad-based emotional appeal across gender, race, and political divisions." If only we'd been able to get to the clipboard with the focus group results before it was handed to her, we probably could have gotten her to declare war on carpet fuzz.

 

[SeaCat]

When I read the title the first thing that came to mind was a Cancer Ghetto.

Cat