I write this on the news that most of you most likely know a portion of. Today our world lost two men who personified class, former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and Yankee Legend Bobby Murcer. From what I’ve seen Tony was a true class act, never one to talk down to a reporter or to make himself the center of the story, he came out day after day with a smile on his face, despite having to deal with his cross. Much like Tony, Bobby Murcer was truly one of the nice guys our world lacks today, never one to turn down a fan, Bobby would spend his time talking to anyone who approached him, whether it be at a mall or a restaurant, Bobby knew what many of today’s athletes didn’t, the fans make you who you are and you should repay them if you can.
In the late 1990s, after having a relative die of cancer, Bobby became an anti-tobacco advocate, he had been a user almost his whole life and now was going to try to protect those who were still young enough to save themselves. Since his diagnosis he has done all he could to help promote the need for everyone to not sit back when they feel something is wrong, if you think your sick he said to go get yourself checked.
For many of us cancer is a problem that has affected us in someway. Whether it’s a family member, a friend, or even a beloved pet, cancer takes away what we hold dear. Yet despite the odds of getting cancer, 1 in every 3 Americans will be diagnosed, our government looks the other way. Is it because it’s not sexy enough? Our government has no problem throwing billions upon billions of dollars at AIDS. Or is it because due to the large scale in which it hits we’ve become too complacent with it.
While I believe we should do what we can to eradicate HIV from this world, the fact still remains that over 95% of the disease is caused by a person’s own habits, while the percentage of American’s who die due to smoking or drinking is even in dispute by the W.H.O., who believe the number is much lower then what the Anti-Tobacco lobby would like us to believe. Despite the disparity between causes the US spends significantly more per person on those with AIDS.
From 1981 to 2004 the US has spent over $150 Billion in AIDS funding, from 2005 on the government has spent over $18.5 billion per year. Now with our cost of war and other problems many people would say that this is not a lot, that we should be spending more, but if you look at the amount we spend per person you may think otherwise. The amount spent within the US for AIDS is roughly 95% of the overall spending, so for 2006 we spent around $17 billion for domestic AIDS, yet it’s estimated at the end of 2006 we had 448,871 people living with AIDS in the US, with around 38,000 people being infected every year. Since its discovery an estimated 566,000 people have died from AIDS, around half of those diagnosed, and since our fight against AIDS the US averages around 14,700 deaths a year.
Now spending wise that means for each person living currently with AIDS we spend around $38,000, which by any means isn’t a large amount of money, but this is spent on a disease that is mostly lifestyle driven. Per death, which shouldn’t be a huge factor since we should be preventing these deaths, we spend over $1.1 million.
Now on the other hand the cancer rate in America is a much bigger problem. In 2007 the number of people diagnosed with cancer was over 1.4 Million while the death toll was around 560,000. That means that in 2007 alone more people were diagnosed with cancer then were diagnosed with AIDS from 1981, the same holds true with deaths, with more people dying from cancer in 2007 then have ever died from AIDS. Despite the huge difference in numbers the US spends $5.6 billion on cancer research. Yes, $5.6 billion on a disease that is deadlier then everything except heart disease, which will be a topic for another day. Why do we limit funding to around $1,000 per death while AIDS gets over $1 Million? As a country we should do our best to protect our people, but why is it we protect those who bring something upon themselves more then we protect people who can’t help what they get?
Granted I have a bias towards the topic, currently having a grandmother who battled colon cancer for over 5 years, a grandfather who died of lung cancer, and many other family members who have battled the illness, but still who hasn’t? We’re the richest country in the world, yet we seem to want to only follow the cool trends. The celebrities wear their little red ribbons, they fight for AIDS help, and like a kid trying to fit in the US government bows down the their wishes, while many people sit at home, dying from cancer, or sometimes worse dying from the only treatment.
I have no problem stating that today, as a young man of 23, I cried multiple times. Once upon waking at 7AM to find out a great man had died. Then again at around 5PM when I heard of another. These two men fought so hard in the eyes of the public, they made me hope that they can overcome this battle and be role models and fighters for those with cancer, but alas they didn’t make it. I feel like many must have when MLK was killed, he had a great shot at being the shinning star for civil rights, and I hope today goes down as a day when two men have a shot at being just like Mr. King, shinning stars for those who battle cancer.
hey!
Michael Lunz July 14th, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (link)
I understand completely where you are coming from. In my opinion, and im sure other conservatives as well, it is a complete shame that the government imposes so much tax on us, that we the people, within our churches and charities, and even personal desire, lack the ability to be able to come together and solve the solution. We have given the government so much power, we have to rely on them to fix problems, without our being able to. They put what they believe is important first... and we are somewhat subject to follow along, even if we disagre.
I understand this is the meaning of a democracy in some regards, however, not constitutionally.
Things that me and you would find reasonable, and almost demandingly important to donate...whether time or money.. has been taken out of our hands in these past years.
Before we were being taxed so heavily, we would have the option to take a portion of our money, without damaging our families pockets, and donate somewhat generously to those that need help.
This was a great freedom (which we still have, however, it is becoming unreasonable, due to our economic situations, and unlawful taxations!)
Now, however, we have come to a point, where, since we cannot just make the decision to donate to our hearts content, we have to depend on the government to help us! We pray that they will make the right decision! We pray that they will help those, that each one of us, individually, want to help! However, this is not the case anymore. They take all of our money, and than put it into whatever they feel is important. They leave us with so little, that we cant be as helpful as we want to.
The constitution is supposed to protect us from all of this, however, i see the government as literally putting an end to our constitutional rights, and it is causing all sorts of problems.... this is how deep, i feel, the situation you are talking about goes.
I pray God saves our country.
Sincerely,
Michael Lunz
It's safe to assume something if there is evidence for it. The burden of evidence is on the offense.
Miracles are for the faithless - Jesus.
I'd rather the government not spend any money on either
Raven July 14th, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (link)
We're doing pretty well on cures and treatments for the various cancers via private entities. We can do just as well on HIV with the same. We bloody near eradicated polio in the USA thanks to private entities (and personal funding via the March of Dimes).
Give us back our taxes and let us support the research.
"It is getting harder and harder to find suicide bombers. And all the really good ones are gone."
Let us not forget the tremendous
Mark Kilmer July 14th, 2008 at 8:08 p.m. (link)
advancements being made by private industry in the treatment of cancer. We are not running on the spot, doing nothing.
Knock on wood, man, but I have been cured. (It's way to early to say this for certain, but it looks great and I have tremendous faith that this was the Plan.) Granted, the treatment and its aftermath is nauseating, painful, and sometimes disfiguring, but some cancer when hit the right way at the right time can be cured. Or transformed from fatal to tenable.
If the government is to fund any medical research, it should be to combat diseases which are most common and fatal in the population and large. Cancer is among them. AIDS, not so much, but it also should be stopped.
Bobby's first uniform number as a Yankee was #1, and both he and Tony were #1 to a lot of people. May God keep both in His care.
Government can't do either. Prayer did more for
Government and Cancer
Chuck_Norris_Republican July 16th, 2008 at 12:19 a.m. (link)
Excellent post. As a Yankee fan, I appreciate the Bobby Murcer comments. The government spends billions of dollars on cancer research. I don't know the figures, but as someone who is familiar with the NIH, I think it spends as much if not more on cancer research than on HIV.
One thing I disagree with, is that I think there should be government funding for cancer research. Private industry does an excellent job. For example, the new biologics by genentech, but it is not the only solution.
Before a drug is developed, a lot of basic science research goes into finding the mechanisms underlying cancer development. All the research on flies, and worms, mice etc. That's where the NIH comes in. Basic research sponsored by the government gives a lot of the underlying science behind drug development. Drug companies don't want to spend money on that kind of reseach b/c it takes years to go from mechanism to drug.
Also, clinical trials on non-trademaked drugs are not sponsored by industry as they have no money at stake. For example, aspirin helps prevent heart attacks, but we wouldn't know that if there wasn't government funding for non-proprietary medications. (Check out the Framingham study)
My philosophy, is that government should contribute funds towards the public good when economies of scale prevent private industry and individuals from doing so. Cancer research fits under that realm in my book.
Also, HIV research should be supported and there is crossover between HIV and cancer research and therapeutics. For example, AZT (the first HIV drug) was initially developed as a cancer treatment and a spin off called azacytadine was recently approved for myelodysplastic syndrome (a form of early leukemia.) So there is a lot of back and forth between the two fields.
Chuck Norris Republican
Part of the EIB (Excellence in Blogging)
"Chuck Norris Republican is the only man I would let raise my taxes." - Grover Nordquist