Posted on 07/19/2022 6:00:09 AM PDT by zeestephen
Nope, “they” don’t want cancer cured. There was a doctor a few years ago who had a treatment that was very successful in curing hopelessly terminal cancer patients. Our wonderful government shut him down and took him to court. Not sure what happened to the guy.
Every step of the process is for profit.
That's capitalism at its finest.
I hope you are not advocating "government medicine".
Here's some examples of "government medicine" at its finest:
According to the article above, the wait time for hip replacements in Canada is "12 to 18 months".
According to the link above wait time for bypass surgery in the UK is about 2 months.
It is. But it also adds costs at every step of the process.
I hope you are not advocating "government medicine".
No.
The topic was why the U.S. spends a lot more in medical costs for the same results. The answer is not a condemnation of the for profit medical industry or a promotion for government run medicine. It's just a simple statement of fact.
I believe that if there were a comlete CURE for every type of cancer known today, the American Cancer Society would do their best to cover it up, hide it, do anything they could to keep it off the market because it would upset their continual gravy train.
Remember Ivermectin and how they laughed themselves silly over that horse medicine? Well, there is a similar cure for cancer, but shush, don’t tell anyone.
https://www.laurasmercantile.com/is-joe-tippens-still-cancer-free-update-2022/
That's what I figured...thanks for the clarification.
Ungrateful people can’t see the forest for the tress.
The improvement in cancer treatment over the decades has been tremendous.
Almost miraculous.
It’s mainly due to figuring out how to most effectively use chemotherapy drugs, which has been empirically based and incremental.
It’s still a hard disease to overcome.
No. They would make a lot of money selling the cure. And administering it. And following up. And manufacturing it. And testing for cancer. Etc.
To imagine they want you dead from cancer because that pays them is nonsensical. They get nothing if you are dead. One might more reasonably accuse the funeral industry of hiding cancer cures. They are the ones who actually profit when we die.
Furthermore if there were hidden cancer cures, the bigwigs n the inseam industry and medicine should use them and never die of cancer. Similar for their beloved ones.
How many times has it been stated that whoever finds a cure for the common cold will reap the biggest payoff of all time? Same with cancer cures.
Common sense seems to be in short supply on this thread.
Cancer and heart disease are the AMA’s two biggest cash cows. They will never give them up.
If maximizing your chances of staying out of the clutches of Big Med isn’t the best reason for Americans to eat right and exercise, I cannot for the life of me think of a better one.
YOUR ‘common sense’ tells you they would work to deliver, administer and monitor such a cure. I say that’s Pollyanna balderdash. If anything they’d keep on trying to push their other respective specific-cancer cures and inflated, hopeful success rates because THAT’S where the donation money is.
To berate me because I think otherwise is pathetic. Go push that do-gooder attitude somewhere else where you can find your like-minded ilk that believes in the same thing, thank you
Or else they would shift to other diseases. The March of Dimes didn’t go away with the polio vaccine.
Follow the money.
Don’t smoke, drink alcohol, get off the couch, and lose weight. It’s not the cure all since some cancer genes are programmed in your DNA.
I suppose they could, but there’s already PLENTY of donation-seeker organizations to deal with.
We’re talking donations here. ACS as well as others have staked out their areas.....lungs, breasts (don’t even get me started on SGK Foundation for.....), kidneys and so on - and there are a plethora of donation seekers and big-business entities in each.
It’s all driven by donations and money. Anyone can be as altruistic as they want but it all boils down to that.
More specifically, given that the states have never expressly constitutionally authorized the federal government to tax and spend in the name of cancer care, the states uniquely having the 10th Amendment-protected power to tax and spend for such a purpose imo, do the feds at least have the constitutionally required receipts to prove that this money is reasonably being spent for that purpose?
"Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
From the congressional record, by Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment ...
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
The Congressional Budget Office needs to be required by law to publicly announce, within a timeframe defined by law, when an appropriations bill includes spending for things that cannot be reasonably justified under Congress's Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Insights welcome.
Also, Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters are reminded that they must vote twice this election year. Your first vote is to primary career RINO incumbents in federal and state governments. Your second vote is to replace outgoing Democrats and RINOs with Trump-endorsed patriot candidates.
Again, insights welcome.
There need to be progress payments. Anything less is simply padding salaries.
Who’s berating? I am disagreeing. Pointing out some obvious profit motives for healing you.
The person or company who discovers a cure for cancer is going to be the richest person on the planet.
Are big pharma execs and doctors and researchers and government officials and their families all done dying from cancer? No? Then they don’t have a cure for it.
ACS won’t deliver “the cure.” They might try to claim they did IF one escaped from control, but it won’t be them.
There are far too many ‘charities’ whose primary functions are fund donation and solicitations with a lot of funds collected going towards marketing for donations AND exorbitant salaries and perks. I submit SGK for one.....
They will deliver the care if they are paid to deliver the care. There is fantastic money in delivering care.
As for the “charities,” if there is a cure, there is no profit for them. They are mostly not true charities imo. They mostly seem to exist to find themselves.
If they were true charities they could pay for testing, treatment, help with needs when you can’t work, monitoring, education…but they mostly aren’t true Lu charitable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.