Obama administration seeks to reduce cases of cancer in US…by changing the definition of cancer

Cancer What?

The federal government wants to reduce the number of Americans diagnosed each year with cancer. But not by better preventive care or healthier living. Instead, the government wants to redefine the term “cancer” so that fewer conditions qualify as a true cancer. What does this mean for ordinary Americans — and should we be concerned?

So now Mr. *Obama* wants to fix cancer by specifying which cancer is the worst kind. Really? What about alternative medicine? What about cases of cancer patients who have won the battle without exposing their bodies to radiation and chemotherapy (Big Pharma's money maker)? So, I'm guessing next he'll propose we fight against MS by redefining it or better yet, why don't we redefine A.I.D.S. as well?

Did you even read the article? It's not Obama that wants to change the terminology but rather the National Cancer Institute that wants to change it.

buster2010
Did you even read the article? It's not Obama that wants to change the terminology but rather the National Cancer Institute that wants to change it.

Obama killed my dog, you monster! And you probably want him to give me cancer too!

-runs around head on fire-

reply to post by buster2010


Obama is the Chief Executive, right? This is an Executive Branch segment of the U.S. Government, is it not? Therefore, Barack Obama is singularly heading this and all other agencies of the Executive Branch, yes?

It's certainly true the man, personally, cannot be taken to task for every individual statement and decision across the vast Government. Similarly, a CEO of a major Corporation can't be held individually to blame (in real terms) if his underlings screw the pooch so bad it screams in English and calls 911 with it's paws.

At the same time...Individually culpable and liable by chain to be blamed are radically different things, aren't they?

I mean, we are going to drop any and all blame, of any kind, on any THING Bush ever did as President which he didn't personally sign, personally say or directly..as an individual man...order from his own lips ..if THIS is the standard. Same with Clinton, Reagan, Nixon..Johnson...

MOST of the programs we lay on President's feet aren't something they did, personally, through individual action....but that's why we call them the Chief Executive. They run the ship, set the tone and determine the direction everyone below them follows.

..........like changing a whole medical diagnosis to make people feel good rather than have any basis whatsoever in science or fact. If the story is accurate how it reads? It looks very typical for Executive Branch action since Jan. 2009. Indeed.

reply to post by buster2010


it's not just cancer, back in june and july i saw a series of reports on nbc news and others where they were wanting to redefine a number of illness such as heart disease, and urging people not to seek out treatment. they were saying that patents were seeking out unnecessary treatment and was a burden on the health care system.
who's to decide if what i feel might save my life is unnecessary, you can bet your sweet a@@, the ones calling it unnecessary, are seeking the same treatments.

i knew i should have recorded them and saved them. i remember thinking that they are preparing us for obamacare and the denial of treatment for some illnesses, ie the health rationing panel, or what some call the death panels.

mark my words, if this thing is not repealed,and gets up and running good, within 5 to 10 years, people will be dropping like flies.

boncho

buster2010
Did you even read the article? It's not Obama that wants to change the terminology but rather the National Cancer Institute that wants to change it.

Obama killed my dog, you monster! And you probably want him to give me cancer too!

-runs around head on fire-

I broke a nail yesterday --- Damn you, Obama!!!!

In all seriousness, I clicked on the link to the actual paper that was published in the JAMA. It looks like it was 3 doctors who wrote this recommendation and submitted it to the National Cancer Institute. It doesn't say whether the NCI even officially approved or agreed with the recommendation, much less whether Obama agrees with it.

Question: Would I rather have an Indolent Lesion of Epithelial Origin or Cancer? :So what's in a word you may ask? Plenty if it's a doctor telling you you have cancer. I happen to have a slow-growing brain tumor and I'm damned glad it isn't cancer.
Epithelial should be a hint here that what they're talking about are commonly called skin "cancers" when quite often they're not. I don't think this includes lung, prostate, liver, brain or other deadly forms of cancer.
Too often they do misuse the word to scare people in to getting treatment. Another problem that has been generated by a for-profit medical system.
No love for the Obama administration or ACA here but I think this is possibly just a hit piece when there's plenty of real and verifiable problems with both Obama and the ACA.

reply to post by Kmhotaru

From the OP article:

This is nothing more than a back-door, roundabout form of rationing. It has nothing to do with improving health care or saving lives and everything to do with bureaucrats picking and choosing who gets what tests and treatments.

Just to be clear, private -and public- medical insurance agencies have been renaming diseases, implementing "triage" coverage and withholding benefits for over half a century. We are now in the middle of a chronic disease pandemic aka NCD Pandemic that first reared its ugly head back in the 1950's. This pandemic now threatens to bankrupt virtually every nation in the world - both through lost productivity and GDP as well as actual costs of health care and disability payouts. [FYI - cancer is defined as a 'chronic disease' and has been for well over a decade.]

However, the impetus to cut coverage comes from global corporate interests, represented by the World Economic Forum (WEF) - and extends to disability benefits as well as medical treatments.

From ATS:

Following the WHO summit on the NCD Pandemic in September, where the WEF presented it's report defining the NCD Pandemic as "an economic issue, not a health issue," several nations began implementing "response" actions. The most sick, the most in need and the most vulnerable are being cut loose and thrown to the wolves, or identified for future targeting. The corporations are safe.

The NCD Pandemic
Once called "diseases of civilization," chronic disease is now pandemic - the leading cause of death globally, killing more people each year than all other causes combined. One third of these deaths occur in people under 60. Chronic disease fatalities are rising rapidly in poorer nations; in the richer countries, costs are soaring to maintain survivors. Officially called "noncommunicable diseases" (NCDs), the main four are cardiovascular diseases, cancers, diabetes and chronic lung diseases. The World Economic Forum (WEF) adds mental illness to the list, reporting that mental health, "typically left off lists of leading NCDs, will account for $16 trillion - a third of the overall $47 trillion anticipated costs." The WEF states unequivocally, "This is not a health issue, this is an economic issue."

From REUTERS:

Chronic disease to cost $47 trillion by 2030: WEF

The global economic impact of the five leading chronic diseases -- cancer, diabetes, mental illness, heart disease, and respiratory disease -- could reach $47 trillion over the next 20 years, according to a study by the World Economic Forum (WEF).

..."This is not a health issue, this is an economic issue -- it touches on all sectors of society," Eva Jane-Llopis, WEF's head of chronic disease and wellness, said ...

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by buster2010

 

they were saying that patents were seeking out unnecessary treatment and was a burden on the health care system.

mark my words, if this thing is not repealed,and gets up and running good, within 5 to 10 years, people will be dropping like flies.

Can't be true. We have Obamacare now and all Americans are covered. Everything is working perfectly and we have room in our healthcare system for 11-22 million illegal aliens we're going to sneak in for citizenship.

What could be wrong?

reply to post by Bassago


Aw cum'on. This has been going on a good long while - and the impetus to cut coverage comes from global corporate interests, represented by the World Economic Forum (WEF).

REUTERS:

Chronic disease to cost $47 trillion by 2030: WEF

The global economic impact of the five leading chronic diseases -- cancer, diabetes, mental illness, heart disease, and respiratory disease -- could reach $47 trillion over the next 20 years, according to a study by the World Economic Forum (WEF).

..."This is not a health issue, this is an economic issue -- it touches on all sectors of society," Eva Jane-Llopis, WEF's head of chronic disease and wellness, said ...

Covered on ATS here. And maybe check out my post above.

It's so funny out of the same mouth comes such nonsense as "see something, say something" and "call 911 immediately" then "maybe dont call so much" and "better be dying before you go to an emergency room."

Half the time there is a campaign going to get people to see the doctor. The reluctant male with ongoing conditions is the biggest one. They couldnt pay them to see a doctor. Remember these: PSA's designed to guilt men into going to the doctor ?

Now I imagine we'll see a push of ads getting people to not see their doctor until something is really wrong.

Prevention is better than the cure unless prevention costs too much or perhaps not enough depending on your view.

Makes sense. The habitat has become detrimental to the well being of the species. This policy reinforces that truth. It means we're aware, and trying to mitigate the fallout from an overburdened healthcare system. It's better than allowing the banks to rupture... or is it?! Hmm... Even better would be restoring the habitat, and coming up with cleaner, healthier, and more efficient agricultural methods of production. That's too sane, thou. We're not ready to face that much reality head on.

reply to post by webedoomed

It's better than allowing the banks to rupture... or is it?! Hmm... Even better would be restoring the habitat, and coming up with cleaner, healthier, and more efficient agricultural methods of production. That's too sane, thou. We're not ready to face that much reality head on.

:sigh: I can't help wondering. Is it really impossible to have a healthy economy AND an ecologically sustainable world AND a "compassionate" society?

reply to post by soficrow


40 years ago? Sure, we could have made the transition no problem!

2013?! Well, I don't know. Some days I think there's hope, and others.... not so much.

2020 and beyond?? For every day we continue on without tackling the real problems, we're increasing the chances of crossing the rubicon. Some are certain we already did so last decade.

As for HOW, we could at least TRY?! Well I think it would start off with clearly distinguishing between needs, and wants.. once we have a clear distinction at hand, we can apply this towards a new economic theory. One that doesn't assume growth as a prerequisite for a "healthy" economy. We can realize health in our economy, from implementing policies which increase the likelyhood of transitioning into a steady-state, zero-growth, sustainable economy/ecology.

I'm still dreaming up the aquaponics end of it all, and trying to fund it within the next year or two.

I think the compassion part will need be first. We can't have a clear perception of our wants and our needs, until we allow our hearts to overflow. I think that won't happen until we struggle some more. Here's to anticipating the collapse, and being proactive to catch and rebuild as we see fit.

reply to post by webedoomed

...Here's to anticipating the collapse, and being proactive to catch and rebuild as we see fit.

And a bunch of stars for the 2nd line.