Lance Armstrong says U.S. should focus on cancer war

[tocqueville]

5 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven-time Tour de France winner and cancer survivor Lance Armstrong on Sunday said the United States, which is embroiled in a costly war in Iraq, should focus more effort on a war facing many Americans -- the one against cancer.

Although the United States declared war on cancer in 1971, Armstrong said in some ways, the country was losing that war.

"I'm not saying that spending on wars and terrorism is a bad thing," Armstrong said in an interview on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

When asked if the United States was doing enough to fight cancer, Armstrong replied: "I think we could spend more money. I think we could spend our money in different places. And I think we could spend our money where it matters to the American people."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050814/ts_nm/armstrong_dc

[alfredo]

1. Good. There is more than one issue that needs to be

addressed.

[saigon68]

21. Lance doesn't want his tax money

Going to subsidize the smell of piles of burning napalmed Iraqi Corpses in the morning.

[alfredo]

23. Exactly!

[vickitulsa]

2. Interesting. Just this morning I heard Lance's best friend

said of his longtime pal that he wouldn't be surprised to see Lance become President of the United States someday. I believe he made this comment before Lance joked publicly about running for office in Texas.

Lance has apparently already learned to be carefully politick when speaking in a political forum. But everything I know about him -- and I've learned quite a bit since I'm a veteran cross-country cyclist -- indicates he's a very intelligent guy with a helluva lot of courage, determination and plain old common sense.

Anyone know his political affiliation or if he really has one?

It would be a shame if the man were drawn away from his current goals to help boost the fight against cancer to put him to work in politics, though, IMO. I think he's such a strong voice in the "cancer war" and could do so much good. He has already raised awareness about testicular cancer and metastasized cancers and given hope to many who suffer from what is probably the most prevalent and dangerous disease category on the planet. Frankly I agree with him 100 percent in what he said in this interview.

Those promoting AIDS awareness and breast cancer awareness and enlisting many thousands in the fight against these specific illnesses have shown how effective their efforts have been. More could be done, for sure, and more SHOULD be done to combat cancer.

I lost a fiance to testicular cancer and of course many loved ones to other cancers as well. Who doesn't want to see the entire category of human cancers conquered?

Let's all enlist in an "army" to fight alongside him in Lance's war -- let's fight THAT fight. And maybe along the way we'll be able to drain funds away from W's grudge-oil-power-trip war in Iraq so he'll have no option but to shut it DOWN....

[Nomad559]

6. Lance become President

Lance will never become President, most of the people In this country will not vote for an Atheist.

http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/index.php?title=Lance_Armstrong

http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Atheist

http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Do they have a similar list of celebrity religious fanatics?

and celebrity RW fundamentalists?


That is where I would get the list of people for whom I would not vote.

[wli]

25. why couldn't an atheist become president?

It speaks volumes about what's wrong with US society.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

3. It's a more worthwhile cause than the Iraq war

[vickitulsa]

10. oh i love the new miniturd!

:hi: :loveya: :thumbsup: :toast: B-)

[Dogmudgeon]

22. THAT'S a phrase I never thought I would ever see in my life

:rofl:

--p!

[fortyfeetunder]

4. Only one problem in his logic on this war

It's not attractive to PNAC because there aren't any visible terrorists,

[BrklynLiberal]

5. He made a similar statement on The Charlie Rose Show.

He said that if we had spent even a small percentage of the money on fighting Cancer that we have spent in Iraq we would be a long way toward beating Cancer.

I am not sure what his longterm national political future could be in this country, as he is not known as a particularly religious man. Unless we become more enlightened and are able to drop that requirement in our leaders, we will continue to lose a lot of excellent potential leaders to that "flaw".

EDIT: I do not see him running as REPUKE, if he runs at all. He was talking about marrying Sheryl Crow on Charlie Rose, and I cannot see her marrying anyone who would be considering a Republican run for any office. IMHO

[kestrel91316]

7. It does not bode well for our nation in the long run if we favor .........

semi-literate bible-thumpers over intellectuals who question authority and the existence of god for president. Give me a clear-headed agnostic or atheist any day of the week.

[BrklynLiberal]

9. I am with you 100%.

I prefer those who do good and are good for its OWN sake and NOT because they are afraid of burning in hell some day...

[vickitulsa]

12. Oh yes, that's right, I remember now.

"EDIT: I do not see him running as REPUKE, if he runs at all. He was talking about marrying Sheryl Crow on Charlie Rose, and I cannot see her marrying anyone who would be considering a Republican run for any office. IMHO"

And I agree.

Besides, anyone who didn't take an easy way out (if there was one) from his challenges is not likely to think repukely.

And yeah, come to think of it, there WERE some easy ways "out" of his problems, many of them. Easiest re the bike racing would have been simply to drop out of them.

As for the atheist issue, I suppose it's true this country is not likely to elect a "non-believer" anytime soon. But then he could always modify his stance a bit, or even "get religion" in a sensible way, just enough to appease many who would be put off by an outright atheist?

Most agnostics pretty readily admit to allowing the possibility of a higher power of some sort. Atheists? I guess not. So maybe he isn't a hardcore atheist? Haha, I'm reaching, eh?

What has always kept me from ever thinking seriously about running for office, even locally, hasn't been my "belief system" but what I know about politics in general in this country. I don't think we should stop voting or reject democratic systems, but I have witnessed in my lifetime a degredation of political service to the point where the service part is desired on the part of the citizens, not the elected official who should be the servant!

I have said for decades that one cannot get anywhere in politics without corrupting, and those who refuse to be corrupted fail to reach high levels in politics if they succeed at all in the lower levels. I haven't yet seen any way around this dilemma.

:dilemma: :patriot: :banghead: :argh:

[BrklynLiberal]

18. I am afraid this may be very true...

:(

"I have said for decades that one cannot get anywhere in politics without corrupting, and those who refuse to be corrupted fail to reach high levels in politics if they succeed at all in the lower levels. I haven't yet seen any way around this dilemma."

[Robert Oak]

11. focus on health insurance and costs war

Big deal if the tests are there. Most people won't get them because they cannot afford them.

[OzarkDem]

17. Cancer advocacy groups

are some of the strongest and most influential supporters of guaranteed access to affordable health care for all. They lobby not just for research funding, but health care coverage and patients' rights also.

[leesa]

13. First we need to dismantle the greedy Big Pharma industry

We will never have a cure for cancer until we take away the motivation for NOT coming up with a cure. If you can make a bazillion dollars selling drugs that either don't work at all or drugs that work for a couple months, why would they bother to find anything that would make this cash cow go away?
There is a drug we routinely give to leukemic patients that has never worked to my knowledge and each dose (2 doses is standard) costs $4,400 dollars...just for the drug alone. This, of course is after they have received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of therapy already.

[Lefty48197]

14. Here's a better quote from Lance:

http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin07272005.html

"The biggest downside to a war in Iraq is what you could do with that money," Armstrong said through gritted teeth. "What does a war in Iraq cost a week? A billion? Maybe a billion a day? The budget for the National Cancer Institute is four billion. That has to change. Polls say people are much more afraid of cancer than of a plane flying into their house or a bomb or any other form of terrorism." His timing was fortuitous. A report came out of the Congressional Budget Office the next day that indicated the war in Iraq will cost more - adjusted for 2005 dollars - than any war since the Second World War, with a price tag that may near 800 billion dollars."

"I don't like what the war has done to our country, to our economy," he said. "My kids will be paying for this war for some time to come."

"Now in 2005, Armstrong has taken a much harder stance. This could be attributed to possible aspirations for political office. Armstrong in a recent interview laid out his views on a number of issues, describing himself as "against mixing up state and Church, not keen on guns, pro women's right to choose. And very anti war in Iraq,"

[goforit]

15. Way to go Lance!!!....Now that is reality!!

[OzarkDem]

16. Cancer research is always first to be cut

when the budget gets tight. As recently as the late 1980's the NCI was considering closing its breast cancer research program due to lack of funds. Research funding has only recently been catching up, now they're trying to cut it again.

Conservative R's are cheap on medical research and prefer to blame the victim instead of providing treatment and researching cures. In some conservative circles, cancer victims are becoming the new "welfare queens".

Cutting millions in research funding and telling people to eat an apple and take a walk every day instead is BS.

[SouthernDem2004]

19. Huh?

They talk about cutting funding but I can not recall it happening.

I have never heard anyone blame cancer victims for anything. Cancer effects all people. Any links to the welfare queens claim? Sorry but that just sounds absurd.

[OzarkDem]

20. NCI and NIH

have both seen cuts to cancer research funding recently. That's why Lance is speaking out on their behalf. Many programs that have been approved or are seeking supplemental funding are being put on "waiting lists".

As for conservative Republicans growing hostility to cancer patients - the code word to look for in these efforts is "prevention". You'll see a great deal of talk about funding programs that "prevent" cancers while behind the scenes, funds are being cut for cancer screening and treatment. A number of conservatives have gone so far as to imply that breast cancer victims got their disease because they got abortions. One who has taken this stand is Ohio's new Rep. Jean Schmidt.

The truth is, we don't know how to "prevent" many cancers, but for R's its cheaper to pay for "prevention" programs than pay for research and treatment.

[daleo]

24. They don't care for prevention, if it means preventing pollution though.

As you say, prevention tends to be focused on non-corporate behaviors.

[Child_Of_Isis]

26. Right! It's all contributed to "lifestyle".

We cause it by smoking, or drinking, or eating bad foods and anything else they can come up with. Not so, said my doctor concerning my breast cancer. He said new research was linking it to a virus.