Edwards Offers Cancer Plan

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Associated Press

By MIKE GLOVER

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) - Democrat John Edwards said Sunday he is offering a strategy for dealing with cancer that would bolster research funding, create support networks for people dealing with the disease and encourage lifestyle changes to help keep others from getting it.


Jack Edwards, 6, son of Democratic presidential hopeful former Sen. John Edwards and wife Elizabeth, rubs his nose as the family greets people at the City Hall Plaza in Manchester, N.H., Sunday, Aug. 26, 2007. (AP Photo/Cheryl Senter)

Edwards said his wife's battle with breast cancer has driven home the need to make combatting the disease a top priority for the next president.

"It's clear to me that this is a huge priority," Edwards said in a telephone interview. "That has had a huge influence on my thinking."

Edwards plans to spell out his proposals during a forum Monday sponsored by Olympic bicycling champion Lance Armstrong, himself a cancer survivor. Some details of the package were provided to The Associated Press, and Edwards discussed them in the interview, saying it would mark a new focus on battling cancer.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070826/D8R8VQQ00.html

[OzarkDem]

1. Sadly not enough

Combined with his health care reform plan, his agenda will still leave hundreds of thousands of cancer patients w/o health care coverage. Most of his health care proposal focuses on "families", meaning individuals at middle age who get cancer are not eligible since their children are grown.

Edwards health care plan also focuses on employer based health care coverage, when most cancer patients lose jobs or can't work once they're diagnosed. Increasing funding for NIH cancer research is questionable. Some of their research granting programs are good, but many of them are research "pork barrel spending". They need to be more transparent in how they spend their money, show the results of all the research they fund and stop getting funding for junk stuff.

On the positive side, Edwards appears to embrace many of the priorities of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, including research funding to determine how environmental toxins, chemicals, hormones, etc. cause cancer.

I'm sure Edwards means well, but he has no idea what uninsured cancer patients go through, the poor quality of care they receive and how all this has a huge impact on both research and lowering cancer mortality. I think Lance Armstrong understands this a little, but he seems reluctant to challenge individual politicians on the important issues.

I'm somewhat disappointed in Edwards. It will be interesting to see what the other candidates say in the Presidential Cancer Forum this week.

Something tells me Kucinich will come out a winner on this issue again - he really understands cancer related public policy simply because he embraces the challenge of eradicating cancer in our lifetime and doesn't try to fight it, blame the victims or make timid,skinflint, marginal public policy look like more than it is.

[citizen53]

2. Not really fair...

as he is not president now, and cannot control the current policies and effect on uninsured patients.

It seems this new proposal would be in conjuction with his universal health plan, where people without jobs and with pre-existing conditions would have the opportunity to obtain health insurance for all purposes, even though most will get coverage through their employers, at least until the system evolves.

[OzarkDem]

5. Not really

If Edwards is detailing his policies regarding cancer, he should be very specific about how he will ensure cancer patients have access to affordable health care, directly addressing their unique needs. Cancer patients move in and out of employment and often go from full to part time and back again. Their incomes follow the same path. They face big problems with pre-existing condition clauses and other efforts private insurance uses to keep from covering them.

Most health care proposals that aren't Medicare for all or single payer health care don't meet the needs of cancer patients. Without access to health care for all, research slows down as low income patients are prevented from participating in clinical trials and trials take longer to accrue patients.

I encourage John Edwards and all the presidential candidates to do some research and develop a plan that covers cancer care as well as research and support groups.

[citizen53]

8. Let him address it

You are reacting to a news article. He has made clear that pre-existing conditions will be no longer be allowed under any aspect of his plan, and there is always the medicare variant that people can choose.

I just don't see why you claim it's not enough when he has not even presented it.

[OzarkDem]

9. I just read it at his web site

if he's planning to modify his current health care plan, that's great. I look forward to more details.

Having experience with cancer in your family is important, but not having experience in being uninsured or single living with cancer is different.

I like John Edwards and hope he does well.

[Occulus]

35. I have this person on ignore for a reason

I bet it was Intentional Obtuseness. I'd confirm, but I don't want to log out and log back in.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[surfermaw]

49. I think you are right,

Covers every one

[papau]

21. Edwards, Clinton, and Richardson are only Dems bothering to show up re Cancer n/t.

n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

3. How About Medicare For Everyone?

Since it would cut the cost of medical care by 30% or more*, there'd be lots left over for research - $600 billion or so each year. Why can't Edwards get behind this? What's the problem? I cannot see a single non-nefarious reason for not embracing Medicare-For-All, particularly from the guy that's currently trying to assume the mantle of the "help the people - do bold things" candidate.

And don't tell me that "other candidates aren't endorsing it either" - that doesn't make it right.

*unless we're somehow stupider than people in every other industrialized country - they spend half as much per person as we do on average, and they get demonstrably superior care.

[OzarkDem]

7. Good point

One of the major obstacles for many candidates and elected officials when considering Medicare for all is the cost of providing care for people like those living with cancer. Its expensive, but if done correctly, doesn't have to be. Its a hurdle we have to find a way to overcome; we can't just cover healthy people.

[zalinda]

10. There is a problem with your proposal

millions of people could lose their jobs over night. While most don't want to see it this way, but the health insurance industry employees millions of people, whether they work in their offices or in the office of a doctor or hospital who has to bill the insurance company.

What Edwards has proposed is a 2 prong plan. Those who can get insurance from their employers may do so, but others can be covered by a medicare type plan. If insurance companies can offer better services than medicare, they will survive, if not, they will go under. In this way, people won't lose jobs, the insurance companies can either change their ways or start selling some other type of insurance.

This is probably the most thought out plan, in heading to a one payer system. This is the plan that will hurt the least amount of people, and help the most amount of people.

zalinda

[OzarkDem]

12. Doesn't that mean

that we're putting the needs of health insurance employees ahead of the needs of sick people who can't afford health insurance, but don't have incomes at poverty level to qualify for Medicaid?

At some point in discussing health care reform we have to discuss the priority of providing coverage to sick, uninsured people.

Getting sick with a catastrophic illness doesn't make you suddenly eligible for free health care now and it won't under most of the proposed plans put forward by '08 candidates. In the end, that's what we should strive for first - providing health care to everyone who is sick, regardless of their income or ability to pay.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Private Insurers Cannot Work For Less Than Medicare

It can't happen. Here's why:

For the most part, doctors must follow standards-of-care guidelines that are published by each speciality (cardiac, oncology, etc.). This means that doctors have to treat privately-insured patients the same as Medicare patients - there's not much room, if any, to treat private patients in a different way that saves money.

Private insurers can never negotiate a better price for a given service than Medicare can. Medicare is the biggest insurer by far - providers can (and do) play other insurers off against each other to get higher fees, but they cannot do this with Medicare - if you don't take Medicare, you've dramatically decreased your patient population. Almost all doctors have to take Medicare.

Finally, Medicare's administrative (i.e., non-medical) costs are something like 75%-85% lower than those of private insurers. Is it reasonable to believe that private insurers can cut their administrative costs by 75%-85%? For a number of reasons, it can't happen, even if you were to lower CEO salaries enormously. And - most of the administrative cost is salaries, so they'd have to cut jobs.

So there's really no way for private insurers to beat Medicare.

It might be reasonable to kick in Medicare For All over, say, a five-year period - each year drop the age of eligability by a decade (e.g., first year drop it to 55). But other than Medicare For All, there's no other way to do health care as well, as inexpensively, and as universally as other every other country does it.

If we really want to do something about jobs, we can stop our absurd "free" trade policies with China et al - these have obliterated many, many jobs that actually produce something.

[penguin7]

28. What are you suggesting here?

We do not adopt HR 676 to save the jobs of the health insurance industry?

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Not Me - The Post Above Mine (nt)

[pitohui]

34. so people should die so you should keep your job?

how about you get an honest job?

just as a hired assassin has no right to guaranteed employment nor should people in the insurance industry -- they kill far more

[Occulus]

36. The people who "are in the healthcare field"

who do insurance coding can go get training as RNs if they want to be in healthcare so badly. If their company is in any way sane, they'll already offer educational opportunities to their employees to do exactly that.

As a USPS employee, I have seen ads in the mailstream- I cannot name exact companies- to employees of insurance companies offering additional employees training to their employees, so I know such training is available in SOME places, at least.

Yes, a sudden transition will cause many jobs to be lost. That's the nature of this beast.

How, in your opinion, might we mitigate that "damage"?

[sandnsea]

37. There will always be paperwork

The sales team will have to find something else to sell, but other than that, there will still be people to process the claims. With so many boomers retiring, and many from lucrative trades jobs, it's a perfect time to make the transition. This is the lamest argument for not doing single payer there is.

The Canadian quads who had to be born in Montana because there wasn't room in Calgary - now that's concerning. After all the manufacturing jobs that have been displaced - puhleeze, I do not feel sorry for people paid to deny others health care that they've paid thousands of dollars for.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

50. Don't all socialized medicine country have a point in which they switched to socialized health care?

I mean, no country BEGAN its existence with socialized health care. There has to be a point in time in which things begin to be changed. No?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. but edwards has no experience with cancer, so

we can't choose him.

say, wait a sec. . . .
hmmm.

I saw him, listened to him, and shook his hand at the yearly kos thing in chicago. I was impressed.

[Pastiche423]

11. Has he had experience w/being a poor person w/cancer?

NO!

[OzarkDem]

13. To be fair, Kerry didn't understand it either

nor has any GOP candidate or elected official who is a cancer survivor or the relative of one. Kerry's health care proposal was very weak.

There are very few candidates or elected officials who have been touched by cancer who truly "get it" enough to take a bold stand on health care reform. They are too frightened by the cost.

[Pastiche423]

14. Kerry is running again?

This thread is about johnnyboy, the multimillionaire that is running on the poverty issue. :gagging:

It simply boggles my mind when I read that some people believe his poverty bs. This is a guy that has not been poor since long before he entered high school.

IMHO, once again he is using his wife's cancer to try to score some political points.

[OzarkDem]

16. Not true

I can't imagine any spouse who is going through this experience would exploit it for their own benefit, least of all John Edwards. Its a very stressful situation for both of them, particularly where their children are concerned.

Coverage for chronic illnesses like cancer is very expensive and many candidates shy away from it probably in fear of the tax and spend label. Let's hope Edwards reviews his policy in light of catastrophic illness and changes it.

[Pastiche423]

18. You know this is not true, how?

[OzarkDem]

39. I work with cancer patients and their families

and I'm a survivor myself. People in this situation rarely exploit their disease for financial benefit. John Edwards doesn't have any of the characteristics of someone who would do this.

Its cruel and unfair to make that kind of accusation against him and his family when they're going through such a difficult time.

[Pastiche423]

45. So you do not know if it's true or not

[1932]

51. You think he doesn't want to help people with cancer?

[saracat]

19. What an absolutely disgusting comment. You may not support Edwards, as is your right ,but

to use such a vile RW talking point is beyond nasty. I hope you are never in a position to be attacked so personally on such an intimate level. I have had some experience with this and that accusation is just about the worst thing anyone can accuse someone of.No spouse or family member of a cancer patient deserves this treatment.Shame on you!

[Pastiche423]

22. lol

RW talking point? :rofl:

I am probably as far left as one can be.

If you want to lap up his bs, then go right ahead. I have not in the past, nor will I ever believe that he is altruistic. His voting record shows that, as well as his past.

Watch what they do, not what they say.

[saracat]

23. And what you did by posting such a disgusting comment shows

what a complete lack of empathy you have. To accuse the family member of any cancer patient of "using" the patient's condition for gain is deplorable. You may be "left" but you have neither compassion or any sense of humanity.Attack Edwards on his positions if you don't support him, but a decent person would not utilize his wife's condition as a target or imply his devotion to her was less than sincere.Your comment was worse than anything an RW would have said.

[sandnsea]

38. He proposed federal coverage of catastrophic illness

Which would include cancer. Putting all catastrophics in a separate federally funded pool so that premiums would drop for the regular employer based insurance. At the same time, employers would implement preventive health programs to help people change their lifestyles and not get some of these diseases in the first place.

What he understood is that America won't do single payer - and so health care was going to need to be tackled from many different directions.

As a cancer survivor himself, I think he "got it" very well and "gets it" on any subject better than any of the candidates running today.

[OzarkDem]

40. Employer-based health care doesn't help cancer patients

Many patients get fired from or have to quit their jobs when they're diagnosed because they are too sick or are facing surgery and months or years of treatment. They not only lose health insurance, they also lose income. Others go to part-time status, it all depends on the type and stage of cancer they have, their treatment regimen, their health and how they respond to treatment.

Cancer patients are also under ongoing, severe emotional stress. Adding financial problems and inability to pay for care to the mix often tips their emotional balance and pushes patients into refusing treatment as well as impairing their ability to make good choices.

Its not a perfect world out there, and many cancer patients are on their own, without family or friends close by who can help them.

We need a system of cancer care for the uninsured that allows them to move from employment to unemployment and back again without losing access to treatment and without high costs. Employer based insurance isn't much help.

[sandnsea]

42. It works for some, not for others

My sister's employer based insurance is working very very well. She is fortunate that she is a salaried employee so she can take time when she needs to. Perhaps there needs to be advocates who simply talk about the worst of the worst insurance policies - so people know there is better available. That would be something.

It isn't going to matter what kind of system is in place, those with money will pay for services the rest of us can't get. There will be limitations on routine screenings and the like. People with chronic illnesses will max out their sick leave. I don't see any means to eliminate every economic problem people encounter.

The point is, you don't know what it is to have some sort of coverage when you had previously had none.

[OzarkDem]

43. I'm an advocate for cancer patients

I see and talk to them every day and I know a great deal about the variety of situations they find themselves in and the many twists and turns of health care coverage during their cancer journey.

Here are some core values for quality cancer care from the National Breast Cancer Coalition. See how many of these we can meet w/ private health insurance:

Access
Comprehensive affordable health care must be available to everyone. All patients must have access to coordinated care that is user-friendly, culturally respectful, timely, and integrated both among and within provider offices and systems.

Information
All information must be accurate, timely, readily accessible, and disseminated in an appropriate format. Health care providers must offer clear information on the risks and benefits of all treatment options, and the evidence and lack of evidence relating to each option. They must encourage multiple opinions to assure the patient that the provider's recommendation is appropriate.

There must be transparent standards of evidence that explain what level of evidence is acceptable and what happens in the absence of sufficient evidence.

Providers and patients must be given time and resources to review evidence, and efforts to review and synthesize evidence must be expanded so health insurance coverage policies reflects current scientific/medical knowledge.

A national advocacy advisory panel should be established to work with advocates, health literacy specialists, economists, and the public health community to review evidence and help design effective methods for communicating health care information to consumers, providers, and insurers.

Choice
Recommended treatments must offer the best possible outcome consistent with patients' personal preferences. Patient preferences for information and involvement in determining the course of treatment must be respected.

Patients must have choices among a reasonable range of providers and treatment options, including specialists and effective complementary care.

Respect
Care must be patient-centered and culturally respectful. Patients should feel comfortable asking questions, voicing opinions, and being participants (at whatever level is appropriate for them) in all health care decisions. They must have justified confidence in the experience and training of health care providers and know that providers listen to them and advocate on their behalf.

Patient confidentiality is paramount, and patients must have assurances that it is respected.

There must be a system-wide emphasis on comprehensive care that respects patients' fears, beliefs, culture, time, bodies, pain, decisions, and family members. The system must enable patients for whom breast cancer is a chronic illness to take care of themselves, avoid complications, and maintain their quality of life. The system must provide a wide range of services related to end of life issues for those dying of breast cancer.

Accountability
There must be national standards of quality care that are continually updated; every aspect of care must meet these standards at all sites of care. Services provided should be 'needed and effective' as determined by a decision-making body that includes consumers; the end result should be based on democratically developed unambiguous criteria.

There must be a well-designed and trusted grievance procedure that is clearly articulated to patients and includes meaningful consequences for both system and health care/insurer provider errors.

Patients must bring health issues forward to their providers and accept the choices they make for themselves. All providers and patients must be accountable to our society for the responsible use of health care dollars.

Improvement
There must be an ongoing commitment to increasing the quality and quantity of available evidence, especially regarding the causes and prevention of breast cancer, and with an emphasis on learning from mistakes. All patients must be fully informed of clinical trials for which they are eligible, and there must be no financial barriers to participation in these trials.

There needs to be more creative and meaningful measures of quality, and more effective ways of collecting and disseminating this information. Designing scientific tools for measuring health care quality has, until recently, been the domain of health services researchers. Breast cancer survivors and activists bring a unique and crucial perspective to this issue, and must be involved at every level of the quality breast cancer care research process.

A patient-centered evidence-based vision of quality must deeply permeate our medical educational system, including continuing medical education, so both current and future providers understand and appreciate their role in creating quality breast cancer care.

[sandnsea]

44. "choices among a reasonable range"

And those who can afford it will always have any choice among any range. There isn't anything that is going to change that. It's wrong to promise single payer advocates that pipe dream that doesn't exist. Be honest. It also is going to cost much more than 3% because Medicare alone costs 3% now. Oregon calculated it at 6%, as did the Kerry health care plan which was the max cap that those outside the subsidy would be required to pay.

In addition, much of what you list depends on the provider. Doctors have horrible bedside manners and notoriously treat people like imbeciles. They are stretched to the max and don't have time to give every patient a personal seminar on care. The educators who run various classes only give the current standards approved by the particular disease nonprofit, heart assoc approved, etc. You never get alternative opinions.

Then, when you finally get to the patient, you have to throw in the obligatory "patients must be accountable" and "accept choices". What the hell does that mean? And why do you expect a patient to become a medical expert when they're in the throes of the worst illness and treatment imaginable, out of work, and under major economic stress?

I appreciate your advocacy, but really, it seems you've got a mission statement that relies on false promises from the left with the worst of the personal responsibility crowd.

[karynnj]

46. Kerry's proposal was not weak - but stronger than any of the 2004 ones

per the various health groups. Kerry's catastropic insurance idea was regularly refered to as best.

He did get that he survived because he had great health care (and a very smart wife - who noticed a trend that did not worry his doctors. Earlier this year, the guideline for Prostrate cancer changed to include looking for change from previous levels - the NYT interview did not mention that this was why Kerry's was caught. Without Teresa, even excellent health insurance and care would not have caught it when it was caught. He also had just years before seen his father die a very long painful death from this cancer. So, he clearly saw that he was extremely lucky compared to most cancer victims. Last fall, Senator Kerry spoke of his and his dad's cancer in the most emotional personal speech I ever heard at the Lance Armstrong conference - if you doubt that he gets it - you may want to watch this. It is the very bottom video on this link-
http://www.johnkerry.com/multimedia/video

In 2004, Kerry did argue that that should be the case for everyone - and his proposal then was the best that would have been remotely likely to pass - Edwards in fact then called it too expensive - in late February comments. (His 2004 proposal was strengthened for 2008, before he opted not to run - it was one of the Faneuil Hall speeches.)

That said, no one will ever know what something is before they go through it. The best any can do - and I would credit all the Democrats with doing this - is to try to empathize and in the case of a Democratic President fight for health insurance.

[OzarkDem]

52. Catastrophic insurance for states isn't a good solution for cancer patients

unless its somehow linked to a single payer type of system that provides continuous coverage for cancer patients whether they're able to work or not.

Cancer patients have enough pain and trauma to endure without having to go through the mess, delays and expense of moving from one health care plan to another while going through treatment. They need a single, continuous source of affordable health care that doesn't make them change doctors, reapply, go through long waiting periods or force them to get rid of all their money and assets to qualify for poverty level programs.

[Inspired]

6. I will be attending the forum tomorrow morning.

It should be very interesting.

[snot]

15. how 'bout a lifestyle change like stop letting corps. poison us. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. I LOVE THIS MAN!

Who else is even TALKING about cancer, which is a disease that lands many either on the street or in the graveyard? It's touched my family and the families of everyone I know. Someone needs to discuss this!

[salib]

24. Are you kidding?

Or just a fan?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. Okay, I'm curious. What do you mean are you kidding? No I'm not kidding.

Someone needs to start discussing the scourge of our time: cancer. It's the most horrible and expensive (to Americans) disease. :(

[salib]

31. I admit, I was very terse.

I just was really surprised that it went over everyones' heads that this is a fairly lame presentation.

Of course cancer is a scourge. However, to say "lifestyle changes" is really upper crust BS.

I am sorry to be so blunt, but it is SO demeaning, out of touch, and privileged, to assume that we have "lifestyle choices" that determine our exposure to what causes cancer.

I know. I know. It is only part of what he said. But he said it. Thought is was that important.

He understands suffering, I think, because he is a good, decent person who can empathize. He understands want, I think, because he sees people who want and it pains him.

He does not understand what is really important in terms of the realities of what those who suffer and want need, fear, wish for, and care about. Because he is too far removed from that experience and is not self reflective enough to get there. It is too bad. I like the man. Will vote for him gladly if he wins.

Just think that his comments are pedantic.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

48. Oh ok. Now I understand. Yes you're right.

It's important to be more specific, but at least he mentioned it.

[cascadiance]

25. Damn right! I had a bad enough time having my cat get an operation a week ago...

... to remove a cancerous tumor.

That was stressful and expensive enough! I can't imagine having to deal with human beings close to you and having to put a price tag on their lives too! Thank you John for standing up for Americans again!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. It's beyond horrible. nt

[salib]

29. OK, but what lifestyle changes?

According to the article "and encourage lifestyle changes to help keep others from getting it" is what John Edwards will do.

Does that mean lifestyle changes like:

not breathing the polluted air?
not going to Iraq and dealing with depleted uranium?
not breathing in asbestos?
not eating meat?

Come on! That is such a lame, out of touch, and totally upper crust view of Cancer!

Do you not see it?!

[DeepModem Mom]

32. K&R -- Thanks for posting, Steve!

[pitohui]

33. lifestyle changes?

if 1 in 3 or 4 people who live long enough get cancer then the only lifestyle change that will make any difference is people not living so long

i know he has to make the right noises but i'm tired of the lifestyle bullshit

lifestyle didn't cause his wife's breast cancer or anybody's breast cancer so let's chill on the blaming the victim and focus on finding the cures

virtually every man who lives into his 90s has prostate cancer for instance, lifestyle changes won't do fuck all, and that's just one example

let's stop focusing on cheap bullshit and focus on the real issues

oh, and to make it clear, i know edwards knows this and is going to be a great candidate and a great president, i'm just venting at a frustrating turn of phrase that triggers me

so i'll be quiet now

[OzarkDem]

41. I agree 100% on the lifestyle message

There's little scientific evidence to support claims that changes in lifestyle will have a significant impact on incidence for most types of cancer.

American Cancer Society has been going too far overboard with this message lately and they've had some real problems with unscientific claims and conflicts of interest (google article on their claims about fatal skin cancer marketing agreement w/ Neutrogena).

Sadly, politicians don't always have the time to do a lot of deep research into the latest scientific evidence. Its hard to feel confident enough to refute claims of groups like ACS without fear of retribution, so I can see Edwards incentive to adopt their message, flawed as it is.

American Cancer Society and most of the public health profession have their heads up their arses when it comes to public health messages about cancer. Its not surprising, though that Edwards doesn't feel like picking a fight with them.

[Vinca]

47. What's the point in changing my lifestyle if I don't have insurance

and won't be able to pay for treatment? Actually, my lifestyle is just fine, thank you, but the point is all the little "feel good" tips are worthless if you don't have access to healthcare. Only Kucinich seems to get this concept and I wonder why it's so hard for the others to grasp. The rest of them seem to be hell bent on protecting the insurance industry and big pharma.