MSNBC/Lance Armstrong LiveStrong Presidential Cancer Forum (Official Thread)

[wndycty]

Hillary is up and she just called on a war against cancer.

[wndycty]

1. Hilary just attacked Bush for ignoring science

:kick:

[Cameron27]

2. Clinton sounds good,

I like what she's saying.

[slipslidingaway]

3. Matthews 'Why can we always find money for wars or a bailout

for the S&L, borrowing money if needed, but when it comes to healthcare we are told we have to look at the budget. Clinton said she would change that, but she continued to fund the war :(

[slipslidingaway]

4. BTW K&R, thanks for starting this thread. n/t

[Cameron27]

5. K&R

[Cameron27]

6. Crap

they break away for dumb-dumb. Damnation.

[slipslidingaway]

7. Back on and asking about new AG. n/t

[Cameron27]

9. I know, he spouted his bs and left.

Ok, I think Clinton did well, she was good on specifics and seemed to know what she was talking about.

[slipslidingaway]

20. Missed everything Edwards said, had a phone call :( n/t

[Cameron27]

21. I'm going to have to read his plan more carefully

because I don't understand what he's saying. I don't like mandatory checkups, and I'm wondering why he'll have an agency set up to deal with denials if it's a true universal plan.

[slipslidingaway]

26. Hopefully will be on youtube, mandatory check ups, denials :( nt

[lyonn]

41. Agree with your view on mandatory checkups - too much govt.

Also having an agency of any kind other than your doctors is cause for pause, but doctors are bad about sticking together so can see where Edwards is coming from on that issue. Sooo, keeping my mind open. Need to know more about his Plan. There are people out there that love to be tinkered with medically, mind boggling but, need to have some way of controlling doctors getting rich off those that are hypochondriacs.

So far I really like his thoughtfullness. So few things are black and white. Pat answers are suspect and boring.

[slipslidingaway]

8. Edwards after break n/t

[DemKR]

10. Did Edwards just say he is unsure on stem cells? n/t

[Cameron27]

11. Yep

He's not sure about using embryos just for research.

[DemKR]

12. Wow. He's not getting my vote. MAJOR Disappointment. n/t

[Cameron27]

16. He wasn't getting mine anyway, but yeah, it was an awful

answer. What is it that bothers him about using embryos for research?

[AlCzervik]

38. i guess it's better to throw them away. that answer was really disappointing

and surprising.

[lyonn]

31. The question was should there be embryos produced

for research purposes vs using what is already available. He said he would have to know what was available. He did not say he would be against producing embryos for research purposes. His answer impressed me. It was thoughtful and didn't come off as speaking for votes. His answer did not bother be and I am for research on embryo stem cells, either through what is available or produced for research purposes.

In no way was he against embryo stem cell reasearch, either by using the ones available or producing them for reasearch which only gave his pause but he never indicated he wouldn't. (Edit for spell and clarification)

[Cameron27]

33. What's wrong with producing embryos for research

despite what's available?

[jsamuel]

40. It is called context to a hypothetical. He totally and completely supports stem cell research.

People here who are trying to argue otherwise are just trying to take a Q/A out of context.

[slipslidingaway]

56. Thanks will look for a repeat to clarify n/t

[jsamuel]

42. NO! He supports stem cell research.

The question he was unsure about was a hypothetical that he didn't have enough context to make a judgment on which I think is the right way to go.

[Cameron27]

46. There wasn't anything difficult about the question,

whether a hypothetical or not. Either he thinks you can produce embryos for research or he doesn't, and he said wasn't sure.

[jsamuel]

49. It is a "do you agree to stop beating your wife" question.

If you don't beat your wife currently, then there is no need to "stop".

The point is that we have no need to produce them because there are plenty available. So, if we "had" to produce them, that would be a hypothetical situation with which he is unsure of.

[Cameron27]

50. I didn't get that but

I'll hold off until I see a repeat of what he said.

[Colobo]

13. Is Obama there?

[DemKR]

14. i'm not sure if Mr. not everyone should have universal health care is there n/t

[Colobo]

17. His plan is excellent, just not mandatory.

[Cameron27]

19. Did you hear Edwards say that people will be "mandated"

to go for checkups? (I can't remember the exact words) So, if you decide not to, then you won't be covered? What's the deal with that?

[Colobo]

22. That's what I don't like about it.

[Daphne08]

24. That's too much of an invasion of privacy if you ask me. n/t

[Clovis Sangrail]

66. why?

a huge part of our health care costs are directly related to people NOT getting regular checkups... not just uninsured people.
Yes, the uninsured have extra special disincentives ($$) for regular checkups, but if we want to cut down on the overall cost of health care everybody needs them.

Having to wear a helmet on my motorcycle is an "invasion" of my rights.
Having to wear a seatbelt in a car is an "invasion" of my rights.

Society as a whole bears many communal costs and we as the community have to make some allowances when is does.
Health care is no different.

[mikelgb]

69. they should incentivise checkups not make them mandatory

there should be incentives to get checkups, not make them mandatory

[JTFrog]

28. I think it should be mandated for children.

Period.

[Colobo]

30. For children, yes. For adults, no.

[Cameron27]

32. Mandated checkups for kids, yes

for adults absolutely not.

[slipslidingaway]

58. I would not be for mandatory check ups, even for children,

although I think it is essential. I'm all for education and incentives for parents and children to have check ups, but I would not favor forced check ups.

[wndycty]

15. He will be. . .there are going one at a time

:kick:

[slipslidingaway]

23. I think only 4 candidates accepted and Obama declined, 99%

sure.

[Colobo]

25. Why in the world did he?

[slipslidingaway]

29. Not sure, Richardson and Kucinich are the next two. Why does

MSNBC think the Vick story is more important than healthcare :grr:

[wndycty]

35. Because we have a lynch mob mentality and people want to see him pay for this. . .

. . .he needs to be punished and pay his debt to society, but I think the lynch mob will take it too far. Perspective people, perspective.

[Colobo]

37. Vick is human garbage, and human garbage deserves no airtime.

[wndycty]

47. Human garbage makes for good TV

Since there is so much hate directed at him and there is a lynch mob he will get TV. Look at OJ, Scott Peterson, etc.

[slipslidingaway]

39. They are diverting attention from real issues, keeping people

'busy'

[flaminbats]

51. isn't this forum about cancer?

most of these candidates are treating it as another annoying side issue! :banghead:

[slipslidingaway]

57. Depends on the questions they were asked and also it cannot

be separated from healthcare.

My comment was about MSNBC breaking away from the forum to cover the Vick story :(

[draft_mario_cuomo]

62. The same reason he declined the AARP forum and will skip many more forums and debates

;)

[Cameron27]

18. So people can be denied benefits from his plan?

Why is he setting up an agency to deal with denials, I thought his plan was universal?

[JTFrog]

27. Chris Matthews seems to be in pain

sitting there. Everytime the crowd cheers he looks completely shocked.

[Cameron27]

34. Richardson's up

[flaminbats]

44. is that thing really talking?

wew...Richardson says he's lucky, and what a healthy lifestyle he's living!! :puke:

[slipslidingaway]

36. Back to the forum, Richardson up now n/t

[Cameron27]

43. Richardson puts me to sleep,

I just can't stay focused on what he's saying.

[JTFrog]

45. No one stands up to DK

on this issue. This is a great forum for him.

[Cameron27]

48. Absolutely,

he's got the best health care plan out there. He may get my primary vote because of it.

[JTFrog]

52. DK says he'll

reverse the bankruptcy law. Says under his plan no one will have to worry about going bankrupt because of medical bills.

DK - he's not for sale!

[lyonn]

67. Yup, DK is the first candidate to state he will change the bkcy law

Course it takes Congress to accomplish it but that issue would/should be a vote getter.

[JTFrog]

53. Matthews says thanks for having him,

he can go through the transcripts now and see what he can use against these guys.

Har har. :eyes:

[JTFrog]

54. Tweety puts Obama and others

down for not showing up today.

Lance says, hopefully this isn't the last forum and hopes there will be more opportunity for them to show up and encourages pressuring them to do so.

[slipslidingaway]

55. For those who do not have cable TV it would be great if NBC

aired this for all to see.

The only candidates forum or debate that has not been on cable, as far as I know, is the recent ABC debate which was so fair and balanced.

:sarcasm:

[slipslidingaway]

59. Unscientific poll

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

In your opinion, which Democrat will make health care a priority? * 889 responses

Sen. Joe Biden
2.4%

Sen. Hillary Clinton
26%

Sen. Chris Dodd
0.4%

Former Sen. John Edwards
25%

Rep. Dennis Kucinich
35%

Fmr. Sen. Gravel
0.9%

Sen. Barack Obama
9%

Gov. Bill Richardson
1.8%

[Cameron27]

60. Interesting.

That's my take on the 3 who showed up, but it's surprising that Edwards is running behind Clinton. Obama's number seems impossibly low.

[slipslidingaway]

61. Well Obama did not attend so I would expect a low number.

There were four that attended...Clinton, Edwards, Richardson and Kucinich. You slept through one :)

Clinton/Edwards are running about the same, I'm biased but think Kucinich was focused and inspiring :)

[Cameron27]

64. I know, he's THAT forgettable to me ROFL

edited to say I think the same about Kucinich. When they give him time to speak, he can be very inspiring.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

63. Why? Clinton is about 25 points of JE ordinarily in the polls and is identified with this issue nt

[Cameron27]

65. Why? Because he's been slamming Clinton hard

on pharma lobbies etc. but he's apparently getting no traction.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

68. Ah, few people care about the lobbyist issue

Edwards and Obama need to find a real issue to attack Clinton with. That issue has had zero effect on Clinton's poll numbers and there is some evidence to suggest Obama has fallen because of it. Whenever Obama attacks someone he is in trouble because it goes against his "new kind of politics" image, which is key to his appeal. On the other hand, as he sees Clinton slowly disappearing into the horizon and Edwards quickly approaching in his rear-view mirror he has no choice but to level attacks. He is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't on this. Of course, this is a nice problem to have. The "new kind of politics" image is a big part of his appeal.