Bob Herbert writes (see below) that President Bush's decision to cut the budget for a cancer detection program is cruel in human terms and self-defeating from a budget standpoint. He's right, of course.
But the budget problems go far beyond the elimination of one cancer program. The Bush budget is a reflection of the administration's one and only priority: to feed the coffers of the military industrial complex. Given their priorities, it's no wonder that the vast bulk of the budget is going to pay for war at the expense of other much needed domestic programs.
Ironically, the party that sold itself as "compassionate conservative" has instead, by their actions, proved to be anything but.
Claiming to be "pro-life", they spend over a million dollars a day funding death--otherwise known as war.
They have proposed no meaningful healthcare reform though millions--including children--are uninsured. What could be more compassionate than making healthcare affordable for every American?
They have fanatically opposed stem cell research, preferring to destroy unused embryos rather than put them to the promising use of finding cures for our most devastating diseases and afflictions that kill hordes of Americans every day.
They have opposed abortion vehemently, though the inhumane results of reversing Roe vs. Wade are all too well known. Before Roe, desperate young women risked death and injury at the hands of unqualified back-alley butchers. That's compassion?
How is putting a woman's life in jeopardy pro-life? How is standing by and watching genocide in Darfur compassionate? Is repealing environmental protections life promoting? Is waging pre-emptive wars on sovereign nations humane? Is withdrawing from nuclear proliferation treaties and developing ever more deadly nuclear weapons promoting peace?
The Bush budget reveals nothing more than the truth behind the doublespeak. It represents the reality of the Bush agenda. And there's nothing pro-life or compassionate about it.
Illogical Cutbacks on Cancer
By Bob Herbert
The New York Times
When I was a kid I had the wildest crush on my Uncle Breeze's wife, Betty. She was beautiful and with all my heart I wanted to grow up and marry someone just like her.
I remember acutely the sadness I felt some years later when my mother told me that Aunt Betty was ill. She died not long after that. Cervical cancer.
This old memory was brought back to me by, of all things, a small but telling item in President Bush's mammoth budget proposal.
The federal government has a national breast and cervical cancer early detection program, run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It provides screening and other important services to low-income women who do not have health insurance, or are underinsured.
There is agreement across the board that the program is a success. It saves lives and it saves money. Its biggest problem is that it doesn't reach enough women. At the moment there is only enough funding to screen one in five eligible women.
A sensible policy position for the Bush administration would be to expand funding for the program so that it reached everyone who was eligible. It terms of overall federal spending, the result would be a net decrease. Preventing cancer, or treating it early, is a lot less expensive than treating advanced cancer.
So what did this president do? He proposed a cut in the program of $1.4 million (a minuscule amount when you're talking about the national budget), which would mean that 4,000 fewer women would have access to early detection.
This makes no sense. In human terms, it is cruel. From a budget standpoint, it's self-defeating.
"The program is really designed to help working women," said Dan Smith, a senior vice president at the American Cancer Society. "They may be working at a job that doesn't provide health insurance, but they're not the poorest of the poor who would qualify for Medicaid."
In many cases, these are women who do not have family doctors who might encourage them to be screened. The program offers free mammograms, Pap tests and other early detection services. "If they're diagnosed," said Mr. Smith, "there's a complementary program that allows them to be immediately insured so they can actually have the coverage for their treatment. That's a great program, as well."
"The early detection program is a good program because it has saved lives," said Dr. Harold Freeman, a senior adviser to the Cancer Society. "The women who are served come from a population that has a proven higher death rate from cervical and breast cancer."
He added: "It's hard to get into the health care system when you are asymptomatic. It's much easier to get into the system if you're obviously sick, if you're bleeding or in pain. But the problem with cancer is, if you're going to be cured, you have to get in before those kinds of symptoms occur. So these women need to be screened."
Dr. Freeman, a New York physician who has long specialized in the prevention and treatment of cancer, made it clear that his first concern was the health and quality of life of his patients. But then he addressed what he characterized as the "shortsighted" economic rationale for the budget cut.
"It won't save money," he said. "You don't save money by not diagnosing cancer early. You end up spending more money because anyone who develops cancer will get into the health care system and they will be treated. And the cost at that point will be a lot more. The logic here is very simple: the later you diagnose cancer of the breast or cervix, the more expensive it is to the country."
This is just one program in a range of cancer services that rely on support from the federal government. As if immune to the extent of human suffering involved, President Bush has proposed a barrage of cuts for these programs.
"What's really amazing," said Mr. Smith, "is that the president cut every cancer program. He cut the colorectal cancer program. He cut research at the National Cancer Institute. He cut literally every one of our cancer-specific programs. It's incomprehensible."
A bipartisan movement is under way in the Senate to block the president's proposed cuts. How that ultimately will fare is unclear.
What is clear is that cancer is a disease that horrifies most Americans, and with good reason. One out of every two men will contract the disease in his lifetime, and one out of every three women.
This is an area in which we need to be doing more, not less.
Photo credit: Bob Herbert (The New York Times)
- Lies, Damn Lies and Poverty Statistics -- In These Times
Census data released this past August suggests that the number of Americans living in poverty has risen to 12.7 percent. But use of an outdated method to determine poverty level (based solely on food prices) has distorted the real figure, which may be as high as 25 percent of all Americans living in poverty.
- Colleges Open Minority Aid to All Comers
Amid threats of litigation and pressure from Washington, programs created for minorities are being opened to white students, which, of course, lessens aid to the minorities these programs were intended to help.
- Halliburton to Get Paid Most of Disputed Funds
The Army has decided to reimburse a Halliburton subsidiary for nearly all of its disputed costs on a $2.41 billion no-bid contract to deliver fuel and repair oil equipment in Iraq, even though the Pentagon's own auditors had identified more than $250 million in charges as potentially excessive or unjustified.
- Tax Madness - New York Times
At a time when Congress is slashing programs for low-income Americans, there's no justification for tax cuts.
- America's younger workers losing ground on income | csmonitor.com
America's young workers are falling behind. A new survey shows that median incomes fell for householders under 45 between 2001 and 2004. Younger Americans are increasingly concerned that they will not achieve living standards that are better - or even equal to - those of their parents.