Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (280903)	3/20/2006 7:00:19 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572778

re: Unbelievable. Bush doesn't want to protect women from cervical cancer? That's incomprehensible. I agree, it's criminal. I'm surprised how few people know about it... an effective cancer vaccine that the religious right is trying to block! Should be front page news. And that's just one thing... look at the roadblocks they are putting in front of stem cell research. The US has always been very pro-science. It's a large part of our prosperity. We've done a 180 degree turn in that regard.

To: Amy J who wrote (280903)	3/20/2006 7:19:15 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572778

Illogical Cutbacks on Cancer By BOB HERBERT 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.

To: Amy J who wrote (280903)	3/20/2006 7:25:50 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572778

"Bush doesn't want to protect women from cervical cancer? That's incomprehensible." Why? If you take the stance that sex is for procreation only, then it does make sense. This is an old argument in this and other countries. It is just having a revival at the moment. salon.com

To: Amy J who wrote (280903)	3/20/2006 7:56:43 AM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1572778

lol, desperation breeds absurdity. Hey, I heard Karl Rove is working on a serum to add to coffee and cokes that make women taking RU486 die within three days of using it...

To: Amy J who wrote (280903)	3/20/2006 10:50:18 AM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1572778

"Bush doesn't want to protect women from cervical cancer?" Bush just doesn't want to waste money on actual American citizens Amy. It's not misogynist in any way. He's our "CEO" President, see? Bush doesn't want to waste money on Americans any more than a CEO would opt to waste more money on employee benefits. They've already GOT too many benefits that cost too much money. Bush see's his mission to change that, not contribute to it, unless it will financially help his funders, like the medicare drug benefit works for the drug companies. If you want to see Bush do something about cervical cancer, it needs to be pitched to him as a program that will shift public funds to his private cronys. That's the entire point of his administration.

To: Amy J who wrote (280903)	3/20/2006 1:21:24 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572778

More kids on anti-psychotic drugs By Lindsey Tanner The Associated Press CHICAGO — Soaring numbers of U.S. children are being prescribed anti-psychotic drugs, in many cases for attention-deficit disorder or other behavioral problems for which these medications have not been proved to work, a study found. The annual number of children prescribed anti-psychotic drugs jumped fivefold between 1995 and 2002, to an estimated 2.5 million, the study said. That is an increase from 8.6 of every 1,000 children in the mid-1990s to nearly 40 of 1,000 in 2002. More than half the prescriptions were for attention-deficit and other nonpsychotic conditions, the researchers said. The findings are worrisome "because it looks like these medications are being used for large numbers of children in a setting where we don't know if they work," said Dr. William Cooper, a pediatrician at Vanderbilt Children's Hospital and lead author of the study. The increasing use of anti-psychotics since the mid-1990s corresponds with the introduction of costly and heavily marketed medications such as Zyprexa and Risperdal. The packaging information for both says their safety and effectiveness in children have not been established. Anti-psychotics are intended for use against schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses. However, attention-deficit disorder is sometimes accompanied by temper outbursts and other disruptive behavior. As a result, some doctors prescribe anti-psychotics to these children to calm them down, a strategy some doctors and parents say works. The drugs, which typically cost several dollars a pill, are considered safer than older anti-psychotics — at least in adults. But they can have serious side effects, including weight gain, elevated cholesterol and diabetes. Anecdotal evidence suggests similar side effects occur in children, but large-scale studies of youngsters are needed, Cooper said. The researchers analyzed data on youngsters age 13 on average who were involved in annual national health surveys. The surveys involved prescriptions given during 119,752 doctor visits. The researchers used that data to come up with national estimates. Cooper said some of the increases might reflect repeat prescriptions given to the same child, but he said that is unlikely and noted his findings echo results from smaller studies. The study appears in the March-April edition of the journal Ambulatory Pediatrics. Heavy marketing by drug companies probably contributed to the increase in the use of anti-psychotic drugs among children, said Dr. Daniel Safer, a psychiatrist affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, who called the potential side effects a concern. Safer said a few of his child patients with behavior problems are on the drugs after they were prescribed by other doctors. Safer said he has let these children continue on the drugs, but at low doses, and he does periodic tests for high cholesterol or signs of diabetes. Dr. David Fassler, a University of Vermont psychiatry professor, said more research is needed before anti-psychotics should be considered standard treatment for attention-deficit disorders in children. Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company seattletimes.nwsource.com