Hillary Unveils Breast Cancer Plan

On the Ellen DeGeneres show today, Hillary Clinton unveiled her $300 million breat cancer plan.

Hillary's plan would provide $300 million a year in increased funding for breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program.

In addition to funding research for new treatments, these investments will also go to investigate the cause of breast cancer, including the role that environmental pollutants may have, as well as, potential genetic and hereditary links. The plan would also improve access to screenings and treatment by making mammograms more affordable and providing funding for treatment for low-income women. Under Hillary's American Health Choices Plan, all women will have affordable, quality health insurance regardless of employment, marital status, or pre-existing conditions so they get the care and treatment they need.

Hillary's goal: To find a cure for breast cancer in our lifetimes.

Hillary has had a long record of being involved in the fight against breast cancer. [More...]

Hillary Clinton has a long history of working to address breast cancer. As First Lady, Hillary worked to make breast cancer a national priority by helping to direct the creation of a public-private partnership called the National Action Plan on Breast Cancer (NAPBC). Throughout the Clinton Administration, the NAPBC served as a catalyst for national efforts to advance breast cancer knowledge, research, policy, and services. Hillary was also a strong voice for more investment in cancer research, advocating successfully for a significant increase in federal funding for breast cancer research.

...As Senator, Hillary Clinton co-sponsored the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, which gives the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences grant-making authority to develop research centers that examine potential environmental causes of breast cancer.

...n May 2005, Senator Clinton was inducted into the National Breast Cancer Coalition's Congressional Hall of Fame for her work increasing breast cancer awareness and research funding.

< Hillary, Obama and McCain Will Be in the Senate for Iraq Hearings | "No Longer In Doubt?" Then It Is Time For Obama To Unify >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How long until "Me too, Hillary"? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:11:13 PM EST

    $301 million for the Obama (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by JoeA on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:18:31 PM EST
    testicular cancer plan!

    Heh. Heh. Heh. (none / 0) (#4)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:13:46 PM EST
    I have long maintained that Barack Obama is Hillary Lite.

    I prefer the real thing. ;-)


    Applause (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:20:24 PM EST
    [claps hands]

    It is amazing what a difference having a female candidate does.  Not that there aren't male candidates out there who are fully active in the fight against breast cancer, but has any presidential candidate in memory put this kind of plan out front and center?

    Of the 3 candidates remaining, she's the only one (none / 0) (#11)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:24:35 PM EST
    that participated in the Live Strong presidential forum



    What? (none / 0) (#12)
    by 0 politico on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:31:16 PM EST
    No John Wayne McCain or BO were at the event?

    How about Program to Help Stabolize Moods? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:34:54 PM EST
    You know what I mean, "periodically" women have trouble with their emotional stability and their "claws come out" and they get so difficult to deal with that people think they are a witch and say "nice witch costume" and afterall this is important, because stability is key, because "if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House."  ; )

    Microtrend Pander... (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jor on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:17:07 PM EST
    ... As someone in biomedical research, the impression I get is Breast Ca.  research is  generally awash in money. Its not the #1 cause of cancer deaths in women either. Treatment form local breast cancer is already very effective. And people are probably too hyper aware of breast cancer. If anything, there are arguments, that the screening age is being pushed down too far, causing way too many young women to undergo useless tests.
    My point is, doctors are starting to think, women worry too much about breast cancer and don't pay enough attention to other problems with their health (that also affect men, i.e. smoking (lung ca.), cholesterol, etc.).

    Of course, this is an easy plan to sell the her base, which is why it was probably put together in the first place.  

    The actual big problem with health care research is that Bush has killed all the good work Bill Clinton did with the NIH funding in general.

    Not sure $300 mil. will make much (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:08:49 PM EST
    difference but I certainly support Clinton's pushing for more research money on this issue.

    It might be enough to put some critical studies (none / 0) (#5)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:16:07 PM EST
    that are underfunded over the top. I'm glad to see her propose this.

    The Health Plan will be key (none / 0) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:16:43 PM EST
    I have friends that had breast cancer that are basically uninsurable when they retire, they want and need healthcare.  The two have to be combined.  

    Yes indeed. (none / 0) (#9)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:21:44 PM EST
    And Hillary has the depth of understanding to realize that.

    Wow. (none / 0) (#2)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:10:30 PM EST
    Very impressive. I especially like the part about environmental pollutants, which, in my view, have not been given nearly enough attention with regard to their detrimental health effects.

    An Edwards endorsement (none / 0) (#10)
    by g8grl on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:22:35 PM EST
    coming soon I hope?

    This is the kind of thing (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:35:25 PM EST
    that, for me, says "leadership."

    Issues of health have always been a cause for Hillary - she knows that a healthy nation is a stronger nation, and rather than make the nation healthier by letting the sick succumb to their illnesses - the GOP just-go-off-in-a-corner-and-die-already plan - she believes that care should be both accessible and affordable.

    Kudos to Hillary.

    When I was (none / 0) (#15)
    by OldCoastie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:35:57 PM EST
    unable to work much due to a back injury and did not have any health insurance, I was eligble for free mammography. I did not utilize it because I knew if they found cancer I would not be able to afford treatment...

    I'm glad Hillary recognizes the treatement part in addition to funding the screening and the research.

    Not to sound cold.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:43:10 PM EST
    but I rather my government preserve my liberty, and I'll worry about cancer.

    If it's a choice between cancer research or a new weapons program, I'll take the cancer research everytime.  That being said, I'm not sure medical research is best funded by the government.  We've got to get spending under control sometime otherwise our grand-daughters will have much more pressing concerns than the threat of breast cancer...namely food,, water, and shelter.

    A sh*tload of money is raised every year by private entities to fund cancer research.  I'd bet they'd raise even more if we abolished the income tax and vastly cut government spending.

    Cold? I don't support govt.-sponsored research (none / 0) (#17)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:51:26 PM EST
    because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy. I support it because for many things, government is best positioned to fund things that would otherwise not get done or not have as many resources devoted to them as is socially optimal. And, the lost productivity and shortened lives of those who fall ill from breast cancer or other serious illnesses are a loss to the economy.

    See? You can be cold and still support government sponsored research.


    I don't like to think I'm cold..... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    I gave a couple bucks to a breast cancer research pledge drive my niece was involved with.  Some more to a child diabetes pledge drive for a co-worker with a child afflicted with the disease.  If I brought home that strange gross number on my checks I could have given more.

    Is it wrong to worry about spending under a Hillary admin?  After Bush, we can't afford another drunken sailor rubber stamping everything coming out of congress.  We need a leader to make hard economic choices, not a wild panderer promising big checks to every cause.


    Not wrong at all (none / 0) (#21)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:26:18 PM EST
    I guess I would emphasize that not all spending is the same. Breast cancer research is an investment. There will be future payoffs which should be considered when thinking about how much we should be investing now.

    I think I read that we have spent an average of  over $300 million in Iraq every day. I don't know if that number is exactly right -- but if so, it kind of puts this cancer research proposal in better perspective.


    I hear that... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    compared to Iraq any new spending proposals pretty much pale in comparison.  Though I fear Hillary will spend only a slightly smaller fortune in Iraq than Bush as she would continue the occupation under her first term...in addition to loads of new social programs.

    You stumbled on why I support entitlement programs of all stripes....not because the government should be providing so many entitlements (I don't think they should), but because if they didn't they'd only spend the money on desiging a new death machine, not cut spending.  So yeah, better to research breast cancer than buy bombs.  Better still to get us on solid econimic ground before we do anything.

    I just hope we wake the f*ck up before we're totally broke and can't borrow no more...if it isn't already too late.


    not to be a downer or (none / 0) (#18)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:07:25 PM EST
    anything, because i actually know some women who kind of (my wife, for example) like me (not so sure about my daughter), but did she, by chance, mention where the funds would come from? i ask simply because at that moment we're running 300 billion dollar deficits.

    maybe axe some of those earmarks? unsubsidize sugar? hell, unsubsidize the entire agricultural sector. maybe get japan to open its rice market to the outside?

    aside from that, sounds good to me.

    Such a cute little pander bear. (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:15:49 PM EST
    But the question is not whether breast cancer is worthy of research. Instead it is whether the nation benefits when vocal advocacy groups get their way. Although it is hard to argue against allocating money for research on a serious disease, a number of experts on breast cancer said they thought research on the disease had been generously financed and that simply spending more money was not the answer.
    Sheryl Crow, Hilary Clinton, and other lawmakers held a press conference to lobby for more funds for the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act. This bill would authorize $40 million per year to encourage research on environmental factors that may cause breast cancer, as well as set up a a national strategy. The bill was first introduced in 2000 and was held up in 2006 by Senator Tom Coburn [M.D. and two-time cancer survivor]. Senator Coburn said he was concerned that passage of the bill would put authority for research into the hands of politicians, instead of scientists. "It's also important to note that the $690 million NIH is spending every year on all forms of breast cancer research is almost twice as much as any other area of cancer research," said Coburn.
    Many hundreds of breast cancer organizations have sprung up over the last few decades. With all of the soliciting and cause-oriented marketing being done to cure or assist victims of breast cancer, one might assume that it is the form of cancer that women are most likely to be diagnosed with, yet this is not the case. According to government statistics, more women have non-melanoma skin cancer than breast cancer and more women die of lung and bronchus cancer (68,084 in 2003, the latest figures available) than those that die of breast cancer (41,619 in 2003). Two-thirds as many women died of colorectal cancer as those that died of breast cancer in 2003. Yet based on a search of Guidestar's database of charity tax forms, 1,326 charities mention being involved with breast cancer and only 56 charities mention work in colon cancer and 11 in rectal cancer. Why are there only 5% as many groups addressing colorectal cancer as breast cancer victims? A likely reason is that colorectal cancer, also called bowel cancer, is not as attractive from a fundraising or marketing perspective as a disease that affects what is considered one of the most beautiful parts of a woman's body.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#24)
    by kayla on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:26:04 PM EST
    This is gonna sound cynical but I'm tired of hearing about breast cancer awareness and all that.  There are other diseases out there that hit women hard that have very little awareness and research done.  Like the ones mentioned in the above post or Lupus.  There's so little understanding of the disease that it's hard to even diagnose it.   Many doctors aren't even familiar with the symptoms.  My mother was diagnosed with it 10 years ago and this was only after her doctors had incorrectly assumed she had a bad case of the flu and then decided maybe it was sickle cell anemia.  Misdiagnosis is not uncommon when it comes to trying to pin down Lupus.

    And where is she going to get the money for all of these plans?  Don't get me wrong - I like that Hillary unveils a new plan every couple of weeks or so.  Even if I'm skeptical of them being executed, at least I know she's using the campaign to keep the discussion on issues, just like Mr. Obama (snark).


    Breast Cancer (none / 0) (#23)
    by sumac on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:14:51 PM EST
    I think it is the reason my GOP mother voted for Hillary in the primary. She (my mother) has just finished her chemo treatment (also had a mastectomy). Last week her breast reconstruction was completed and while she has had the best care available during the past 8 months, she realized how much her treatment actually cost, and how someone without health insurance would never be able to receive the level of treatment she was afforded. Indeed many of these women die.

    I am confident that my mother's having breast cancer is the reason she voted for Hillary - not because of 300 million government dollars to further research/prevention, but because universal health care really struck home.

    And since both my maternal grandmother and my mother had breast cancer, I applaud any and all efforts to cure this disease.

    breast ca (none / 0) (#25)
    by confloyd on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:27:15 PM EST
    This is wonderful news, I have seen so many women die a terrible death because they could not afford a 100. mammogram. I used to do mammagraphy and it was very sad when we found one too far gone to help. Now as a emergency room xray tech, we find them in the er, without insurance and having pain usually in the shoulder because it has already spread to the bone. Its a terrible way to die, and it usually takes a long time, so they are miserable for quiet a long time!

    I am happy to see her move forward (none / 0) (#26)
    by thereyougo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:58:29 PM EST
    with a new message every week.  This is good.

    Las t week it was jobs, next week something else.

    I'm glad she's leading. Those who want to know where she stands on the issues are hearing it weekly.  People are weary of the bickering. Lets get on with it. Obama doesn't say much of ANYTHING, where's HIS plan? what is HE going to do? back it up lets hear it. He's got the MSM attention and the bloggers are all in his column but I don't hear anything but UNITY and HOPE, hell  I have hopes for unity too, but I don't hear much else.

    If Hillary keeps this up, she'll get the electorate's support despite the tons of ads running 24/7 and Obama's millions raised HE CLAIMS 'from the little people'.  whatever.

    I am happy to see her move forward (none / 0) (#27)
    by thereyougo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    with a new message every week.  This is good.

    Las t week it was jobs, next week something else.

    I'm glad she's leading. Those who want to know where she stands on the issues are hearing it weekly.  People are weary of the bickering. Lets get on with it. Obama doesn't say much of ANYTHING, where's HIS plan? what is HE going to do? back it up lets hear it. He's got the MSM attention and the bloggers are all in his column but I don't hear anything but UNITY and HOPE, hell  I have hopes for unity too, but I don't hear much else.

    If Hillary keeps this up, she'll get the electorate's support despite the tons of ads running 24/7 and Obama's millions raised HE CLAIMS 'from the little people'.  whatever.

    efficient division of labor (none / 0) (#28)
    by diogenes on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:04:00 PM EST
    Let the introducer of initiatives do so from the Senate (i.e. Senator Clinton) and let the great communicator (Obama) persuade the country to go along with the sacrifices (i.e. cuts in earmarks, tax hikes, losses of agricultural subsidies) necessary to fund the initiatives.
    Why Hillary didn't unveil this initiative as an actually proposed bill in 2001, 2002, 2003, etc as a bill in the senate inspires some cynicism.