Funny thing as I read the article my first thought was projections for death were going to grow because of our "new" health care plan....

Anyone else wonder how much influence the "International Health Policy Makers" over what our Doctors can or cannot offer to a patient with disease?

A couple other things to wonder:

Could any of this be because the global population is aging and cancer rates increase with age? Could any of this be because in developing nations they're just starting to figure out what people die from?

I'm sure within these statistics is another reason to demand money via wealth redistribution. That I do NOT wonder about.

I wonder if they figured in medical advances into their figures. Hopefully, we'll find some cures for some of those cancers.

To Prag: The wealth was redistributed to the wealthy from the poor. The dems are just putting it back where it belongs.

I personally agree with:

Could any of this be because in developing nations they're just starting to figure out what people die from?

Many third world countries just accept death better than we do in the West. Now that will probably change and we get to finance the venture.

As for an increase in instance I believe there probably is in some cancer. I think the pesticides we used for years that were detrimental to our health have contributed to much of what we see as an increase. I think there are also changes in time over common diets as well a ease of mobility that allow our bodies to become vulnerable to cancer triggers. It would make sense that in the past couple of decades third world nations have probably increased the use of pesticides to their detriment.

I also agree with the ammunition toward redistribution of wealth. I'm also getting tired of the threats.

Eric...My darling dear one grew up extremely poor. There was nothing his mother, raising four children, could have offered to the wealthy but to raise good children who would all grow up to live the American dream and work hard to create their own wealth.

Oh crap!!!!!!! The Baby Boomers will be 1/3 of the population in 2030 with an average age of 80. Please don't tell me we are going to die of some disease or another!!!!!!!!!!!

Can someone please put out the fire in my hair!!!!!!!!!!!!

PragmaticToAFault - You are correct. Some major reasons that we see more cancers now are the increase in life expectancy, identification of disease in places it wasn't tracked before, and better overall collected reporting.

Eric,

They're not putting any of it back where it belongs. They are continuing to rob all of us and give it to Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and others like that. Both parties have sold out to these people. Why can't you see that? No one has gotten or will be getting their money or jobs back that have been stolen.

Higher cancer rates also have to do with our food supplies being 'tampered' with. Food 30 years ago was far more healthy for us than the mass produced garbage they feed us today.

We need to go back to grass fed cows and organic fruits and veggies. SAY NO TO GMO'S! GMO foods are the WORST thing man has ever unleashed on humanity.

Cancer is an easy cure if you eat right and keep your body PH in the alkaline area, that is confirmed by the AMA. Problem is, coffee, soda and the crap they call milk is making your body acidic, therefor, leading to heart disease, cancer and all the other major diseases out there.

Do the research... eat healthy and don't worry about these studies.

Flame away, just trying to help people.

You are correct.

Eric -

Since your insipid partisan hackery has resulted in blinders that must be the size of elephant ears, let me point out to you that there is this whole big world out there beyond our shores to which I was referring. As in, the global entity known as the ICPP that is trying to confiscate the wealth of this country to redistribute under the guise of "climate change". I was referring to this somewhat misleading report in those terms, as in they'll find an excuse - globally - to attempt to confiscate our wealth since it must be our fault cancer deaths are increasing. It was somewhat sarcastic.

As to your partisan drek, you do realize that the top 1% pay over 40% of the taxes already?

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/07/30/americas-top-1-percent-pay-40-percent-of-all-taxes/

Meanwhile, 47% pay NO income tax at all and many of them actually end up getting returns based on EICs of money they never paid in the first place.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

When exactly do you think it's enough?

Patrick-1112710 - There is a very basic flaw in your reasoning...if what you say is true and all the food we eat now is so terribly bad for us how has our life expectancy risen roughly 25 years (70 yrs) over what it was back in the early 20th century (45 yrs)? Your seem to pine for the good ole days before GMO's and all this awful stuff you mention was added to our foods.

Pragmatic,

You are correct that they are trying to use things like climate change to redistribute wealth but, what you don't understand is that they are not distributing it to the poor. They are robbing all wealth from the upper class, middle class, and poor and giving it to the ultra rich elite. The poor are not the ones robbing you. The poor are the ones that have already been completely robbed of everything. That's why they are poor. They are taking all of this nations wealth and sending it to off shore multi-national banks and corporations. None of the redistribution is going to any Americans or to any poor people anywhere.

Actually, I do get that, question everything.

But since it was somewhat offtopic in this vine, I didn't go into it.

One has to look no further than Zimbabwe to see how well our and other countries attempts to help those people work - they don't. Mugabe lives in luxury, his people starve.

The reason I was saying that to you is because you were going on about the wealthy paying most of the income taxes and the poor not paying as much of them and said when will it be enough as if you were saying the poor are getting the money that is being redistributed.

StMiller - The longer lifespan has everything to do with the leaps in modern medicine. They didn't have MRI's, CAT scans and all the life saving technologies they did back then. What they didn't have back then that we do now is the gawd awful rates in obesity, cancer and heart disease.

If you read some of the research done on GMO foods, it will make you upset, very upset. After doing studies on the hormonal milk they get from cows, the scientists at Monsanto (who did the research) purchased their OWN cows so they KNOW they won't have to drink it. true story.

As for the heart disease that is a huge killer these days, you can thank the food industry directly (can you say aspertame?) and also the drug companies who put people on statin drugs when 100 percent of the animals that were used to test statins got cancer. That 100 percent if you didn't catch that. But hey, lets give it to humans....... good one...

Doctors and drug companies preach 'low cholesterol when in fact triglycerides are the killer, and also the LDL cholesterol's, but the HDL can be high with LDL as long as they are in a specific range of each other.

Faster EMS, better technology are the easy answers to your question, but the food and drug companies are making the extended years miserable.

When given the opportunity, animals will NOT eat GMO corn over heirloom corn, or corn with NO GMO's. If they won't eat it instinctively, that should raise some flags for you and your family as well. Also, there have been some studies that GMO soy can alter your body to make your intestines PRODUCE herbicide. Search the net, the information is out there.

There is a reason Haiti won't accept or plant the tons of GMO seeds that were donated by Monsanto a week ago. They don't want it in the country and farmers refuse to plant it. Also, Europe won't touch GMO seeds and they refuse to import GMO foods from the USA. We are one of the few countries in the world who not only eat this crap, but are looking for new ways to alter other natural foods with little regard for the long term consequences.

Hope this answers your very good question, if not, let me know and I will link you some great websites on these issues.

PragmaticToAFault

And that same 1% controls something like 70% of all the money. So why is 40% of the taxes a surprise to you?

Why does every article have to turn into rant about how wrong the other political party is?

You're wrong, Luvenia, but I'll leave it up to you to find that out for yourself. I provided proof for mine, do us a favor and prove yours.

You know if you look back when our grandparents and great grandparents lived, there was not alot of cancer heard of or other diseases. Maybe we should have left the world as it was instead of coming up with all these specimans to cure this or take the bad stuff out of that or stop pollution by doing this. This is what I think is causing alot of this cancer and these other diseases. Or maybe the cancer society has already come up with a cure but because it would put so many people out of jobs, they don't want to let it out. I just lost my Mom to breast cancer April 16th of this year, and she had never smoked, she was never sick, always ate healthy meals.

OKAY

http://host.madison.com/ct/business/biz_beat/article_7690bbe6-4bc5-11df-9d7c-001cc4c03286.html

"The inequality of wealth in the United States between the economic top 0.5% and the remaining 99.5% of the population is now at an all-time high," he writes. "The economic top 1% of the population now controls a record 70% of all financial assets.

You know if you look back when our grandparents and great grandparents lived, there was not alot of cancer heard of or other diseases.

Because most of their generation died before ever reaching 65. Cancer most commonly shows up in the elderly. In short, they did not live long enough to get cancer.

Dave is exactly right. When you die at 65 you'll likely never have cancer. Actually if you look at the stats you'll see that until you reach 70 the rates are very low, but beyond that they skyrocket. It's just part of getting old, and we're living to be older all the time.

Also note that you could take the exact same information that's in the article and say:

"As people live longer, cancer rates to increase at less that 3.5% annually over next 25 years"

but then that wouldn't be sensationalistic fear mongering, and if there's one thing MSM likes it sensationalistic fear mongering.

Hmm, that doesn't jive with other information, which doesn't surprise me since it's a "progressive voice".

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

According to this study done at the University of California, the percentage of taxes paid and the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% are pretty consistent.

How much of their money do you think you're entitled to, Luvenia? Because we're not wealthy, but we've worked for everything we have - not complained to the government that it's not fair someone else has more and demand the government forcibly take it from them, to give to us.

What I can agree with you on, is something you're not bringing up but I assume you would agree with - the middle class has taken a beating. I blame the government, however, for regulating and taxing solid, well-paying jobs out of this country. You blame the company, I'm sure, but when the government sets up a set of circumstances in which it becomes drastically more profitable to manufacture something half way around the world and ship it back here for sale, than it is to make it here in the first place? You can't honestly say it's all businesses fault.

PragmaticToAFault

If you or your company pays to many taxes it has to be YOUR fault so get a better CPA. I worked at a tax preparation office for over 10 years and my sister for almost 20 and believe me there are all kinds of tax loop holes for the rich. I know you will call me a liar no matter how many links I provide so only going to put one up.

http://www.ourfuture.org/makingsense/alert/2008093603/truth-about-corporate-taxes

The Facts

The problem is not that corporations are overtaxed. In fact, a whopping two-thirds of American corporations and foreign corporations doing business in the United States pay absolutely no federal income taxes—despite taking in $2.5 trillion in sales. [Government Accounting Office] In 2005, 28 percent of large foreign companies doing business in the United States (those with more than $250 million in assets or $50 million in sales) paid no taxes.

Compared to our competitors’ corporate tax rates, the U.S. rate is low. According to the World Bank and PricewaterhouseCoopers, the United States’ total corporate tax burden ranks 76th of over 100 countries. [World Bank] When conservatives claim that the U.S. tax rate is high, they’re talking about the “statutory rate.” But corporations treat the statutory rate as just a guideline—they use offshore tax havens and accounting loopholes to pay much lower actual rates. The tax rate corporations actually pay is lower than the rates of economic competitors such as China (15th highest tax rate), India (19th), and Mexico (51st). [World Bank]

The U.S. collects less in corporate taxes than other wealthy countries do. Measuring tax collections as a share of GDP is a good way to put a country’s tax rate in the context of its economy’s size. In the last seven years, the U.S. has collected an average of 2.4 percent of its GDP in corporate taxes—less than the average 3.4 percent collected by other industrialized nations. If laws remain the same, U.S. corporate taxes will be only 1.9 percent of GDP in less than ten years. [U.S. Treasury Department]

Corporations should pay their fair tax share. American workers increasingly carry more of the tax burden than corporations do. In the 1950s, corporate income taxes accounted for about a quarter of federal tax revenues; now they account for just one-tenth, leaving workers to pay the difference. [Economic Policy Institute]

Drug Companies do NOT want a cure or vaccination to prevent cancer it would cost them Billions in profits they make in TREATING it! In fact if cancer were cured or prevented it would put the USA in much more serious recession.....many many jobs lost. Ever wonder why the polio vaccine was the last real prevention of a major disease...Sulk did it before the Drug Companies had such a giant lobby...lok what they did to the fiasco health care bill that started out as something good. Many will die from cancer after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on treatment and surgeries when after the 50 billion spent on research has found no prevention! It's greed!

ah dave cancer shows up in everybody, not just the elderly in fact dave sometimes the elderly are luckier than their younger counterparts, because some of the cancers they get are more slow growing than it would be in a younger person.. now if they get treated and die they didn't die from the cancer they died of complications from getting treated. think about it dave.

you can also try looking at the obituaries and see how many peopler under 70 die of cancer.intoday 70 is not too old.

I have to wonder how come no one is coming up with nuclear pollution as a reason for cancer rising? Think about it, Russia is still covered with radiation, not to mention their main source of water. Japan is still recovering from the nuclear bombs we dropped on them. America has done tests on its own soil and who knows how far each of those radiation clouds have traveled. With how long radiation lasts combined with wind direction, I think it should be taken into consideration.

Pragmatic,

Please don't come on this board and use data, which is imperical in nature, collected by a PhD at a well recognized university. I'd rather you use some obscure article, written by a half baked, so called journalist, who just pulls numbers out of their ass and quotes them as the truth. Hahahahah, sorry I couldn't resist.

double is all? its going to be a lot more than that once we start using electric cars. Electricity already proven to cause cancer and now we are going to be riding around in a big ball of it.

Never fear obama care will double this number

ah dave cancer shows up in everybody, not just the elderly

It does, but it is rarer if you're under 65 or 70. Much, much, much rarer. We notice it more in a young person, because we view it as a surprise. If a 70-year-old dies of cancer, it's routine. If a 40-year-old does, it's news, and gets a big obituary.

luvenia -

EVERY single thing in that article you cite is DIRECTLY traceable to the rules made by the government. The government (ie. Charlie freakin Rangle) writes the tax code, they write the loopholes, the make the laws, they write the trade agreements, they write the regulations, etc etc etc etc.

And you blame the companies for following those rules?

Meanwhile, the discussion we were having (I went back and read it again, just to make sure) isn't about CORPORATE taxes - it's about PERSONAL income taxes. Those are two entirely different things, and while I hold you and your sister's extensive experience in tax prep in the highest regard (yes, that was sarcasm, "sister" research really doesn't count for much) it seems perhaps the difference between corporate and personal taxation has escaped you momentarily.

As I said previously, the root cause of the beating the middle class has taken and the wealth in this country becoming more concentrated along with the tax burden - is the GOVERNMENT. Thank you for proving my point on a level I wasn't even trying to make it.

With the new healthcare plan this could actually triple. Under the new plan...if you have cancer and it is beyond a stage, predetermined by the government, you will be given pain meds and sent home with counseling to accept your fate. If the cancer is caught very, very early then you will receive limited treatments unless you are a qualifying individual. A qualifying individual has been speculated to be a highly regarded person (movie star, politician, etc) or the family member of a highly regarded person. The reality of the new healthcare plan will be devastating especially to seniors who take up the majority of healthcare expenses. Children are next. Young adults from ages 18-45 require the least amount of medical care as they tend to not use the medical system despite warning signals their bodies are giving them. Treat all medical issues early and avoid heart ache later.

Under the new plan...if you have cancer and it is beyond a stage, predetermined by the government, you will be given pain meds and sent home with counseling to accept your fate. If

Don't tell me, let me guess. You read about this alleged provision from someone who also told you about "death panels".

What absolute unmitigated nonsense.

"The economic top 1% of the population now controls a record 70% of all financial assets."

In other words, they control the job market. Try and take their $$ and they'll just pick up shop and employee people in another country. They can afford it. Can you?

If it doesn't worry you that legislation keeps passing that makes it less and less desirable for this 1% to remain in the country and employ US citizens, you're looking at it wrong.

Don't tell me, let me guess. You read about this alleged provision from someone who also told you about "death panels".

What absolute unmitigated nonsense.

Actually your response was completely lacking in research of your own and made on an assumption based on political hatred. Google 'health care reform cancer' and start reading.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=cancer-research-faces-changes-with-2010-04-21

50-70% of cancer patients use experimental drugs in a trial & error method since we don't yet have the cure nor understand the disease completely. The health care bill focuses on only prescribing proven treatments in the name of eliminating waste.

And the problem is even worse for assessing off-label uses of cancer drugs (uses for approved drugs that have not been specifically okayed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)), Abernethy pointed out. Some 50 to 70 percent of all cancer drug prescriptions are for off-label uses, she noted, and although the FDA allows such uses in the oncology world—and even permits reimbursement—it requires backup from the literature to justify these decisions. However, off-label studies are often poorly conducted and frequently completed without a control population, Abernethy said, leaving doctors, patients, insurers and the government in the dark about the actual efficacy of a lot of very frequently prescribed meds.

"How can we, as a society, be confident we are paying for effective treatment?" Abernethy asked. And as more people with preexisting conditions, including cancer, will be eligible for coverage under health care reform, the overall treatment bills could escalate without firm evidence that the expensive drugs are really making them better.

So either they send them home with pain meds or they allow health care cost to skyrocket. Quite a conundrum the Dems created, hmm? Deficit neutral my butt.

Many comments above seem to be missing the point of the article, and unnecessarily politicizing the topic. The article is talking about WORLDWIDE cancer death rates. U.S. cancer death rates might decline due to fewer smokers, hepatitis B & HPV vaccines, better treatments; however, the population is aging and many cancers increase in incidence with age.

Worldwide cancer death rates will rise due to multiple reasons: less deaths from infectious diseases so more people live long enough to get cancer, increased tobacco use as populations get relatively wealthier (and U.S. tobacco companies play a role by exporting their product), infections with certain carcinogenic viruses (hepatitis B & C, Epstein-Barr, HPV), pollution from fossil fuels (e.g. China and India and other countries burning coal in dirty fashion). I'm sure I missed a few.

Public policy needs to address these issues.

NU,

Most of these idiots can do no better than jump on the flimsiest excuse to bash Obama, but that's nothing new.

Back to the article, it's true that the projections are for a worldwide increase, but I have to wonder how much of this is related to ramping up industry in an unregulated fashion in many third world areas. Much of the stated reason behind the exportation of industry has been the desire to escape 'excessive' regulation - maybe this is one of the early results of that? If so, the projections of a doubling in the cancer rate may prove conservative over time.

I suppose that's one way to achieve a degree of equability in this world....

The new health plan will not lower the cost of health care. Of course more people will die of cancer. When you live in world where health care is for the wealthy. Let me break it down for you. Think you got cancer go to the doctor in you have insurance the doctor performs every test under the sun on you to determine if you have it or not.No insurance no test. Thats the way the game is played.Pathetic society.

We are currently 15th in the world in adult longevity. We are barely ahead of Mexico in infant mortality and way behind the rest of the industrialized world. Oh, and we pay twice as much for the crappy outcomes as they do for the good ones. Also, we are the only industrialized nation in the world with for profit health care. Any bulbs going off yet??????

And seriously winterpark if someone came along and tried to take away your unemployment insurance, or your social security, or the 'health' protection being afforded to you by the US military you would crap a brick. Get over it...nationalized healthcare is no different than any of those things as they are just other ways of providing for everyone's health as well. Why you people get your undies in a bunch over one other method is beyond me.

MarineVet we also lead the world with issues like obesity leading our culture to a very real self-imposed excesses. As for barely exceeding Mexico in infant mortality...Much of Mexico is here bringing an ignorance of prenatal care with them and only submitting to it if their host country pays for care.

As for "for profit" health care....You are way off base there. Every country that has a Government supported health care system also has a tremendously prosperous for profit health system. Health insurance...don't leave home without it. Keeping in mind that people flock to America and her leaders in health care from all corners of the world.

Are you guys STILL clinging to that eight year old WHO study?

lol.

A.) I don't really see how this article is political, but I guess some people have to make everything political and partisan and Obama hate.

B.) I don't understand why everyone keeps talking about the healthcare reforming being somehow "gov't run", etc. It's still for profit! The only gov't part is the set up of the exchanges to allow me as an individual and small business owner the same oportunity to obtain affordable healthcare as a large corporate entity by allowing me to pool with others to purchase PRIVATE insurance. There is no single payer system, universal system, or anything resembling a gov't take over and gov't funded healthcare.

C.) How is it at all logical that greater access to healthcare/prevention/diagnosis, etc would lead to a decrease in survival rates, etc. That's like saying greater access to cash will make me poor.

txmom32 -- There is BPA in our food and water, hormones in our meat and pesticides in our produce. And to top it off, the medical community is now admitting that all of its advice for the past half century was wrong -- about what we should eat. Our days are crammed into commuting, sitting at desks all day, and commuting again, causing people to eat take-out. For those with no money, takeout is cheaper than what they can make at home, so it's time AND money at play.

The myth of fatties wolfing down whole pizzas and a half gallon of ice cream has been busted -- when 2/3rds of a population is fat, it's clearly a systemic problem, not an individual choice problem.

We need to stop looking at our fat neighbors who outnumber us as if they are anomalies. They are the norm, and those of us who are lucky enough to have avoided this plague had better hope we find a solution to corporate crops and desk jockeying for our fellow citizens because when the health and economic consequences of this mess hit, it's going to be ugly for all of us.

I'm only touching C, as I'm not interested in getting into the camel's nose under the tent debate.

The health care deform bill could very well lead to lower survival rates than we currently enjoy, because of a couple issues it will almost certainly create:

1. Lack of doctors. There are already too few doctors, especially general physicians. If even a fraction of those that said they would quit if Obamacare passed actually do quit, and then you add another 30 million people into the system - yes, more people get care but it is lower quality care for everyone, with longer waiting times. If there's one thing everyone agrees with, it's that earlier detection is the key to cancer survival.

2. QALY analysis that will be applied to determine the cost effectiveness of a treatment. IF it is used as intended, I actually agree with it since 70% or more of a person's lifetime health care costs are accumulated in the last several months of life. There have to be hard choices made, for example if the treatment of an 80-year old who's already confined to a wheel chair will cost $250,000 and only extend their life by 2 months .... in a system of scarcity which Obamacare will create, the question MUST be asked whether or not that $250,000 would be better spent keeping a 40-year old alive, with a better QALY score.

However, QALY taken too far could be used to decide that in a pancreatic cancer case, for instance, that is 96% fatal it is not worth the expense to treat it in the first place. Then pancreatic cancer will REMAIN at least 96% fatal, if not 100% since no new developments will be made in pancreatic cancer since no one gets treatment. This is of course somewhat hyperbolic, but is clearly a way in which cancer deaths could rise - as a direct result of Obamacare.

wolfman13...There are many families, like mine, who currently have health care. We do because it is a priority in our lives and for raising our families with access to some of the best medical care available. Again, for many families it is a priority and there are those of us who will pay in premium cost to avert devastating illness cost. It also provides access to tremendous preventative care venues. We have been effectively threatened for doing the best we can for our families because we have that priority. If this legislature gets their way we will be paying for the premiums for families that don't have that priority or the interest to even find the resources to feed their own children.

That brings us to another segment of the population. Those who do not wish to purchase health insurance at this time at all. They will now be penalized for exercising their right to place their personal funds where they choose.

Then there are the families who should by all rights be able to afford a solid middle class life because they work hard and earn descent money but with tax burdens and rising consumer costs in everyday necessities they find themselves pinched and pushed into a corner where they cannot reasonably afford what it takes to support their own families. Where are they going to get the funds to purchase insurance when they are worried about having jobs and paying for the rising costs of goods to companies that throw millions of their profits into charity and foundations in an effort to elevate the non-employable poor to a middle class life.

We don't need to give any more to the common good and the Government certainly was never intended to grow to the point that it had to take from families to the point of economic pain.

We need to figure out who in our society is the most in need and elevate them to a livable standard. The rest can mow lawns, clean houses and do manual labor for a living wage. Beyond that people should be left to make their own choices and the multitude of taxing authorities should take care of their personal responsibilities and stop dabbling in other business.

Hey txmon32....Do you also agree with the position that our massive military budget eats in the middle class lifestyle just as much as the proposed healthcare? Would you agree to cut it down to size too?

StMiller...The difference is the Military Industrial Complex is the responsibility of the Federal Government. I applaud our service members for their commitment to our country. No I do not begrudge a penny spent on our soldiers and feel more should be done to secure their safety at home and abroad. I also feel that the Federal Government has done a hideous job of providing medical care to our servicemen and veterans and feel they do nothing more than show their ass when they choose to interfere with the workings of families when it comes to such personal decisions and responsibilities. If they really wish to deal with medical issues then they should tend to the ones they already have. If they can get those right without raping my wages then maybe we could have an agreement somewhere. But, I won't hold my breath that they can do anything remotely competent with regard to public health. Remember the Swine flu scare?

In short using the VA as one example and Social Security Administration as another our Government has proven they are ill equip to take on anything related to Medical care for the populous. They need to get out of the business of taking care of the masses and yes if necessary to keep our soldiers safe actually increase the budgets for the military. No President should ever ask Soldiers or Veterans to provide their own cost for injuries of war.

txmom32 - Yes, there will be certain people for which we the tax payer will be footing the bill for those that still can't afford insurance...or as you put it, haven't made it a priority. I would argue that we are already paying those costs in our premiums....so the theory is that if more are insured, the costs will go down.

Also, the cost of obtaining insurance should be reduced due to being able to "pool" with the exchange and spread those costs over a greater number of people. This is how large corporations get much better deals on insurance than an individual. I am a small business owner with between 8 and 10 employees; currently, I can't provide them with insurance, as my "pool" would be 8-10 and the costs astronomical. I work hard and they work hard, I would like nothing more than to provide them with insurance and I believe that come 2014, that option will become much more affordable to me. As an added bonus, my small little accounting firm will be able to more readily compete with larger firms as I will be able to provide insurance thus increasing my pool of talent.

StMiller -

I'm not going to presume to respond on tzmom's behalf, however.

The defense of this country is an enumerated power and the DIRECT responsbility of the Federal Government, as clearly stated in the Constitution. Manipulating the health care industry, with the ultimate goal of taking it over entirely, is NOT an enumerated power and can only by interpretation in the broadest sense of the word via the oft abused "general welfare" clause even be justified. The "general welfare" clause has been stretched and contorted to cover SS, Medicare/caid, Welfare, HUD, food stamps, etc etc etc. and is no longer interpreted as "promote the general welfare" but PROVIDE.

Having said that, exactly what part of the defense budget would you like to cut? Because I would like to cut it, too. Would you like to cut the number of soldiers, or the soldiers' salaries or their benefits after they leave the service? Would you like to cut the expenditures for equipment for those soldiers? What happens when you need them, then? Well, we've already seen what happens after Clinton gutted the defense budgets - we turned to private contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater who robbed the US government blind and US government did nothing about it as the American taxpayer grabbed their ankles - again.

Why does Congress keep passing spending initiatives for the military that include billions in pork for projects the Pentagon doesn't want or need? Before you answer, remember Democrats are in control now, so if you're going to say "because of lucrative contracts in their districts" you'll have to admit that the for-sale nature of Congress runs down both sides of the aisle.

So you would be willing to part with your Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment insurance, but don't ever take a penny away from the military?

The portion of our constitution that enumerates the specific power of the federal govt to manage a military also states that it's a federal power to provide for the general welfare of the people.

The constitution doesn't say anything about 'defense' including spending money to help out hurricane victims, or build levies, or provide coverage for shipping in pirated waters anymore than it says that 'common welfare' has anything to do with social security, welfare, medicare, or universal healthcare. It merely states...

"to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare"

So how is it anymore reasonable to think the the federal government should spend my money on the military to protect my health, but not on universal healthcare to provide for my health and 'general welfare'?

Easy on the Clinton defense cuts...it was Bush senior who instituted the massive closings of the majority of military bases, etc.

also txmom32, we're not talking about the gov't running healthcare for the masses like the VA, or the UK, or Canada; the gov't is simply providing the mechanism or infrastructure if you will for which a greater number of people can pool to buy PRIVATE Insurance at less cost.

That said, I generally don't agree with the "mandate" on principle (though I see what they are trying to accomplish in theory) and unfortunately, there will always be folks who milk the system. But as I noted in my previous post, this health care reform will greatly benefit myself and my employees as well as other small business owners and individuals who's employer doesn't provide health benefits.

wolfman...First of all you have mis-characterized my statement. When I said had not made it a priority to purchase insurance I intended to say just that. Not that they could not afford to but for one reason or another chose to pay their medical expenses out of pocket and assume the risk of illness on their own finances. There is nothing wrong with making that choice. The fact of the matter is it should be a choice not an ancillary expense forced on families that do not need coverage.

Of course we are already paying for it in our premiums. If we did not Hospital and care givers would be shuttering their doors for the cost of deadbeats.

Second...Once upon a time in America we were a strong country because our citizens took responsibility for themselves. They provided for themselves and their families and they succeeded and failed on their own merit. We have moved away from that focus and every strength we ever had as a Nation has deteriorated.

The cost of obtaining insurance will be decreased because those Cadillac plans that many of us enjoy will be economically out of reach. There will be a one size fits all medical system that will not be adequate for the paying public because it will be inundated with those getting care for nothing because it is free. Been there done that on a National scale and will not do it without private access ever again.

Do you know how many years people have lobbied for small business and individual families to pool insurance for that very reason? This should have been an effort well underway by now. That is absolutely the best way to get good insurance into the hand of individuals wishing to have care without the need to "share the wealth" or damage the insurance options that large companies have been able to afford to offer their employees in the past. The current plan on the table does both. It takes from those who wish to participate in a tremendous employee benefit because the excise tax will make it unaffordable for entry level employees.

It is time our legislators grow a care and begin to reduce the restrictions on American citizens. It is time that we identify those among us who truly have no option to provide for themselves and offer them, without cheats jumping in front because they can, a dignified standard of living. Once those who are in real need are cared for then we need to see where resources can be allocated to meet specific needs or returned to the tax payer. Beyond that the Federal Government should promote commerce not financial welfare.

st miller -

The tired fall-back of "give up your SS, Medicare" is a straw man, because people are FORCED to pay into those programs their entire working lives - they are NOT entitlements in the sense that people get something for nothing. The fact that they are totally and completely broken and that people end up taking out multiples of what they put in is a testament to just how badly our government functions. But it was an extension of the general welfare clause that created them, and YES, dammit, if I had the option of NOT contributing? I would forgo all benefits when and if I can ever retire - especially since there won't likely be any money there at that point anyway.

When the government overstepped it's authority to tax us for the specific purpose of funding agencies like FEMA, the then took over the responsbility of providing those services. Whether I agree with them having done so or not is irrelevant, but those activities are far more justified under the Constitution than regulating salt intake, controlling how many bank transfers we can make online within our own accounts, or meddling with health care.

It's worth pointing out that the health care system in this country worked pretty well before a decade or so of the effects of underpayment and abuse of Medicare/caid started to take its toll and the baby boom started to age - a fact with which our government has yet to come to terms with and like the locusts that they are, that generation is going to eat through virtually everything in the next 20 years or so, just like they have for the past 60.

I support defense spending cuts, I said that. I'm not sure why you're still arguing the point.

Please, specify where the cuts should come from in your opinion. I gave an example of one place I'd like to see cuts made, please stop building a straw man of disagreement where there is none. I'm simply trying to point out to you that it is a lot easier to say "cut defense spending" than to actually do it.

Clinton cut defense far, far more than Bush I did - Bush I was in a war, remember? Clinton was not.

hey stmiller

I'm your new DR!!

that would be DR obama yes I'm your new DR. don't worry I have as much experience at Doctoring as governing so you have nothing to woory about

Marine,

Oh my. Perhaps our overall outcomes have something to do with our worse than anywhere in the world lifestyles. And the very old and horrifically innacurate infant mortality rates here, not that people like you would care are because of...wait for it....wait for it....our weath. CARS. Yes, we drive and kill more one year olds and less in the world. And when combined with preemies due to alcohol and drug use, make us number one == whooo hooo we're the best.

We are the best at blaming our problems on others, and taking zero responsibility for our own outcomes.

Next out according to you, we have more fat related psycological issues than anywhere else in the world. NO REALLY!!

Honestly, are you confusing marine with moron?

StMiller

And seriously winterpark if someone came along and tried to take away your unemployment insurance, or your social security, or the 'health' protection being afforded to you by the US military you would crap a brick.

Is it this basic misunderstanding of why people are against socialized government that has you for it?

Unemployment insurance is paid into by individuals. I wouldn't mind it being privatized, but it's not a handout. You don't get it for free just by applying while others pay for it.

Social Security? Failing. Get rid of it. My Grandmother gets $130 a month from hers. It's useless. You could starve to death on that and I could invest it much more efficiently in guaranteed funds.

US military health protection being grouped in there is just grasping at straws. They more than earn it with their service and sacrifices. It's not like it's someone who decided they didn't want to work any more that gets the service.

Please, please do take away my unemployment which I have paid into for 30 years and used for a whopping three weeks! And please, please take away my SS which I have paid into and max'd out for 30 years, of which I expect to see not one penny! Take them all away. I don't want them, don't need them and am tired of paying for other people to have them instead!

I have already paid hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. Surely even the maffia could 'protect' me for less. Not that I need much protection, not everyone is the boogie man!

Uh...you are ignoring increased reporting of cancers worldwide, increased data collection and identification, the increase in life expectancy, etc. It's not all about the 'poisonous chemicals' in your food and water like you say.

What do you think causes cancer? It is not natural. It is caused by chemicals.

Question everything!...while carcinogens may cause some cancers they are by no means the only cause of cancers. Random mutation during DNA replication and genetic inheritance are also a leading causes and they are...natural. Random mutation happens all the time during the DNA replication process inside of human cells and there is nothing in the environment that would stop or cause the inheritance of a cancer propensity from an adult to a child.

The reason people inherit cancer "genes" is because their parents have been "infected" with the cancer gene by chemicals like the ones in the food and vaccines.

So by extension then...Let's take a person like my father who is 70+ and has the same cancer that his mother died from at the age of 70+ in 1977. So you're saying that means that she picked up that cancer from her living among the 'chemicals in our food and vaccines' during her life lived in the last couple of years of the 1800's and early part of the 1900's. When were the good old days before these chemicals started tearing us apart with cancer?

I was afraid that this article would bring out all the pseudo-scientists who are certain that cancer can be blamed on all the "chemicals" in the world. If you don't like chemicals, why not find a cave to live in (you would probably die, just sooner and not from cancer). The truth is that the causes of cancer are not specifically known. If they were we would be able to cure it. Please note that the article specifies that the data is based on the assumption that cancer rates will remain the same. It should have maybe pointed out that increases are due to an aging population and greater life expectancy in developing countries.

Just the facts- I'm not a pseudo-scientist, as you would put it. But the significant increase in Cancer, Autism, Allergies are not a 'mutation of the human evolution'.

More people are deathly allergic to peanuts (my son being one of them) then ever. Why? One in 120 now have some form of Autism. Why?

I do believe it has a lot to do with the chemicals in everything we breathe, drink, touch, and eat. I don't want to go live in the woods. I want corporations to stop dumping toxins in the ground- give me one reason other then profit that so many children's playgrounds are poisoned with arsenic??? I want our gov't to put their foot down on oil companies safety measures and more food inspectors in the PLANTS, not in the restaurants chasing away those horrible trans fats. Sarcasm intended. Only a bunch of morons would spend millions handing out tickets to restaurants for too many trans fats and cut funding to stop the jerks in the parking lots breaking into your cars while you're eating those trans fats.

Question everything!

What do you think causes cancer? It is not natural. It is caused by chemicals.

You may want to do a little more research on that if you're going to be spreading your "knowlege" in public. Ever hear of skin cancer from too much sun? Not every cancer is caused by chemicals. We don't even know what causes cancer or prevents it yet. What causes or prevents gets updated every year in the medical journals.

None of what you said was true.

This reminds me of something from that book, "@!$%# My Dad Says". No disrespect intended, it just seriously does.

The UN can predict it because they are the ones that orchestrated it.

Plutocrats - You liberals never ceased to amaze me how you use brilliant tactics such as divisiveness and name calling to make your point and advance your agenda. Brilliant strategy. Keep it up and you will certainly accelerate your already inevitable demise.

Um, oh Plutocratrats - just wanted to check in again. Let's check the score on Mr. Obama.

Closed Gitmo - NO

Out of Iraq - No

Out of Afghanistan - No, in fact escalated the conflict

Public option on Health care - No

Create jobs - No, 2.2 million jobs lost so far during his term

Transparency - No, especially during Health care reform, promised open to public debate but delivered behind the doors deal making

Clean up Govt. - No, see Sestak, Blago, etc.

I could continue, but why bother. His record speaks for itself. I suppose you can't wait for more.

There will never be justice in the United States until this drunken @!$%# Bush and VP Cheney are jailed for mass murder, corruption, flagrant violations of the law, and his refusal to recognize human rights.

I won't mind as long as they take all the ones who called for the attacks on Iraq in the Bush Sr years with them. Hind sight is 20/20, but Hillary, Bill, Pelosi, Gore, and pretty much every other Democrat still in office more than 20 yrs "lied about WMDs". Just search 'Democrat WMD' on youtube. Take ALL of them to prison. Altho I don't think hind sight works in court. It's just a liberal way of rewriting history and spreading hate.

You are confusing rates and cases. Cancer incidence and death rates are highly related to age. It is also related to medicine's ability to diagnose cancer better. It is not clear at all that things were better in the 1950s.

tomilvento-

It is very clear to me - my parents and grandparents told me so! They lived from 1911-present and recalled the biggest diseases of their time. Cancer was definitely NOT a big disease until after the 1950's. FACT.

Because in those days life expectancies were much shorter. Most people did not live long enough to get cancer.

Autopsies weren't always done when cause of death was determined to be a natural cause. I'm pretty sure in the 50's they didn't do CAT-SCANS all the time to see how many people had cancer either.

Cancer was discovered in 1500bc. Even then they only found it by opening up a body unless it was a cancer that shows up through the skin. It definitely wasn't caused by pesticides and chemicals as so many on here are arguing.

And if you think for a moment that "Big Pharma" wouldn't make a killing off of having the cure for cancer or AIDS, you don't understand how they think.

Fish? Haven't you read about the Eskimos and cancer rates? They moved away from a mostly meat and fish diet and started getting cancer at an alarmingly larger rate.

Pluto, Check history, Kennedy and Johnson, escalated the Vietnam war. Learn about those racist southern democrats who opposed civil rights. Read some economics books, they all say the stimulus programs of the 30's prolonged the Great Depression. You are blinded by your hate and loyalty to the Dems. Washington is flawed and wrong. President Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan. Where is your outrage? You are blind, blind, blind, dumb, dumb, dumb, hateful, and sad, sad, sad.

Hey Plutocratrats, don't forget to add the democrats to your "criminal conspiracy to betray the interests of the American people in favor of plutocratic and corporate interests" theory. The Dems stink to high heaven as well. Oh, you don't believe in heaven so let's choose another metaphor. How about... stink like sh*t as well.

One more thing, noticed that you said humans come from water. That's a new one for me. I am going pour me a cup of H20 and try and make me a baby. Seriously, pls cite your facts, then I will believe what you say. Fact man, just the facts. No theories. Just scientific facts that support your brilliant claim that humans are a mistake and came from water.

I hope you are not a congressman. Then again, even with your stupid humans from water comment you are probably smarter than 99% of the dumb elect officials who are raping our country in favor of their on interests, Republicans, Democrats, whatever. Remember Rep. Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat, asked in a house hearing if adding a few thousand troops to Guam would make the island 'become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.' Ha, how do these people get elected? He's one of your lovely Democrats as well. Look it up, the hearing was on 3/25/10.

Well at least that confirms what I thought about pluto all along. He reads only liberal media and just wants to be told what to think. Either that or he's full of hate and rage and just needs someone to vent about.

Anyone who believes all politicans on one side are really awesome and politicians on the other side are "always wrong" has fallen for the propaganda of the side they support. Newsflash: Politicians are the scum of the earth. Most of them used to be liability lawyers and due to changes in who can run for office, all of them are "old money" and are out of touch with reality.

You might want to learn how to use the "Reply" button so people would know who you're insulting.

So true. I humbly accept any ridicule for this one.

you sir or madam are exactly right!

Many comments above seem to be missing the point of the article, and unnecessarily politicizing the topic. The article is talking about WORLDWIDE cancer death rates. U.S. cancer death rates might decline due to fewer smokers, hepatitis B & HPV vaccines, better treatments; however, the population is aging and many cancers increase in incidence with age.

Worldwide cancer death rates will rise due to multiple reasons: less deaths from infectious diseases so more people live long enough to get cancer, increased tobacco use as populations get relatively wealthier (and U.S. tobacco companies play a role by exporting their product), infections with certain carcinogenic viruses (hepatitis B & C, Epstein-Barr, HPV), pollution from fossil fuels (e.g. China and India and other countries burning coal in dirty fashion). I'm sure I missed a few.

Public policy needs to address these issues.

Obama care: under the bus baby!

WHy??? $$$ is the answer. Big money, big business. Beauty and healthcare products, food industry, aspartame, cell phones. Another thing is not just the billion dollar cancer drug industry but the Scans. I visit a cancer discussion board. The amount of scans these poor people have is amazing. My own mother (uterine cancer) had 3 cat scans and a pet scan in four short months. The amount of radiation you are exposed to when you have a scan builds up over time and greatly increases your risk of future cancer. No they don't want a cure for cancer.

very true and electricity is one of those triggers........cant wait to be riding around in electric cars, lol.