Presidential Politics and 'The War on Cancer'

In many GOP primary debates on many topics, not once have I heard a serious discussion of the No. 1 health-related killer in the world: cancer.

One-half of American men and one-third of American women will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, severely impacting our national security, our economy and our people, who must endure the pain cancer of watching loved ones suffer and die. It's time we talk about this. It's time we get answers from candidates asking for our vote in 2012.

We have a series of presidential primary debates coming up, so we need to contact debate moderators and reporters to encourage them to ask a very important question that must be asked, discussed and debated:

As President of the United States, how would you use the bully pulpit to reduce the number of annual cancer deaths, and what policies would you propose to put us on course to eradicate this dreaded disease?

Most people in this country know someone who is battling or has battled cancer. I'm battling it myself -- I was diagnosed at age 35 with prostate cancer -- and sadly I know others who have recently succumbed. Gone too soon.

Indeed, the 40-year "war on cancer," begun with 1971's National Cancer Act, has been an abject failure.

Why hasn't this vital topic been covered in the debates? Why aren't solutions to ending cancer being debated? I want to hear candidates discuss policy and, perhaps more importantly, how they'd use the bully pulpit to encourage preventative dietary and lifestyle habits known to aid in the prevention of cancers, propose ideas for raising awareness of earlier screenings, suggest quarterly symposiums of the world's brightest and best researchers, doctors and scientists, and discuss known causes of cancer and its economic impact and raise solutions.

Many TV talking heads and radio talk show hosts say government needs to stay out of our lives, but when you are the president of the United States, you have a platform. Every utterance, every move is captured and analyzed. You can spur discussions and put a magnifying glass on underreported issues that deserve more attention. Americans deserve to know how 2012 presidential candidates will use such influence to make a difference in the war on cancer.

Why is this important?

1. It's in the interest of our national security

2. It lowers health care costs for all

3. It encourages citizens to live to their fullest potential

Here are the facts, from 2011:

• About 1,596,670 Americans have been newly diagnosed with cancer
• 571,950 Americans died of cancer in 2011 -- more than 1,500 people a day. Those are 571,950 of our mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, daughters, sons, neighbors, coworkers and fellow Americans.
• About one-­third of the 571,950 cancer deaths in 2011 were related to obesity, physical inactivity and poor nutrition, and thus could have been prevented.

The financial costs of cancer are high for both individual sufferers and for America. The National Institutes of Health estimate the 2010 overall annual costs of cancer were as follows:

• Total cost: $263.8 billion
• Direct medical costs (total of all health expenditures): $102.8 billion
• Indirect morbidity costs (cost of lost productivity due to illness): $20.9 billion
• Indirect mortality costs (cost of lost productivity due to premature death): $140.1 billion

Worldwide: In 2008, cancer accounted for nearly $1 trillion in economic losses from premature death and disability.

Using the bully pulpit is not forcing people or private business to adopt new habits or practices. Rather, I'd argue, it's taking advantage of the presidential office to provide necessary leadership for the common good. The president of the United States encouraging Americans to adopt healthier dietary and lifestyle habits is not forcing anyone to do anything.

It's not popular to tell an overweight and ailing nation that many of our own actions have made us the highest health care-spending nation on the planet. We don't want to alienate voters! However we have serious issues with cancer, heart disease, diabetes and stroke -- all often preventable through diet and lifestyle.

And believe it or not, our diminishing health and failing war on cancer are national security issues. America always has led -- been a beacon of hope -- and as such, we must take the lead in the fight to end cancer.

We can do it, but it takes bold leadership. It requires the use of the bully pulpit to encourage and promote radical dietary and lifestyle changes which world renowned experts and organizations say can reduce cancer deaths.

"We need to recommit to the anti-cancer effort,'' says Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical and scientific officer of the American Cancer Society.

But that takes leadership.

Now it's time to hear from the candidates.

 

Follow Gabe Canales on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GabeCreatesBuzz

Comments

[David Ross Fraley]

03:25 PM on 01/26/2012

Recently diagnosed and treated for Prostate Cancer myself and lost my childhood best friend to colon cancer and my mom to breast cancer so I am very engaged. Thank you for recognizing that the sitting President should be the first target of appeal. Since everything is political for them, the candidates need to know that they can buy your vote by supporting your cause. The reasoning is for the policy wonks to justify. Sorry to be so cynical but we have to be realistic. The squeaky voting wheel gets the grease!

[rwhess]

12:39 PM on 01/20/2012

Excellent post; the right questions.

Each of us has the ability to affect our cancer risk to some degree by our nutritional and lifestyle habits. Each of us has personal accountability for how we live our lives.

Our government, however, could and should be doing more to educate us about food, exercise, and healthy living.

How about creating a national amateur sports program for all sports using the age category system [5-year age groups] used by USA Cycling? Have this program culminate every four years in an amateur US Olympics in every sport. l

Best regards,

Robert Hess
Founder
Prostate Cancer Awareness Project
Manhattan Beach, CA
Accidental Prostate Cancer Survivor, Class of 2003

[Lesscancer]

03:35 PM on 01/18/2012

Good Post. Since Richard Nixon launched the War on Cancer in 1971 we have suffered untold incidences of cancer and spent billions of dollars on research. We live in a time when cancer has become so commonplace that the news of new cases seems almost expected. Since 1971 we have been better at treating cancer-however Brain cancer has increased by nearly 40%, and leukemia by over 60% in children under 14 between 1975 and 2004. Including prevention when looking at Cancer is going to require us to reorder how our culture prioritizes money, human health and the environment. As a culture, we have looked the other way as profit rises above human health and the environment. I more than anyone wish to see the cure but the most pressing issue for lawmakers today is to include prevention when looking at cancer. We need to reexamine the choices we make and realize if there is the possibility to further understand cancer risks. We know we can limit cancer risks as with tobacco, sunlight, viruses, alcohol, obesity and some chemicals. When we work to prevent cancer risks, it impacts human health, the environment and the economy. This February 4th in Virginia and in Michigan will be Cancer Prevention Day.
Keep up the great work.
Bill Couzens Founder Less Cancer

[Trout007]

12:22 PM on 01/08/2012

As a libertarian I usually get accused of being cold or heartless. But I think for public health reasons the government does have a role to determine what causes diseases. Technically it may require an amendment to the Constitution but that's besides the point.

Once we know that vices such as drinking too much, smoking, unprotected sex cause diseases I think that is where the governments involvement ends. We know smoking causes lung cancer. In a free society you are allowed to smoke but when you get cancer you don't have a right to force your non-smoking neighbor to pay for treatment. When you drink yourself to liver failure you don't have a right to force your dry neighbor to pay for a liver transplant. When you sleep with everyone under the sun with no protection you don't have a right to force your prudish neighbor to pay for your AIDS treatment.

[No death panels]

01:42 AM on 01/07/2012

"Now it's time to hear from the candidates."

How about our sitting president?

[Gabe Canales]

02:29 AM on 01/07/2012

absolutely, he's running for re-election. the point of my piece is we've had I believe 16 debates and no discussion of this very serious issue. my hope is this question gets asked, discussed and debated in the primaries and of course in a general election debate, but we have to continue to raise the issue with the media so it is asked. thanks for your comment.

[bradley996]

01:20 PM on 01/10/2012

And the sitting President has had three years to make this a prominent cause, one he supports with more than words. In this case we even lack this much from him. The same goes for his predecessors.

As for the group who currently call themselves candidates, it’s a waste of time to ask them because as they are proving on a daily basis, they will say ANYTHING to get elected.

Gabe I think this is a good piece but should be directed at the President and whoever the Repub's have left standing. The questions you pose need to be asked at a Presidential debate, not these off-Broadway farces the right is putting on.