If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   The reality is that doctors are getting much better at helping people survive cancer. The problem is we're not ready to support millions of cancer survivors who should be dead   (thechart.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 134
    More: Interesting, blood diseases, breast cancer, Adyar Cancer Institute, National Cancer Institute, survival rate, Acs  
•       •       •

7629 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jun 2012 at 9:26 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-15 09:29:48 AM
Increased life expectancy will be the downfall of western civilization. Parents no longer leave any assets to their children, and sometimes push their children (or society) into debt. Back in the day, you inherited stuff from your parents, and you fed this capital back into your kids, creating growth. Now we're just eating our seed corn.
 
2012-06-15 09:29:50 AM
Stop running anti smoking campaigns and end public health initiatives aimed at getting people off tobacco.

Problem solved.
 
2012-06-15 09:31:05 AM
So, death panels then.
 
2012-06-15 09:31:31 AM
...Right. This is an easy way to get millions of families of both cancer survivors and victims angry at you.
 
2012-06-15 09:34:23 AM
The cancer survivors are not the problem. It's called the Baby Boomer generation because there are a lot of them. They make the most money. They pay the most taxes. They are retiring. They live for 30 years on social security. You don't have to be a math whiz to see where we are headed. It ain't good.
 
2012-06-15 09:34:24 AM
As a person who should have died of renal failure in 2005, but survived on dialysis until I got a kidney transplant in February 2012, I'm getting a kick out of this article.

/suck it, CNN!
 
2012-06-15 09:35:35 AM
"The good news is that we've gotten better at resolving infant mortality. The bad news is we're not prepared for millions of surviving babies who should be dead."
excerpt from 1904 report
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-15 09:37:28 AM
You know who else didn't like sick people?
 
2012-06-15 09:38:27 AM
Where do we bury the survivors?
 
2012-06-15 09:40:26 AM
Has anyone ever met a cancer survivor that you wish would just STFU and get get hit by a car?
 
2012-06-15 09:41:01 AM
As someone who survived late-stage bile duct cancer and Whipple surgery, I'm getting a kick out of this. The only support I need is regular beer, fast internet, and decent espresso.

I don't see how my status as a cancer survivor makes me a burden on society. If I get sick again, fair enough. In the meantime I'm paying my own way and looking after my family.
 
2012-06-15 09:41:33 AM

Lux Lambert: ...Right. This is an easy way to get millions of families of both cancer survivors and victims angry at you.


fark them. They should be dead.
 
2012-06-15 09:42:04 AM
Because the potential implications of the claim of the headline are abhorrent, the claim may be dismissed as false without any further analysis.
 
2012-06-15 09:43:10 AM
Replace sugar with HFCS and let people eat themselves to death.
 
2012-06-15 09:43:11 AM

Nightsweat: "The good news is that we've gotten better at resolving infant mortality. The bad news is we're not prepared for millions of surviving babies who should be dead."


Main difference is that young people add productivity to the economy.

Now, a large retiring workforce isn't ideal, but something we can deal with. Means less for us but a first-world country can take it. . . in theory. The problem is when the old people become such a powerful AND self-entitled voting bloc by absorbing the Baby Boomers. When it costs insane amounts of money to keep these fatasses alive with various drugs/treatments AND they're demanding huge entitlements that dilute the share of wealth of the workforce, you create disincentives to work. Japan has this problem. They have an acute labor shortage but so much wealth is tied up by their elders that even skilled jobs pay shiat (and the culture treats them like dirt), so young people aren't motivated to pursue careers.
 
2012-06-15 09:45:25 AM

henryhill: Has anyone ever met a cancer survivor that you wish would just STFU and get get hit by a car?


Yes. My former roommate. He was that biggest piece of shiat I ever met he also happened to be a cancer survivor. Whenever I called him on his bullshiat he pulled the cancer card, even though he had been cancer free for 5 years.
 
2012-06-15 09:47:59 AM

MemeSlave: Increased life expectancy will be the downfall of western civilization. Parents no longer leave any assets to their children, and sometimes push their children (or society) into debt. Back in the day, you inherited stuff from your parents, and you fed this capital back into your kids, creating growth. Now we're just eating our seed corn.


Oh just get over it and off your parents already, pussy.

badhatharry: The cancer survivors are not the problem. It's called the Baby Boomer generation because there are a lot of them. They make the most money. They pay the most taxes. They are retiring. They live for 30 years on social security. You don't have to be a math whiz to see where we are headed. It ain't good.


Apparently you do; all we have to do to make the system sustainable is force people to retire at 70 instead of 62 (except for people who actually work for a living, like oil riggers and miners and construction workers).
 
2012-06-15 09:49:11 AM

badhatharry: The cancer survivors are not the problem. It's called the Baby Boomer generation because there are a lot of them.


Yeah, to clarify my last post, cancer survivors are NOT the problem.

My last job was having problems with old fat guys getting atherosclerosis. Alcohol, tobacco, bad diet and sedentary lifestyle were all heavily involved. In one office, one guy had a blood clot in his leg and another had heart problems. This was out of three people and I was the third. They're both on meds.

Problem isn't cancer. Cancer patients have their own problems.
 
2012-06-15 09:49:36 AM
It's a Circle of Life. You're born (or you're not, if you're not supposed to be), you live (sometimes a long time, sometimes not), and then you die. Then, more are born, and it continues. Your life is a gift, not a guarantee.

Death is part of the deal. Sure, sometimes it hurts - especially the people who are left behind. But that's what makes living such a great thing.
 
2012-06-15 09:49:51 AM

pieterh: As someone who survived late-stage bile duct cancer and Whipple surgery, I'm getting a kick out of this. The only support I need is regular beer, fast internet, and decent espresso.

I don't see how my status as a cancer survivor makes me a burden on society. If I get sick again, fair enough. In the meantime I'm paying my own way and looking after my family.


I think people are (understandably) taking this too seriously. The notion isn't "Those damn cancer survivors what a burden!"

It's more of an issue that for the entirety of human existence, population has been kept under control through natural means (sickness and death). Well, now medicine is getting better and better, people who "should die" from sickness aren't and people who "should die" just from being old are living longer and longer. Also, the medicine that's doing all of this is getting more and more expensive.

On an individual level, it's great. It's awesome that you didn't die. It's awesome for each of those other cancer survivors and their families that they didn't die. It's awesome for all those old people that they have more time to spend with their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Seriously. As a society, though, it can start to present problems if not properly addressed.

I don't think any sane person is suggesting that "more cancer patients and old people need to die," but the question "now that more aren't dying, what do we need to do?" is one that needs to be addressed and people getting all insulted when we try to address this issue isn't going to help.
 
2012-06-15 09:49:53 AM
I died of cancer 3 years ago, so my kids are getting a kick out of this.
 
2012-06-15 09:50:33 AM
dragonchild: Main difference is that young people add productivity to the economy.

This just isn't how economies work. Wealth isn't a cake that you divide up. It's a fire that burns hotter the more people are adding wood to it.

The problem with Japan has little to do with the age of its workforce and everything to do with the friction that stops that fire from spreading to more lucrative areas. This friction is laws that forbid real competition, a culture that makes trade difficult, except for focussed export businesses, and an education system that treats innovation as a problem, and failure as a crime (so there's little scope to learn).

The wealth of an economy is a product of the number of participants, and the degree of freedom they have to trade with the rest of the world. More people * more freedom = more wealth. Old or young, every person adds wealth, even if all they do is "consume".
 
2012-06-15 09:51:41 AM

MemeSlave: Increased life expectancy will be the downfall of western civilization. Parents no longer leave any assets to their children, and sometimes push their children (or society) into debt. Back in the day, you inherited stuff from your parents, and you fed this capital back into your kids, creating growth. Now we're just eating our seed corn.


Albert Brooks (yeah, that guy) wrote a book you might be interested in that depicted a future just like that. Here's a link to one on Amazon:
Link

He's no Dickens, but it's a good, quick read. Not as funny as I would have hoped, but interesting.
 
2012-06-15 09:51:47 AM

MythDragon: I died of cancer 3 years ago, so my kids are getting a kick out of this.


Pull the other one.
 
2012-06-15 09:52:10 AM
The reality, subby, is that people shouldn't even be GETTING cancer. Still doesn't solve your problem, though. We can't support the population and you're ugly.
 
2012-06-15 09:52:21 AM
Just lost my in-laws within 4 months of each other to Hodgkins Disease and liver cancer. Some of the best people you would ever hope to meet. So I am really not getting a kick...

/f*ck cancer
//Hodgkins is a *really* hard way to die
///liver cancer isn't any walk in the park either
 
2012-06-15 09:52:28 AM
The real problem is the infant mortality rate. All those little bastards are surviving childbirth and being inoculated against diseases that would otherwise limit their numbers. We need to regulate OB/GYN enablers out of existence to end this scourfge.
 
2012-06-15 09:53:08 AM
I'm a suvivor of a number of events that did their best to kill me. Does that somehow make me a burden on society or is it approved because I work and pay taxes?
 
2012-06-15 09:53:44 AM
I'm really resenting the Baby Boomers, in general, lately.
They've done an awful job of running this country, pretty much burning off everything good it had to offer within mere decades of getting control, and now they won't even friggin' die.

Selfish, irresponsible pigs.
 
2012-06-15 09:54:24 AM

MythDragon: I died of cancer 3 years ago, so my kids are getting a kick out of this.


Get back in the box, Dad.
 
2012-06-15 09:55:25 AM
cdn.wegotthiscovered.com

Let them cook meth.
 
2012-06-15 09:55:51 AM

dragonchild: Nightsweat: "The good news is that we've gotten better at resolving infant mortality. The bad news is we're not prepared for millions of surviving babies who should be dead."

Main difference is that young people add productivity to the economy.

Now, a large retiring workforce isn't ideal, but something we can deal with. Means less for us but a first-world country can take it. . . in theory. The problem is when the old people become such a powerful AND self-entitled voting bloc by absorbing the Baby Boomers. When it costs insane amounts of money to keep these fatasses alive with various drugs/treatments AND they're demanding huge entitlements that dilute the share of wealth of the workforce, you create disincentives to work. Japan has this problem. They have an acute labor shortage but so much wealth is tied up by their elders that even skilled jobs pay shiat (and the culture treats them like dirt), so young people aren't motivated to pursue careers.


This.

And our tax laws are designed to protect the wealth of the wealthiest boomers.

We are trying to mantain a first world country (without adequate health care reform and higher education reform) but refuse to tax accordingly.

This country is becoming a militant capitalist society in which capitalism is the goal at the cost of everything else.

But with life expectancy increased, we need major adjustments that this country lacks the maturity to make.
 
2012-06-15 09:56:40 AM

henryhill: Has anyone ever met a cancer survivor that you wish would just STFU and get get hit by a car?


Yes. The 20-some had a mole removed on his arm that could have been skin cancer and since then has been attending all kinds of cancer events, giving speeches, crying and generally being the dushiest thing since third hand car salesmen were invented.

/cancer wasn't even conclusively diagnosed...
 
2012-06-15 09:57:40 AM
I'm curious why nobody points out the issue of decreased infant mortality rates causing the same problem.
 
2012-06-15 09:58:01 AM
We should just find a way to give all the cancer from good people to bad people, like congress and pedos.
 
2012-06-15 09:58:12 AM

onyxruby: I'm a suvivor of a number of events that did their best to kill me. Does that somehow make me a burden on society or is it approved because I work and pay taxes?


Not if you survived and are now awesome. If you are not awesome you can feel free to step in front of a bus.
 
2012-06-15 09:58:42 AM

henryhill: Has anyone ever met a cancer survivor that you wish would just STFU and get get hit by a car?


Am I going to Hell because I laughed at this?

My favorite is when you go out to a nice dinner and they start talking about "procedures" and "complications" in excruciating detail.

/ Oh Well, trying to lose weight anyways....
 
2012-06-15 09:59:27 AM

SharkTrager: I'm curious why nobody points out the issue of decreased infant mortality rates causing the same problem.


because THE CHILDREN! That's why.
 
2012-06-15 09:59:28 AM

MemeSlave: Increased life expectancy will be the downfall of western civilization. Parents no longer leave any assets to their children, and sometimes push their children (or society) into debt. Back in the day, you inherited stuff from your parents, and you fed this capital back into your kids, creating growth. Now we're just eating our seed corn.


Think beyond the economic issue. Human population growth (too much farking, too little dying in a timely manner) is what's going to destroy the world. The sooner we get a three-way nuclear war going, the better off we'll be (in the long run).
 
2012-06-15 09:59:48 AM

outtatowner: henryhill: Has anyone ever met a cancer survivor that you wish would just STFU and get get hit by a car?

Yes. The 20-some had a mole removed on his arm that could have been skin cancer and since then has been attending all kinds of cancer events, giving speeches, crying and generally being the dushiest thing since third hand car salesmen were invented.

/cancer wasn't even conclusively diagnosed...


That kind of makes me laugh. I had something removed from my temple years ago. The doctor did it in her office thinking it should be easy, By the time she was done she apologized for not having me sedated and doing it in a surgical setting. They never did figure out what the hell it was.

Maybe I should start giving tearful speeches.
 
2012-06-15 10:00:22 AM
henryhill Smartest
Funniest
2012-06-15 09:40:26 AM


Has anyone ever met a cancer survivor that you wish would just STFU and get get hit by a car?




Lance Armstrong. Was a dick before and after cancer. Hit by a car would be perfect.
 
2012-06-15 10:00:31 AM
i4.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-15 10:00:35 AM
I've had this thought as well. If we are ever able to cure both cancer and AIDS, we're in trouble.
 
2012-06-15 10:01:04 AM

SharkTrager: I'm curious why nobody points out the issue of decreased infant mortality rates causing the same problem.


HELLO I JUST DID
 
2012-06-15 10:01:26 AM

onyxruby: I'm a suvivor of a number of events that did their best to kill me. Does that somehow make me a burden on society or is it approved because I work and pay taxes?


Stop blanming the Mexicans. Racist.
/ you're always welcome here
 
2012-06-15 10:01:26 AM

squidgod2000: MemeSlave: Increased life expectancy will be the downfall of western civilization. Parents no longer leave any assets to their children, and sometimes push their children (or society) into debt. Back in the day, you inherited stuff from your parents, and you fed this capital back into your kids, creating growth. Now we're just eating our seed corn.

Think beyond the economic issue. Human population growth (too much farking, too little dying in a timely manner) is what's going to destroy the world. The sooner we get a three-way nuclear war going, the better off we'll be (in the long run).


At some point the human race will collapse in on itself. It will be a combination of things. We're over due.
 
2012-06-15 10:03:12 AM

pieterh: dragonchild: Main difference is that young people add productivity to the economy.

This just isn't how economies work. Wealth isn't a cake that you divide up. It's a fire that burns hotter the more people are adding wood to it.

The problem with Japan has little to do with the age of its workforce and everything to do with the friction that stops that fire from spreading to more lucrative areas. This friction is laws that forbid real competition, a culture that makes trade difficult, except for focussed export businesses, and an education system that treats innovation as a problem, and failure as a crime (so there's little scope to learn).

The wealth of an economy is a product of the number of participants, and the degree of freedom they have to trade with the rest of the world. More people * more freedom = more wealth. Old or young, every person adds wealth, even if all they do is "consume".


Natural competition ultimately kills competition because the larger businesses consume smaller businesses. A monoply is created in which the success is shared between a few giants.

Consumer power is what drives economic competition because consumers now have the ability to purchase the better product and not merely the available product.

By the way - this also explains the distribution of wealth in the US. Those with the wealth design the system so that their wealth is better protected.
 
2012-06-15 10:03:31 AM
Everybody gotta die sometime, Red.
i268.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-15 10:05:59 AM

Heraclitus: My favorite is when you go out to a nice dinner and they start talking about "procedures" and "complications" in excruciating detail.


Well, when you go through hell (once in ICU I was tripping for 24 hours solid, with heavy visions of skulls, carnage, flayed bodies, blood,...) there's a phase where you need to share. After a while it goes away. I used to have this urge to tell people I met, "oh, yes, I'm on chemo and don't expect to live much longer" but that passed.

If you want a society around you to look after you, feed you, and protect you, do the same to those that need it. It's kind of the contract. Treating survivors and their traumas like irritations makes you look like a jerk. Oh, and karma. One day it'll be you needing someone to talk to.
 
2012-06-15 10:07:06 AM
There can be only one answer to overpopulation: Carousel!

Logan 5 would like a word with you, runner.
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report