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.

(Think Progress)   Mike Huckabee has a plan to beat Obama on healthcare. That plan? Cure cancer. Book it. Done   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 111
    More: Silly, Mike Huckabee, President Obama, cancer research, cure  
•       •       •

1605 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Aug 2013 at 2:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-26 11:52:16 AM
well that was easy. what's next?
 
2013-08-26 11:54:38 AM
The national commitment to curing diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease and diabetes "has to be largely government funded because the government is the only entity that doesn't have to have a return on investment," he explained. "You put it in the hands of the private sector... [that] doesn't make sense because there is no money long-term if you cure the disease."

The godless Commies have gotten to Huckabee.
 
2013-08-26 11:55:35 AM
I cured cancer 3 times before lunch today.
 
2013-08-26 11:56:42 AM
"has to be largely government funded because the government is the only entity that doesn't have to have a return on investment," he explained. "You put it in the hands of the private sector... [that] doesn't make sense because there is no money long-term if you cure the disease."

But wait, wasn't the whole GOP outrage over Obamacare because it was supposedly a GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF YOUR HEALTHCARE????

My head asplode!
 
2013-08-26 12:00:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I cured cancer 3 times before lunch today.


only 3?  you farking slacker.  you must be coasting since the holiday is coming up.
 
2013-08-26 12:01:22 PM

Relatively Obscure: The national commitment to curing diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease and diabetes "has to be largely government funded because the government is the only entity that doesn't have to have a return on investment," he explained. "You put it in the hands of the private sector... [that] doesn't make sense because there is no money long-term if you cure the disease."

The godless Commies have gotten to Huckabee.


Privatization isn't a perfect solution for everything?!  Hold the presses!
 
2013-08-26 12:07:52 PM

Relatively Obscure: The national commitment to curing diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease and diabetes "has to be largely government funded because the government is the only entity that doesn't have to have a return on investment," he explained. "You put it in the hands of the private sector... [that] doesn't make sense because there is no money long-term if you cure the disease."

The godless Commies have gotten to Huckabee.


He actually said that?! Holy jumping farkplanes.

The Federal government gave $5 billion to the NCI in 2011 (PDF, page 36) and $30.4 billion to the NIH. How much you wanna bet that NCI and NIH funding are on the wasteful spending reports? How much you wanna bet that those agencies are on the GOP's chopping block for austerity? How much you wanna bet that those agencies are asking for MORE help from the private sector - without a decent ROI, which supposedly makes them radioactive to private companies - to make up the government's shortfall?

// also, check AstraZenica's latest financial disclosures, or GlaxoSmithKline's, or Pfizer's, or Bristol-Myers'...they make plenty of money
// though not by "curing" diseases so much as "managing" them, so maybe The Huckster's got a point there?
 
2013-08-26 12:10:48 PM
FTFA: "We said in 1961 we were going to put a man on the moon and in a decade we did it. We said we were going to cure Polio and we did it in the 50s. We said we were going to build an atom bomb in the 40s and we did it. Where is that kinds of focus, funding and fixing it?" he asked.

One of these things is not like the other ...
 
2013-08-26 12:11:42 PM

ManateeGag: cameroncrazy1984: I cured cancer 3 times before lunch today.

only 3?  you farking slacker.  you must be coasting since the holiday is coming up.


Well, I didn't come into work until 11 today.
 
2013-08-26 12:12:10 PM
Also, government spending seems to be okay if only the Republicans do it.
 
2013-08-26 12:14:21 PM
Huckabee said the GOP should advocate for a government-funded Manhattan-style project to "focus on a cure [for disease] rather than just focus on a treatment."

The Manhattan Project cost nearly $2 billion (about $26 billion in 2013 dollars). So, yay! for giant government spending!
 
2013-08-26 12:23:19 PM
But I thought the 9 most frightening words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." You mean to tell me that the government might be good for something? That I've been lied to?
 
2013-08-26 12:23:57 PM
We could also try preventing more cancers, such as by reducing or eliminating the use of carginogenic chemicals or studying their relation to increased rates of some cancers.  But of course, there's no money in that.  Quite the contrary--it might impact certain industries, many of who donate heavily to political candidates (especially, but certainly not exclusively, Republican candidates).

Take the Komen Foundation, for example, which was essentially set up as something of a front organization for AstraZeneca Corp., which remains one of its biggest funders.  What does AstraZeneca do?  A lot, but two of their major business activities include:

(1) The production of certain chemicals (including perchlorates), the environmental presence of which some researchers believe are at largely responsible for the significant increase in breast cancer rates in recent decades, and

(2) The production of pharmaceutical products (including chemotherapy drugs) used in the treatment of breast cancer.

So we have an organization funded by a corporation that makes money producing products that may cause breast cancer, and then makes even more money treating breast cancer, including breast cancer its own products may have caused.  Can we be sure that AstraZeneca's products cause breast cancer?  No.  It spends a lot of money squashing any and all research efforts into the issue, similar to the way tobacco companies did their best for years to squash research into whether smoking causes lung cancer.

And, of course, the Komen Foundation plays into it all.  Their total focus is on treatment (on which AstraZeneca makes lots of money), with no effort at all put into prevention of breast cancer (which could damage AstraZeneca's profits by turning attention to its products as a potential cause).  It's no coincidence that their big event isn't the "Race for Prevention" or "Race to End Breast Cancer," but rather, the "Race for the Cure."  In fact, they constantly shift the public eye away from (and discourage research into) prevention, and try to refocus everything toward treatment.I wonder why?
 
2013-08-26 12:24:41 PM
Appearing on Fox & Friends on Monday, Huckabee said the GOP should advocate for a government-funded Manhattan-style project to "focus on a cure [for disease] rather than just focus on a treatment." "We said in 1961 we were going to put a man on the moon and in a decade we did it. We said we were going to cure Polio and we did it in the 50s. We said we were going to build an atom bomb in the 40s and we did it. Where is that kinds of focus, funding and fixing it?" he asked.

The national commitment to curing diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease and diabetes "has to be largely government funded because the government is the only entity that doesn't have to have a return on investment," he explained. "You put it in the hands of the private sector... [that] doesn't make sense because there is no money long-term if you cure the disease."


I can only imagine that socialist screed was followed by:

www.bronxbanterblog.com
 
2013-08-26 01:18:06 PM
Unless you're giving the cure away for free, people will still need coverage to afford the cure .
/cunning plan, yadda yadda yadda
 
2013-08-26 02:08:05 PM
In other news: Mike Huckabee's wife has cancer.

It's a pretty safe bet that if a Republican is advocating government action/spending, one of his immediate family members is directly affected by this issue.
 
2013-08-26 02:08:25 PM

Relatively Obscure: The national commitment to curing diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease and diabetes "has to be largely government funded because the government is the only entity that doesn't have to have a return on investment," he explained. "You put it in the hands of the private sector... [that] doesn't make sense because there is no money long-term if you cure the disease."

The godless Commies have Chris Rock has gotten to Huckabee.


FTFY.
 
2013-08-26 02:10:06 PM
Another thing to remember in the "still no cure for cancer" arena: it is an umbrella term for a wide variety of different and sometimes completely different diagnoses.  Like we have a vaccine for certain types of cervical cancer, but not all of them, and certainly not cancers of other systems.

So we will continue spending billions of dollars to treat and/or cure cancer until we...

Cyberluddite: We could also try preventing more cancers, such as by reducing or eliminating the use of carginogenic chemicals or studying their relation to increased rates of some cancers.


Exactly.  Modern society has been great for medical advances on all fronts, but it hasn't been all roses at keeping us healthy in the first place.
 
2013-08-26 02:16:45 PM
The public sector is also the only sector with the resources to sink into cures for horrible diseases like EB that only affect a tiny percentage of the population.
 
2013-08-26 02:19:43 PM
FTFA: Appearing on Fox & Friends on Monday, Huckabee said the GOP should advocate for a government-funded Manhattan-style project to "focus on a cure [for disease] rather than just focus on a treatment." "We said in 1961 we were going to put a man on the moon and in a decade we did it. We said we were going to cure Polio and we did it in the 50s. We said we were going to build an atom bomb in the 40s and we did it. Where is that kinds of focus, funding and fixing it?" he asked.The national commitment to curing diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease and diabetes "has to be largely government funded because the government is the only entity that doesn't have to have a return on investment," he explained. "You put it in the hands of the private sector... [that] doesn't make sense because there is no money long-term if you cure the disease."

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-26 02:51:53 PM
You stupid bastard. You stupid farking bastard. That is the level of stupidity I'd expect from a kid asking why people get sick, not someone who ran for farking president. Congratufarkinglations, you've fulfilled my angry quota for today from your stupid farking bastard comment.
 
2013-08-26 02:53:07 PM
The GOP is really going to have to step it up on this one.

I'm thinking at least 4 bullet point bubbles this time.
 
2013-08-26 02:54:26 PM
Appearing on Fox & Friends on Monday, Huckabee said the GOP should advocate for a government-funded Manhattan-style project to "focus on a cure [for disease] rather than just focus on a treatment."

It'll be a cold day in hell before I let the gummermint come and take MY cancer.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-26 02:54:55 PM
. . . as long as we don't use Federal dollars for any stem cell research or to promote godless evolution.

Right Mike?
 
2013-08-26 02:55:05 PM

Somacandra: FTFA: Appearing on Fox & Friends on Monday, Huckabee said the GOP should advocate for a government-funded Manhattan-style project to "focus on a cure [for disease] rather than just focus on a treatment." "We said in 1961 we were going to put a man on the moon and in a decade we did it. We said we were going to cure Polio and we did it in the 50s. We said we were going to build an atom bomb in the 40s and we did it. Where is that kinds of focus, funding and fixing it?" he asked.The national commitment to curing diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease and diabetes "has to be largely government funded because the government is the only entity that doesn't have to have a return on investment," he explained. "You put it in the hands of the private sector... [that] doesn't make sense because there is no money long-term if you cure the disease."

[418x307 from http://i.imgur.com/QDKo1v4.png image 418x307]


whynotboth.jpg
 
2013-08-26 02:55:11 PM
In other news: President Huckabee gives 20 trillion dollars of taxpayer money to private companies to cure a whole pile of stuff.

/Just like they have been doing for decades to cure stuff, that isn't cured yet, but hey have some pills to manage your disease for decades since the cure hurts profits.
 
2013-08-26 02:55:50 PM

Dr Dreidel: Relatively Obscure: The national commitment to curing diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease and diabetes "has to be largely government funded because the government is the only entity that doesn't have to have a return on investment," he explained. "You put it in the hands of the private sector... [that] doesn't make sense because there is no money long-term if you cure the disease."

The godless Commies have gotten to Huckabee.

He actually said that?! Holy jumping farkplanes.

The Federal government gave $5 billion to the NCI in 2011 (PDF, page 36) and $30.4 billion to the NIH. How much you wanna bet that NCI and NIH funding are on the wasteful spending reports? How much you wanna bet that those agencies are on the GOP's chopping block for austerity? How much you wanna bet that those agencies are asking for MORE help from the private sector - without a decent ROI, which supposedly makes them radioactive to private companies - to make up the government's shortfall?

// also, check AstraZenica's latest financial disclosures, or GlaxoSmithKline's, or Pfizer's, or Bristol-Myers'...they make plenty of money
// though not by "curing" diseases so much as "managing" them, so maybe The Huckster's got a point there?


Oh, they definitely are getting hammered by sequestration.
 
2013-08-26 02:57:21 PM
Doctors: We've cured cancer!

Cancer patient: Great! Please treat me right away and cure my cancer!

Doctors: Where's your insurance?

Cancer patient: That's ok, Mike Huckabee said I don't need it!

Doctors: LOL go away.
 
2013-08-26 02:57:23 PM

Bloody William: You stupid bastard.

^^^

 
2013-08-26 02:58:36 PM
cf.badassdigest.com
Well, cancer had a good run.
 
2013-08-26 02:58:50 PM
Huckabee healthcare plan

Step 1: Pray
Step 2: If you get better Jesus!
Step 3: If you die Satan
Step 4: Cut taxes for the wealthy (Profit)
 
2013-08-26 02:59:00 PM
MIke-baby? Thanks for just you being you. I hear you would be able to solve global warming by finding a cure for travel...

ashplace.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-26 02:59:42 PM

nmrsnr: But I thought the 9 most frightening words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." You mean to tell me that the government might be good for something? That I've been lied to?


Ah, but remember who told you that lie?
 
2013-08-26 03:00:03 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I cured cancer 3 times before lunch today.


Is that what the cool kids are calling it, now?
 
2013-08-26 03:00:04 PM
FTA:

"We said in 1961 we were going to put a man on the moon and in a decade we did it. We said we were going to cure Polio and we did it in the 50s. We said we were going to build an atom bomb in the 40s and we did it. Where is that kinds of focus, funding and fixing it?"


Ummm....

The first one and arguably the second one are great progressive achievements,

is Huckabee now a progressive all of a sudden????
 
2013-08-26 03:00:54 PM
I'm disgusted that medical treatments and pharmaceuticals cost so much. There's systematic and horrifying price-fixing in this country. Here's the problem, though: you still need these things to manage illness. If you don't, you suffer and die. You might suffer and die anyway, but it will happen sooner and it will hurt so much more. A cure in the long run would be great and we should keep doing that, but not at the expense of treating those who are currently in need of treatment, even if that treatment isn't a cure.
 
2013-08-26 03:01:01 PM

factoryconnection: Another thing to remember in the "still no cure for cancer" arena: it is an umbrella term for a wide variety of different and sometimes completely different diagnoses.


As a cancer researcher, it's always difficult to explain to people that the idea of a single "cure" for cancer is highly improbable, if not impossible to achieve.  The rapid, adaptive mutations in a particular individual leading to drug resistance, not to mention that metastasized tumors can behave and respond differently than the original cancer in the same individual, makes it much more likely that cancer will only be cured through early detection, rapid identification of relevant oncogenes, and combinatorial therapies that will vary in effectiveness from individual to individual.
 
2013-08-26 03:01:26 PM
So why is he holding up pictures of Wiener's tweets?

thinkprogress.org
 
2013-08-26 03:01:57 PM
It's no socialism when the GOP does it, stupid libs.
 
2013-08-26 03:02:07 PM
I'm genuinely surprised that he is advocating this.
 
2013-08-26 03:02:57 PM
I'm betting the powers that be in the GOP are have already called Huckabee. A quick 180 will be coming in the near future.
 
2013-08-26 03:03:20 PM

born_yesterday: factoryconnection: Another thing to remember in the "still no cure for cancer" arena: it is an umbrella term for a wide variety of different and sometimes completely different diagnoses.

As a cancer researcher, it's always difficult to explain to people that the idea of a single "cure" for cancer is highly improbable, if not impossible to achieve.  The rapid, adaptive mutations in a particular individual leading to drug resistance, not to mention that metastasized tumors can behave and respond differently than the original cancer in the same individual, makes it much more likely that cancer will only be cured through early detection, rapid identification of relevant oncogenes, and combinatorial therapies that will vary in effectiveness from individual to individual.


We can't even cure "the flu." It has so many variants and it still kills so many people, but it's just "the flu." We treat one, another pops up next year that keeps killing. That's nothing against the hundreds of different kinds of cancers that can affect hundreds of parts of the human body.
 
2013-08-26 03:04:51 PM

Bloody William: I'm disgusted that medical treatments and pharmaceuticals cost so much. There's systematic and horrifying price-fixing in this country. Here's the problem, though: you still need these things to manage illness. If you don't, you suffer and die. You might suffer and die anyway, but it will happen sooner and it will hurt so much more. A cure in the long run would be great and we should keep doing that, but not at the expense of treating those who are currently in need of treatment, even if that treatment isn't a cure.


One of the cancer drugs my dad used dropped from $4500 a month to $140 a month as soon as the generic was improved. That disgusts me, and should disgust people of all political persuasions.
 
2013-08-26 03:04:55 PM
kithfans.com

Step 1: Kill Bruce McCulloch.
 
2013-08-26 03:05:03 PM

ultraholland: I'm genuinely surprised that he is advocating this.


I'd be happier to accept it if it didn't seem like the most mindless reduction of a problem his "side" has been constantly fighting, during a time when actual efforts to do what her says are hurt by the sequester and constant attempts to defund research projects and any other government spending.
 
2013-08-26 03:06:05 PM

born_yesterday: factoryconnection: Another thing to remember in the "still no cure for cancer" arena: it is an umbrella term for a wide variety of different and sometimes completely different diagnoses.

As a cancer researcher, it's always difficult to explain to people that the idea of a single "cure" for cancer is highly improbable, if not impossible to achieve.  The rapid, adaptive mutations in a particular individual leading to drug resistance, not to mention that metastasized tumors can behave and respond differently than the original cancer in the same individual, makes it much more likely that cancer will only be cured through early detection, rapid identification of relevant oncogenes, and combinatorial therapies that will vary in effectiveness from individual to individual.


Whatever. You and your "science" crapharkabee knows full well we just need to pray more and cancer will be cured.
 
2013-08-26 03:06:55 PM
If only we cut wasteful spending on things like the NIH and the NSF, we may be able to fund a cure for cancer!
 
2013-08-26 03:06:59 PM

Bloody William: ultraholland: I'm genuinely surprised that he is advocating this.

I'd be happier to accept it if it didn't seem like the most mindless reduction of a problem his "side" has been constantly fighting, during a time when actual efforts to do what her says are hurt by the sequester and constant attempts to defund research projects and any other government spending.


Obama just needs to come out in agreement with Huckabee. That will end this talk immediately.
 
2013-08-26 03:07:29 PM
How many yacht manufacturers would go out of business if somebody invented a $5 cure for cancer?
 
2013-08-26 03:07:51 PM
Don't stop there, Huckabee.  Let's really fix healthcare.  Fund massive projects to develop nanites and genetic engineering.  Tell the derpers God said it was okay.
 
Displayed 50 of 111 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report