(CNN) – Cancer will take the lives of nearly 600,000 Americans this year, according to the American Cancer Society. Democratic presidential contenders John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have set their sights on the killer.
Edwards announced his “National Strategy on Cancer Survivorship” on Monday. The former North Carolina senator’s plan is based on providing universal health care coverage to every American. The plan includes, among other things, a requirement for preventative screening for cancer, as well as the enactment of a patient’s bill of rights making insurance companies accountable when they try to deny coverage for medically necessary treatment. The Edwards plan would also increase funding for the National Institutes of Health, lift current restrictions on stem cell research, study environmental factors that may contribute to cancer, and attempt to end health disparities that often leave various population groups at greater risk of developing certain forms of cancer.
Sen. Clinton also announced her plan on Monday. It would prohibit insurance companies from charging higher rates to people with health problems. At the same time, it would also encourage people with a family history of cancer to get genetic testing by prohibiting insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of genetic testing results. The senator’s plan would further increase federal funding for cancer research, while also providing a boost for preventative care.
As president, Clinton has pledged to empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco advertising and sales, including possible new restrictions on advertising directed at children. Tobacco is known to be one of the leading causes of certain forms of cancer.
Clinton and Edwards will participate in Lance Armstrong’s Livestrong Presidential Cancer Forum in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on Wednesday.
Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with breast cancer just after the presidential election in 2004, and is currently battling a recurrence of the disease.
–CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart
I wonder how long Lance and Mrs Edwards smoked before they got cancer?
Those aren't plans to fight cancer, those are plans to pay for medical care.
"Sen. Clinton also announced her plan on Monday. It would prohibit insurance companies from charging higher rates to people with health problems."
ie.., she will require insurance companies to charge us all the same high premiums to make up for those with mostly self created health problems. Oh, did I mention that Congress pays no premiums for their health insurance. Boy, that sounds fair.., right??
Another case of Edwards have a specific proposal drawn up, and Clinton simply saying "Oh me too!"
C'mon Hillary. Let's see the plan instead of just lip service.
Bushes ... Clintons ... really – when are we ever going to have enough of this two family dominance of the White House? Who are we going to elect the next two times? Jed? Chelsea? Wake up America!
back in march of 07,i was told that i had liver cancer i applide for ssi,to get medicad in order to pay for midical cair.i was denide i dont have insurance.i have many medical bills that i cant pay,a doctor in marietta georgia told that a transplant would cost500.000,i fild agan was told that my condition was not as bad as it seemed,i was denide agan,i am 62 years old.i have a friend who has the same thing,he has been denide 3 times there are many like us who are turned down,we are all viet nam vets,this goverment is go ing to let us die to keep from paying for our medical care.i get 208.00 a month from ss,that is all i have to live on.if not for a friend,i could not serviv.
I continue to think there is something not authentic about Edwards. Last time around he ran as a centrist and supporter of the war - the darling of the DLC establishment, Bill Clinton Jr. Now that these folks are forced (not using that word casually) to support Hillary, Edwards has no where to go except to appear to outflank Obama on the left. What he has settled on is truly disturbing. We are witnessing a return to old-style southern populism. While not overtly racist or sexist, he clearly implies it by making a direct emotional appeal to angry downscale white voters - the "forgotten" ones. This is not about policies - Edwards policies are not vastly different from the other dems. No, this is all about image and a glimpse into what his governing style will be - us against them. Haven't we had enough of this nonsense.
The populist techinique is to find an obvious enemy who stands as the reason for all your targeted voters' woes. In Edwards' case he focuses on the fat, rich, corporate thieves that are stealing your kid's food and giving your jobs to the third world. Edwards poses as the one who can personally battle against this demon FOR YOU because he is strong and brave and you need HIM. No one else cares like he does - promise.
Now substitute "Corporate Thieves" for "Islamic Terrorists" and Edwards for Bush and you will get an idea about how this strategy works - just two sides of the same coin. It works not just because there may be truth to the argument - but because the manner in which the message is delivered stirs such strong, blinding emotions. As Michelle Obama pointed out recently, its hard for people to think clearly when they are in the grip of fear - and I would add as it applies to Edwards - anger.
Contrast this with Barack Obama's message. "I am here because of you" "We have to do this together." "We can disagree without being disagreeable." He is trying to help people to think, emphathize and work with each other to find common cause and solutions to our problems.
So we have a serious choice here for what direction we want our government to take. We can choose rage like Edwards is pedalling, or we can continue with the status quo of fear like Hillary and the republicans are advocating, or we can choose to bring our creative intellect forward and figure out constructive ways to work for our shared future at home and in the world.
P.S. Regarding Edward's call for driving more fuel efficient vehicles - where exactly was he last election when we were going to war in Iraq over oil? Did he even recognize that oil dependence was/is one of our most important national security issues? I know he didn't take this issue seriously because I made a personal, direct appeal to his DLC advisor - and was basically told that no one cared about this issue. By the way, the conversation took place in this fellow's SUV!