Linda Harper-Brown's Disgusting Hypocrisy on Cancer

Why do we need it? (0.00 / 0)

We already have the most respected, and acclaimed, cancer research institute in the world. It's part of the UT System. It's called MD Anderson. What the legislature needs to do is ensure that funding is not only not cut in the 2011 session, unless Perry finds something to declare an emergency over and calls a special session over the summer, but increased.  

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Wed May 12, 2010 at 00:42:52 AM UTC

We should be very careful... (3.00 / 1)

 
when considering contributions to cancer charities.  Some of them pay huge salaries to their executives.

I'm with you 100% on the issue of Linda Harper-Brown.    

---

by: Tom Blackwell @ Wed May 12, 2010 at 03:10:29 AM UTC

She may be a hypocrite but... (0.00 / 0)

I'm perfectly fine with her voting against HJR 90. We should never have passed or put up to a vote billions of dollars of bond money to fund cancer research that way- why just cancer? Why not something else? Billions in bonds was not the way to fund that research and I applaud LHB for voting against the resolution in the first place.


Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed May 12, 2010 at 03:37:49 AM UTC

And what about treatment? (0.00 / 0)

There are growing numbers of Texans who have no insurance and will continue to have no insurance because the "fine" under "Obamacare" will be the only option unless people decide their kids don't need food on the table or clothes to wear to school, or electricity to have lights at night in order to study.

There are growing numbers of Texans who are diagnosed with cancer and end up in the "public health system" and put on "waiting lists" for treatment. No one talks about it. Or about how many die before they even get an appointment with an oncologist.

The billions of dollars for research would be better spent offsetting the cost for treatment for those with no insurance. For most with no insurance, a diagnosis of cancer is a death sentence in this and most other states.

MD Anderson supposedly was chartered to provide indigent care. I doubt it has provided any real indigent care for some time. Thanks to the regents of UT who managed to "invest" endowments to enrich their buddies, and no doubt themselves, without any regard to the obligations to the public. Including the obligation to provide indigent care at MD Anderson.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Wed May 12, 2010 at 17:15:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are a moron (5.00 / 2)

Please, please provide a single fact to back up your frickin' crazy rants.  You just make stuff up then use it as the basis for some wild claim.  I feel like you try so hard to be contrarian that you simply give up on common sense.  

To address a couple points from your comment -

1.  There are indeed growing numbers of Texans who have no insurance, but there is no way the Patient Protect and Affordable Care Act is going to make that number higher.  You're just wrong.

2.  People will not have to choose between food on the table or healthcare.  Medicaid is expanded to 133% of Federal Poverty Level, so the people near poverty that are currently in that situation will be helped.  Further, the PPACA provides for expanded employer provided health insurance, so the number of people not receiving ESI or Medicaid will be relatively small.  For those individuals, they will be able to receive sliding scale subsidies to purchase insurance on the exchange.  The group of people paying the fine will be small, and it will be largely made up of those on the higher end of the income scale.  The ridiculous situation you lay out is just absurd.

3.  Give me any sort of evidence for these waiting lists that isn't a Sarah Palin Facebook status update.

4.  What do you mean "I doubt [MD Anderson] has provided any real indigent care for some time".  Where do you get that from?  MD Anderson got around $270 million in state dollars in just 2009 to provide indigent care, and provided indigent care to around 7,500 people with that money.  And just so you know - the Affordable Care Act will provide those indigent folks with Medicaid, thus giving them health insurance.  Finally, it bans rescissions and preexisting conditions, so that people with cancer won't get shoved off their coverage, and will be able to purchase it in the future without being discriminated against.

5.  Finally, your point about them using the money on treatment.  The legislation (HJR 90 and HB 14) increases funding for cancer prevention and treatment by $30 million a year.  It expands the mission of the research institute to include prevention and treatment.  It does exactly what you say it doesn't do.

All of my points are based on facts.  I get them from reading the legislation in question.  I can't help but think your facts are pulled out of fantasyland.

Finally, KT has a valid criticism about the use of bonds to pay for this, but you have nothing of virtue in your comment.  It's par for the course for you, and it's incredibly annoying and frustrating.  If you insist on attacking everything, at least do a google search first.

---

by: Joe @ Wed May 12, 2010 at 21:46:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Google it yourself... (0.00 / 0)

Two years ago the Wall Street Journal published a story titled "Cash Before Chemo" about a woman who was underinsured but insured and who was denied chemotherapy until her "co-pay" was paid in advance. $45,000 for tests. $60,000 for treatment. You can google "Cash Before Chemo" and find most of the reaction, including one column on The Huffington Post, to the story. The story is no longer available to non-subscribers.

http://www.chron.com/disp/stor...

"M.D. Anderson acknowledges that its charity-care spending has dropped but says that's because the hospital provides doctors and other staff to the county's LBJ General Hospital, allowing it to expand its reach to more than 1,400 patients that it wouldn't have seen at its primary institution."

http://www.mdanderson.org/abou...

In his response to the Wall Street Journal story, John Mendelsohn only talked about how much was spent and how many patients were served but gave no other details such as whether those patients were served through MD Anderson or through the Harris County Hospital District and whether the funding allocated for "indigent care" was direct patient care or merely paying for the staffing of the oncology clinics.  More importantly, there appears to be no real data on how many patients are put on the waiting lists and die before they are seen. And there is a question as to whether MD Anderson covered the cost of the actual treatment or the Harris County Hospital District did.

He's probably very good at juggling figures. A trick he learned no doubt from when he served on the board of Enron.

Bottom line is any hospital that denies chemotherapy to an insured patient, underinsured or not,until $105,000 is paid upfront isn't obviously going out of its way to treat patients who have no insurance and don't qualify for Medicaid and aren't on Medicare. But if you want to believe it does, go right ahead. Others know it does not. St. Jude's it ain't. I dare you to find one patient from outside of Harris County that was treated for free at MD Anderson.  Despite the charter supposedly indicating such treatment for all Texans. Not just those who live in Harris County. I suspect the reality is that for everyone else it is indeed "No cash, no chemo" including those with Medicare who don't have acceptable "co-pay" insurance.

As for the waiting lists they are known fact. Included in most of the studies on cancer treatment in Texas with regard to "access to treatment" which according to the studies, most conducted by the state, is very limited. You can google that yourself as well. As for Sarah Palin and the "death panels" they are already here in Texas as a result of the Republicans not caring about the indigent but also as a result of the demand of Democrats that illegal immigrants receive the same indigent care as other indigents. Which only adds to the waiting lists.

As for Obamacare it will be a disaster. Except for the insurance companies. Which anyone who has read it all, over 2,000 pages and growing, knows.  

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:32:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Quit (0.00 / 0)

calling it "Obamacare." Thank you.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:49:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How About Pelosicare? (0.00 / 0)

Maybe that's more descriptive of the reality of it.  I doubt he read it all before he signed it. He just trusted Nancy Pelosi. I doubt most members of Congress read it all before they voted on it. They just trusted Nancy Pelosi.  

It wouldn't be the first time they didn't read it all.  None of them read the intelligence reports on Iraq before voting for the war on oil.  They just trusted George W Bush.

Nancy Pelosi. Whose first act as speaker was to get a minimum wage increase law passed.  Of course she also tried to get an exemption for Starkist Tuna inserted into it.

By the same token, he signed it. So he owns it. So it's Obamacare.  

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Thu May 13, 2010 at 13:54:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I read it. (5.00 / 1)

And I do believe they read it...contrary to all the huff and puff that they didn't. Who started that bs about "not reading" the legislation. It's bizarre. Senators and Reps have tremendously talented staff and a team that work for them and with them. Promoting all this incorrect information about our system of government is downright "propagandistic." You do a great job.  

---

by: Elsbeth @ Thu May 13, 2010 at 14:37:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]