NET cancer and my vote

NET cancer is not the only thing that concerns me. There is the ongoing grief over the death of my wife. There is the anger I feel over what I increasingly see as a preventable death. There is dismay over the number of cases of cancer I am currently dealing with.

…a recipe for disaster…

But there is also the anger I feel increasingly on the political front. While I am not a one-issue voter–a candidate’s stand on NET cancer research–or cancer research generally–will cost my vote only if both candidates are in agreement with me on virtually everything else–increasingly what I am seeing both locally and nationally are candidates whose positions on cancer are as convoluted and meaningless as everything else that comes out of their mouths.

Where there is smoke

My first encounter with this came same months ago. I was in Boston to lobby for a number of initiatives the American Cancer Society was pushing in the state budget. Among these was a plan to increase taxes on forms of tobacco other than cigarettes. For reasons that escape me, cigarettes are taxed at a higher rate than cigars, pipe tobacco, and chewing tobacco in Massachusetts. The revenue raised is less of an issue than the fact high tobacco taxes act as a powerful preventative for young people. And the tobacco industry, because taxes are lower on non-cigarette products, has been marketing those products to teens and tweens to take advantage of that fact.

…Obamacare does not deliver money for research.

It would seem such an action–clearly in the public interest–would be a no-brainer. But one representative told me he would vote against the move because there are smoke shops in his district that might be adversely affected by the measure. Had I been there representing myself instead of ACS my next question would have been, “So you are in favor of drug dealers in your district as well?”

National cancer questions

ACS asked both Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama a series of questions about cancer research funding recently. Their answers to those questions were released earlier this week. Both candidates responses consistently exhibited something known in the debate trade as “the pivot” to avoid giving any real concrete answers to the questions. They paid lip-service to the question, then pivoted away from the question to deal with what they really wanted to talk about.

Both made the right noises for superficial readers.

For example, Mr. Obama consistently found a way to get back to his healthcare program. He talked about how it would help prevent people from going broke paying for their treatments.

Mr. Romney was, frankly, somewhat worse. He somehow managed to turn one question into a critique of Mr. Obama’s energy research program. He also made noise about how important the marketplace is in cancer research.

Say anything…spend nothing?

Neither made any clear statements about preserving or increasing funding for cancer research. They used a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing without offending anyone in the process. They both seem, on the surface, to care about the issue, but neither one will commit to actually even keeping support where it is right now.

Mr. Romney was, frankly, somewhat worse.

I am not surprised by this. No one in their right mind is going to say: “I think cancer research is a waste of federal dollars. We should eliminate all funding for it.” But what disturbed me was the way they couched their support. Both made the right noises for superficial readers. But neither gave support that was more than luke warm. When push comes to shove on balancing the budget I have no confidence either man will stand up for cancer research.

And that is worrisome.

Both dodge the real issue

It is worrisome because the vast majority of money for cancer research–big or small–comes from the federal government. I am thrilled that insurance companies can no longer cut people off at the knees when they get cancer, but Obamacare does not deliver money for research. It does not require that insurance companies pay for treatments given under trials.

…smoke shops in his district that might be adversely affected…

And I have seen the effectiveness of relying on the private sector for money for research. No drug in current use was actually developed for NET cancer. Instead, drugs are developed and tested for other things. Once they are approved for something profitable they may get tried on NET cancer–or they may not. Octreotide, for example, was originally developed to deal with the side effects of chemotherapy, not to treat NET cancer.

Even bigger problems

I might worry less about his if it were not symptomatic of a larger problem. In looking at the , both candidates pivoted consistently. And neither was particularly clear about what they really believe or would really do with the next four years–Mr. Romney more so than Mr. Obama.

I am not a one-issue voter…

Were cancer the only place they were dancing around the issue it would be one thing. But the way both men danced around seemingly every issue…that is a recipe for disaster–not just for NET cancer, but for everything else as well.