• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dodd Diagnosed With Early-Stage Prostate Cancer

Even in the US, prostate cancer is often not aggressively treated in men over 60.
Many types of prostate cancer are so slow-growing that a care plan of "watchful waiting" is recommended, rather than going in surgically and yanking out the prostate, which can result in a marked decrease in the quality of the patient's life.
The reason for this is that with a cancer so slow-growing, it is almost certain that the patient will die of something else before the prostate cancer kills him, or negatively impacts his life.
If you're 74, and you've got a cancer that will take 20 years to even begin to cause symptoms, is it really worth submitting to a painful, expensive, and incapacitating surgery that may leave you both impotent and incontinent, and may not even cure your cancer?

That's what I've read, anyway. It makes sense.

It's as though you are speaking to me. My father is 74. He does not want to undergo surgery. The thought of him not being able to be intimate with my mother scares the bejeezus out of him. LOL
 
It's as though you are speaking to me. My father is 74. He does not want to undergo surgery. The thought of him not being able to be intimate with my mother scares the bejeezus out of him. LOL

It's good that he has that choice.
I wish him many more years of quality living.
 
It makes me happy to see Dodd so optimistic, since my father was just diagnosted with early state prostate cancer last week.

Do any of you above who have made nasty comments about Dodd want to wish death on my father?

Is your pop a leftist Congressman that is pushing a BS healthcare bill? if not, the obviously we're dogging Dodd because he's a Leftist Congressman pushing a BS healthcare bill.

I look forward to hearing that your ole man is doing well.
 
News flash! Most politicians are crooked. Is it really fair to wish death upon this man just because of the D behind his name?
I don't care what party he is in.






Kennedy should have died 18 July 1969.

.

I know

It's the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the USA. First is lung cancer.
....but then I have no sympathy for this hypocrite.

me either

I bet Frank Zappa would have something to say about this if he were still alive. :mrgreen:

Frank Zappa never ripped off the American public

It makes me happy to see Dodd so optimistic, since my father was just diagnosted with early state prostate cancer last week.

Do any of you above who have made nasty comments about Dodd want to wish death on my father?
I hope he gets well
 
It makes me happy to see Dodd so optimistic, since my father was just diagnosted with early state prostate cancer last week.

Do any of you above who have made nasty comments about Dodd want to wish death on my father?

Is your father a corrupt politician bending over Americans and ****ing us up the ass?

Nobody here is interested in your personal drama. Take it to Dr Phil.
 
Is your father a corrupt politician bending over Americans and ****ing us up the ass?

Nobody here is interested in your personal drama. Take it to Dr Phil.


Well, as a matter of fact... yes. Try to guess which one he is.
Go look at her picture in the photo thread and try to guess. He looks just like her, except old, and male, and politician-y.


So now do you wish death on him?
 
Eh. Democrats won't give up their system and Republicans won't apply their privatization mantra to their system.

If either party really gave a **** about the American people, they'd agree to be covered under the same plan. That won't EVER happen. At least in my lifetime.
 
It makes me happy to see Dodd so optimistic, since my father was just diagnosted with early state prostate cancer last week.

Do any of you above who have made nasty comments about Dodd want to wish death on my father?

Actually, NO. I wish your father a speedy and full recovery.

If however, your father, like my liberal brother is 100% for this Bobo Care stupidity, then I also hope he gets all his treatment prior to this stupidity being approved. If your father had this cancer under the Bobo Health Care plan, in all likelihood he would die and not die well. Sad that you and your father can not or will not see this.

My Liberal brother up in Iowa had a recent scare with a heart problem. The doctor up at Mayo said it was a good thing he did not delay his treatment, for at the time of the operation, he, the doctor, said my brother was within two weeks of a fatal heart attack. The sad thing is that if this had happened under Bobo Care my Liberal brother would be dead. He too, will not open his eyes and mind to a critical review of Bobo Care and see that, as in the case of your father, Bobo Care would kill him.

p.s., Senator Dodd does not care about my brother or your father. so long as he, Dodd, has his private insurance, the rest of the country can just go to hell.
 
What are you guys on about?
Every other industrialized nation besides the US already has some form of universal health care.
And according to WHO and other reputable sources, citizens of every other industrialized nation in the world (and a few developing ones) also have a higher median life expectancy than the citizens of the US do. The US also has higher infant and maternal mortality rates than any other industrialized nation.
These are the classic yardsticks by which a country's health care system is measured: how many infant deaths per 100,000. How many maternal deaths per 100,000. And what is the median life expectancy of the nation's citizens?

Every other industrialized nation has universal health care already in place, and for all their alleged problems, they're kicking our asses when it comes to protecting the health, longevity, and quality of life of their citizens.

It is simply doltish to ignore such statistics and what they're telling us.
I was uninsured my whole adult life, up until last year. My husband's still uninsured, and always has been. My older son is now uninsured too.
I have insurance now, but nearly a quarter of Americans don't, and I don't want it at the expense of all those other Americans.
I want everyone to have medical care, even if I have to have less, even if my entire family has to have less.
My father, who is insured and chronically ill with diabetes, feels the same.
 
All I can say is that I sure hope his diagnosis is accurate and that his doctor isn't just out to make an extra Buck off of Dodd's diagnosis.
 
What are you guys on about?
Every other industrialized nation besides the US already has some form of universal health care.

Which is precisely why our system is better than theirs.

And according to WHO and other reputable sources

The WHO is not reputable. That report that all of you greedy Socialists like to point to has weighted rankings that have nothing to do with health care quality whatsoever.

citizens of every other industrialized nation in the world (and a few developing ones) also have a higher median life expectancy than the citizens of the US do.

Which has to do with a lot of other factors that don't involve health care quality.

The US also has higher infant and maternal mortality rates than any other industrialized nation.

That's because we count every single birth. In other nations they don't unless they meet certain criteria.

These are the classic yardsticks by which a country's health care system is measured: how many infant deaths per 100,000. How many maternal deaths per 100,000. And what is the median life expectancy of the nation's citizens?

Which is what makes it a flawed analysis because none of those are affected by health care quality.

Every other industrialized nation has universal health care already in place, and for all their alleged problems, they're kicking our asses when it comes to protecting the health, longevity, and quality of life of their citizens.

That would be your little secret.

It is simply doltish to ignore such statistics and what they're telling us.

I'm not the ignorant one. Look in the mirror.

I was uninsured my whole adult life, up until last year. My husband's still uninsured, and always has been. My older son is now uninsured too.
I have insurance now, but nearly a quarter of Americans don't,

That's their problem and their fault, not mine.

and I don't want it at the expense of all those other Americans.

Then why are you asking for it at the expense of other Americans.

I want everyone to have medical care, even if I have to have less, even if my entire family has to have less.

You're free to give that up if you want, but who the hell do you think you are to use the government to force everyone else to do the same? I don't want less. I want to be healthy and be treated with high quality if I get sick. Me and my family come first.

My father, who is insured and chronically ill with diabetes, feels the same.

Yeah, so? Is there a point?
 
What are you guys on about?
Every other industrialized nation besides the US already has some form of universal health care.
And according to WHO and other reputable sources, citizens of every other industrialized nation in the world (and a few developing ones) also have a higher median life expectancy than the citizens of the US do. The US also has higher infant and maternal mortality rates than any other industrialized nation.
These are the classic yardsticks by which a country's health care system is measured: how many infant deaths per 100,000. How many maternal deaths per 100,000. And what is the median life expectancy of the nation's citizens?

Every other industrialized nation has universal health care already in place, and for all their alleged problems, they're kicking our asses when it comes to protecting the health, longevity, and quality of life of their citizens.

It is simply doltish to ignore such statistics and what they're telling us.
I was uninsured my whole adult life, up until last year. My husband's still uninsured, and always has been. My older son is now uninsured too.
I have insurance now, but nearly a quarter of Americans don't, and I don't want it at the expense of all those other Americans.
I want everyone to have medical care, even if I have to have less, even if my entire family has to have less.
My father, who is insured and chronically ill with diabetes, feels the same.


Maybe that is all true, and maybe it is not. (Besides who says WHO is a reliable sourse?) Now I would like you to answer for me a simple question:

How is it that these nations can afford this natioanlized health care?
 
You're free to give that up if you want, but who the hell do you think you are to use the government to force everyone else to do the same? I don't want less. I want to be healthy and be treated with high quality if I get sick.

I'm afraid it doesn't matter what you want.
It's coming. You can get onboard, or be bulldozed.
Those are your only two choices at this point.


Me and my family come first.

This is the mantra of everyone and their family (or at least, every conservative and their family).
Don't worry. Obama has a solution: every family will now come "first".
Hooray! Everybody wins.

You don't have to like it. You're free to turn to alternative medicine, at your own expense.
 
Maybe that is all true, and maybe it is not. (Besides who says WHO is a reliable sourse?) Now I would like you to answer for me a simple question:

How is it that these nations can afford this natioanlized health care?


Higher taxes, of course.
And rearrangement of their priorities.
The US spends a far greater amount on "defense" and military spending each year than any other country in the world.
Some of that, for instance, might have to be allotted to health care.
 
I'm afraid it doesn't matter what you want.
It's coming. You can get onboard, or be bulldozed.

Apparently you haven't been paying very close attention. The health care bill in the Congress is falling apart. It's weeks behind when they wanted it passed and public support for it is plummeting. The more people find out about it, the more they realize they're getting scammed. By the end of the August recess after the members of Congress have received a month long onslaught from people wanting to protect our health care, this bill will be DOA just like it was in 93.

Don't worry. Obama has a solution: every family will now come "first".

That's the stupidest ****ing logic I've ever heard but it doesn't surprise me that you would be gullible enough to think it makes any sense. You've already proven your ignorance.
 
Last edited:
How is it that these nations can afford this natioanlized health care?

They can't. That's why they've been denying people life saving treatment and rationing care leaving people to suffer with ailments and pain for months and/or years.

Amazingly, there are a lot of stupid people in this country who think that would be a great way to do it here.
 
They can't. That's why they've been denying people life saving treatment and rationing care leaving people to suffer with ailments and pain for months and/or years.

Amazingly, there are a lot of stupid people in this country who think that would be a great way to do it here.

Maybe you should actually learn why we have different survival rates? Just a thought, I mean I would not want anyone to continue on showing vast amounts of ignorance or anything. That is unless doing so is badge of honor, in that case I have a medal for you.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cease the personal attacks, folks.
 
Yes, I am about to politicize this and if you have a problem with it, too bad. You're a wuss.

It’s rather ironic that Senator Dodd has been inflicted with prostate cancer while at the same time he is one of those running around supporting socialized health care in this country. The survival rate for American men with prostate cancer is 81.2%. Take a look at the countries that have socialized health care, or what people like Dodd wish to refer to as the “public option.” In France, the survival rate of men with prostate cancer is 61.7% and in the U.K 44.3%.

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007

Of course, Dodd wouldn’t be using the “public option” anyway. The Democrats’ health care plan is so good that the Congress exempted itself from having to participate in it.

Interesting numbers, however the source you quoted is hardly scientific.

And why does having a good health care plan make a person less reliable when it comes to reforming the system and reneging in insurance companies and HMO's?

I don't care for Dodd, but I do hope he pulls through.
 
Interesting numbers, however the source you quoted is hardly scientific.

And why does having a good health care plan make a person less reliable when it comes to reforming the system and reneging in insurance companies and HMO's?

I don't care for Dodd, but I do hope he pulls through.



I fear he pulled those statistics out of someplace dark and dank.

The American Cancer Society says:

For all men with prostate cancer, the relative 5-year survival rate is 100%, and the relative 10-year survival rate is 91%. The 15-year relative survival rate is 76%.

ACS :: Prostate Cancer Survival Rates


I will reiterate that prostate cancer is an extremely slow-growing cancer that typically takes 20 years to even show symptoms and much longer than that to metastasize, if it ever does, which it often doesn't. And who is most at risk of prostate cancer? Why, elderly men. it is almost exclusively a disease of middle-aged to elderly men.

It is absurd to claim that it kills 50 or 60% of it's victims anywhere in the world, even in tribal Africa where there is no health care at all.
Men typically die of other things before their prostate cancer becomes advanced enough to cause problems.
 
Interesting numbers, however the source you quoted is hardly scientific.

Here is a scientific source.

One of the reports compares the statistics from Europe with those from the United States and shows that for most solid tumors, survival rates were significantly higher in US patients than in European patients. This analysis, headed by Arduino Verdecchia, PhD, from the National Center for Epidemiology, Health Surveillance, and Promotion, in Rome, Italy, was based on the most recent data available. It involved about 6.7 million patients from 21 countries, who were diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2002.

The age-adjusted 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined was 47.3% for men and 55.8% for women, which is significantly lower than the estimates of 66.3% for men and 62.9% for women from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program ( P < .001).

Survival was significantly higher in the United States for all solid tumors, except testicular, stomach, and soft-tissue cancer, the authors report. The greatest differences were seen in the major cancer sites: colon and rectum (56.2% in Europe vs 65.5% in the United States), breast (79.0% vs 90.1%), and prostate cancer (77.5% vs 99.3%), and this "probably represents differences in the timeliness of diagnosis," they comment. That in turn stems from the more intensive screening for cancer carried out in the United States, where a reported 70% of women aged 50 to 70 years have undergone a mammogram in the past 2 years, one-third of people have had sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the past 5 years, and more than 80% of men aged 65 years or more have had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. In fact, it is this PSA testing that probably accounts for the very high survival from prostate cancer seen in the United States, the authors comment.

Further analysis of these figures shows that, in the case of men, more than half of the difference in survival between Europe and United States can be attributed to prostate cancer. When prostate cancer is excluded, the survival rates decreased to 38.1% in Europe and 46.9% in the United States. For women, the survival rate of 62.9% for all cancers in the United States is comparable to that seen in the wealthiest European countries (eg, 61.7% in Sweden, 59.7% in Europe), and the slightly higher survival in the United States was largely due to better survival for colorectal and breast cancer, the authors comment.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

And why does having a good health care plan make a person less reliable when it comes to reforming the system and reneging in insurance companies and HMO's?

I don't know. I never said that it did. What I said was that the plan Dodd is pushing for is not reform, it's destructive.
 
I fear he pulled those statistics out of someplace dark and dank.

The American Cancer Society says:

For all men with prostate cancer, the relative 5-year survival rate is 100%, and the relative 10-year survival rate is 91%. The 15-year relative survival rate is 76%.

ACS :: Prostate Cancer Survival Rates

These are the survival rates in the U.S. and it's about exact to what was quoted in the article I originally posted.

It is absurd to claim that it kills 50 or 60% of it's victims anywhere in the world

Then it should be easy for you to show us that.
 
prostate cancer (77.5% vs 99.3%)

Well, this new source you're citing is claiming the relative survival rates for prostate cancer are 99.3% in the US (a ludicrous figure, unless it's a 5-year survival rate only) versus 77.5% in the UK (quite possible, but still markedly different from the 44% UK survival rate your other source claimed).

Now, it seems to me this study is a bit skewed.
The American Cancer Society is a pretty definitive authority on cancer. Medscape just publishes articles by, well, anyone.

It seems to me that your study is skewed in the following way: I'll bet they're comparing five year survival rates for the US (which the ACS claims is 100%, but which could easily be 99.3%) to ten or fifteen year survival rates for the UK (even in the US, the 15-year survival rate is only 76%).
There is no law against publishing skewed studies on medscape in service of an agenda... an agenda such as, say, maligning national health care.
 
Then it should be easy for you to show us that.

Should be even easier since you just "showed us that" yourself, with this new study you've quoted (I know, it's got lots of big words. it's okay. i'll interpret for you).
Your new study claims that the survival rate for prostate cancer in the UK is 77.5%, a far cry from the "44%" your previous study claimed.
 
Back
Top Bottom