Skip Navigation
politics politics @lemmy.world
Optional @lemmy.world

Congress voted against funding a cure for cancer just to block a win for Biden

Even though this would be a win for all Americans – and humanity – it apparently did not outweigh the politics of making a Democrat look good. This is the definition of party over country.

I'm a doctor.So is my mother. When she got cancer, I realized how little that mattered.

Republicans have stated budget cuts need to be made with an ever-growing debt. But where was this attitude when tax cuts for the wealthy were on the table in 2017? They don’t have to look at patients in the eye and break the devastating news that they have cancer. They don’t have to treat cancers that block intestines or drown a patient’s lungs in fluid.

158 comments

  • This has been the GQP party line for quite some time now, make the national debt only matter when they aren't the ruling party. It's their only way to look good, they know Democrats won't hold US citizens hostage so they can stuff bills with whatever they want and still get them passed because Democrats won't let US citizens suffer. Meanwhile all they do is just nuke legislation when they aren't in power because they couldn't care less. They don't appeal to the same voters, just those they can brainwash, and they hedge their bets so those voters matter more.

  • How very on-brand for these Republican jerks.

    Also, ever notice how often things are attributed to "Congress" in headlines like this? I mean, given the mention of Biden you could infer that it's most likely the REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS, not "Congress", from the headline since it mentions blocking a win for Biden, but....still. Seems to happen a lot. It must be more about that "objective journalism" and the "balance", etc...

    • And it stands to benefit those Republican congressmen who run back to their jurisdictions and say "Washington isn't doing anything about your needs. Send me back and I'll obstruct them from doing the things that aren't helping you"

      Its a huge fucking scam

  • There are many cancers. And many cancers already have cure. And many don't.

    with an ever-growing debt

    Let's be real here: American debt is so big, that it holds entire world economy hostage.

    • it's not american debt, but american loot and interference in other economies which holds the world hostage. No one would care for american debt if all countries were trading in their own currencies. Except, maybe, some if the americans themselves.

      • It is "if you owe bank trillion, it's bank's problem" on country scale.

  • Unless you're spending all your money on cancer research, you can always spend more on it. At some point, you have to draw a line and someone will accuse you of deliberately refusing to cure cancer no matter where you draw that line. It's plausible to me that the line should be where the Democrats rather than the Republicans want it, and it's even plausible that Republicans are acting in bad faith. However, this article presents no evidence for either claim.

    • At some point, you have to draw a line and someone will accuse you of deliberately refusing to cure cancer no matter where you draw that line.

      I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the $1T we spend on national security annually. Somehow, we're always able to justify more than the year before.

      But $2.8B over ten years on an effort to improve health care treatments for one of the most deadly maladies in the US? My god! That's over 3% of our Ukraine military aid budget! We need to draw a line somewhere!

    • I think that's a pretty reasonable response. Maybe not so much that cancer in general is over funded but I'd be willing to bet a breast cancer cure probably isn't any closer now than it would be with another billion. It's definitely a bad look for the GOP though. I see a lot of We the people... bs bumper stickers with the f*** cancer! stickers.

      • Spending one billion on breast cancer drug discovery/ development would probably lead to one more drug which increases survival by 10-20%. Or if spend on fundamental research it would lead to a lot of additional knowledge. Which might lead in about 10 years (and a few billions more) to a few drugs which increase survival a further 30-40 %.

158 comments