1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Their stock price could hit zero for all I care

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Birdscribe, Dec 25, 2007.

  1. Yeah this is the answer jack ass.
     
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    The American Cancer Society has a board of directors, has more than 2 million volunteers.

    It is the largest source of private, nonprofit cancer research funds in the United States. It has funded more than $3 billion in cancer research since its founding and has funded 42 Nobel Prize winners. It is a key advocacy group that has done innumerable work in raising awareness. As far as charities go, it is not the most efficient (you find this with larger charities in which buerocracies set in), but according to the BBB, which ranks charities, 75 percent of what it raised ($605 million) went to program services like research ($121 million), prevention ($171 million), patient support ($174 million) and detection and treatment ($139 million).

    If this qualifies as your Rockefellers and Carnegies, you are twisted beyond belief. It is a 501(c)3. The chief executive earns about a million dollars in salary, but he certainly earns it. He brings a set of skills, in terms of gladhanding and fundraising, that if translated to the private sector would earn him 10 times the salary he earns in the non-profit sector. Aside from him, very few in the organization are getting rich and most, like him, work their asses off. The BBB has standards for charitable accountability and the American Cancer Society passes with flying colors. It is more than 10 percent over the percentage of money taken in that should go to programs. It has great oversight with a board of directors. Limits to compensated persons serving on the board of directors meet the BBB guidelines. There are no conflicts of interest with outside interests.

    For a complete lists of their stringent guidelines, which the American Cancer Society adheres to, here is the link:

    http://www.give.org/standards/newcbbbstds.asp

    It may not be the most efficient charity, because of how large it is (more than 1400 employees), but in my opinion it is a worthwhile cause. I still have no clue who the humanitarians are, or what the Rockefellers have to do with a 501(c)3 that is gladly willing to open its books to any scrutiny.
     
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    No need for the insult. But Congress can not legally do this. It's the drug company's money to spend as they require. They earned it. The truth is, they'd rather not piss away huge sums of money on marketing budgets. But this is the hand they were dealt because of our ridiculous system of intermediaries. When you have formularies and medicare tables determining what drugs can and can't be prescribed--with bureaucrats and not doctors making the decisions--in order to give your new drug a chance, you need to blitz consumers with it and get them mentioning it to their doctors. And you have to bombard doctors with samples and give them all kinds of perks to even listen to your drug rep. Only then, does your new drug--many of which can help millions of people--have a chance. It isn't a game drug companies want to play. It's wasted money and it is an innefficient use of limited resources. But this is the system of intermediaries we have set up in this country. If you think it is bad with insurance companies and our somewhat limited government programs determining what treatments get the insurance stamp of approval, and which ones get buried, imagine the incentives you will create when you hand it all over to a government program to ration out health care. Why anyone believes that will make us better off, is beyond me. It's taking the crappy system we already have and enacting it on a more global scale. It makes no sense.
     
  4. excellent...can not argue with this. However, drug reps are no where near as effective as they once used to be. We are regulated, unfairly, through the nose.

    and certainly not looking to insult...just embarrassed that people still believe over regulation will solve the problem...how about not being a dumb ass.
     
  5. ArnoldBabar

    ArnoldBabar Active Member

    I appreciate having your viewpoint, but you're not going to get far around here with bullshit like this. You seriously think that a reporter who had a chance to break a story that modified corn was causing "bizarre diseases" would not write/broadcast it? You seriously believe that?

    No journalist I've ever known has been asked to back off a story because of "corporate" pressure, and I've never known a journalist who wouldn't say "fuck you" if they were asked to do so.

    The fact that you're still beating the fluoride horse indicates you're in the conspiracy theory set, but the media conspiracy dog doesn't hunt.
     
  6. blah...blah...blah.

    Your using mis-direction and I can live with it. If people honestly think you are an authority, then by all means...

    As for the flouride, check out a book by Dr. Russell Blaylock...neuro surgeon from U Miss and a Repub. It's all there in black and white. Here's to hoping you've OD'd on toothpaste.
     
  7. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    A very large workforce for such a kindly and benign charitable organization, don't you think?

    Once more, half a billion dollars.

    [​IMG]

    "For who? For what?"
     
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I'm really not following you. What is the point? They are doing something evil or unethical by employing 1,400 people to fundraise and oversee almost half a billion dollars raised that puts more money than any other charity into cancer research, cancer prevention, cancer patient support and detection and treatment of people with cancer? Why again is this a bad thing -- and who are the humanitarians and the Rockefellers involved in the malfeasance you seem to be alleging without actually alleging it?
     
  9. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    It's an organization beneath supporting.

    I detest non-private charities that use donations to lobby for government bailouts, which is what the ACS did when it announced intentions to commit its entire advertising budget not on smoking cessation (congratulations) or colorectal screening, but on inadequate health coverage. Because, you know, that bugaboo will get people fired up even more and donate more.
     
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    You are either misinformed, or you are kidding. They devoted $15 million out of close to $850 million raised this year (less than 2 percent) to what you referenced. And it was hardly for nefarious reasons.

    They did it because of their frustration with cancer rates that are not dropping all that rapidly, and because of recent research that links the lack of insurance and sreening to delays in detecting cancer. Their ads are non-partisan and don't prescribe a thing--other than reform of our health care system, which is having a negative effect on preventing cancer. It's a unique approach (and that $15 million is a drop in the bucket compared to how much they raise. It barely registers as a blip on the radar screen). It has also received praise from other organizations devoted to disease research and education, including the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association and the Alzheimers Association, which all believe that we could make great strides in preventing chronic disease if we did better screening and reformed our way of doing business when it comes to health care in even the slightest ways and found a way to expand coverage to more people.
     
  11. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    I said it devoted its entire advertising budget, which it most certainly did do.

    It's going to take more to quash cancer than waggling a bony finger and telling people not to smoke, which has been their very weak calling card for years and years.

    I guess that's what has cost millions of dollars. Hoo hah.
     
  12. ArnoldBabar

    ArnoldBabar Active Member

    And "your" not using English. But hey, I had no idea you were going to pull out the "blah blah blah" argument, so you win the debate. ::)

    Being a journalist for a couple of decades, yeah, I'm a lot more of an authority on how the media works than you are. And since cancer research pays half my bills, I'd wager to guess I'm more of an authority than you are on that as well.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page