Of Ice Buckets and Philanthropy (AKA The Revolution Will Not Be Funded)

[fromderinside]

One doesn't have to contribute to vote. One only need be aware of one's interests and have knowledge of what and how one votes.

Both you and Tom Sawyer seem to think its all about money. Could it be you drank the KoolAid?

Maybe, or it could be we've read the studies that show if you contribute to politicians your issues are much more likely to get congressional action.

Or it could be the studies you read are the result of self fulfilling prophesies because poor are not voting.

Seems to me is to find ways to get the poor to vote. I'd consult Boss Tweed or someone like that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One doesn't have to contribute to vote. One only need be aware of one's interests and have knowledge of what and how one votes.

Both you and Tom Sawyer seem to think its all about money. Could it be you drank the KoolAid?

Maybe, or it could be we've read the studies that show if you contribute to politicians your issues are much more likely to get congressional action.

Pearls Before Swine tackled this in the Sunday strip.

Maybe, or it could be we've read the studies that show if you contribute to politicians your issues are much more likely to get congressional action.

Or it could be the studies you read are the result of self fulfilling prophesies because poor are not voting.

Seems to me is to find ways to get the poor to vote. I'd consult Boss Tweed or someone like that.

It isn't exactly a problem that the poor aren't voting. It is that some people who are poor are voting against their best interests.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I am going to send a tweet to Justin Bieber urging him to start pushing the red hot coals bucket challenge to help cure affluenza. It'll be the next big thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Same old thing. US is a democratic republic. That suggests votes are important. Last time I looked most people are poor people in the US. So why isn't government funding poor people's diseases? Maybe its because poor people don't vote? Maybe poor people should be taking advantage of their enfranchisement.

Just sayin....

Or maybe it's because poor people don't send in campaign contributions because . . . you know . . . they're poor.

It depends on the size of the group that's affected. And even a disease that affects the poor would affect some rich people. I don't know much about TB but it looks like it's a problem in in poor countries which would not be voting in elections.

 

[arkirk]

To hear the drug companies tell it, they are funding research all the time (with government subsidized research) so they need to recover that money the government spent for themselves with intellectual property rights and rob you blind for drugs your taxes are already involved in. Who else could be funding? Not the big drug companies...till the government taxes them appropriately for their undue profits and turns that around in research grants and the like.

There are capital restraints on the development of drugs to treat diseases like TB because that is a poor man's disease and there isn't enough profit in it. These are the so called "orphan drugs." Again, the problem is structural and divorced from the reality of public need. Lotsa luck with fad funding.

I fail to see the relevance of your response to what I posted. That seems to have the government be the one doing the deciding.

We do not have an actual government in this country. We do have a "government" of big business surrogates in office who know who butters their bread and legislate accordingly. Elected federal office requires millions of dollars in campaign funding. Citizens United insures that poor people can be misinformed by the big donors who take their money out of the back door of government. ALEC writes our laws and this pile of surrogates in state government vote the stuff in. It is easy to get disgusted with our government's incestuous relationship with campaign funders and corporate bill writers and not always consider it a source of help on social problems...because it has not been very helpful for a very long time.

In effect we have a government with a corporate version of a tapeworm...another untreated disease!

 

[AthenaAwakened]

How did you not mention the government? You want it to be funded through taxation, so who else would be deciding?

tbf Athena, you may not have mentioned the government but Jacobin did. But I agree with the Jacobin article so I'll encourage you not to shy away from being pro-government involvement.

I am not shying away.

I just want the record to show which poster brought up the subject of govt AND how you never read "we the people could form an NGO and hold both the govt and the charities accountable"

Just want the record to show...

 

[coloradoatheist]

tbf Athena, you may not have mentioned the government but Jacobin did. But I agree with the Jacobin article so I'll encourage you not to shy away from being pro-government involvement.

I am not shying away.

I just want the record to show which poster brought up the subject of govt AND how you never read "we the people could form an NGO and hold both the govt and the charities accountable"

Just want the record to show...

You asked why should someone with a disease rely on a superstar to get funding for his disease. So to get funding for disease, it has to come privately at which private funds are limited or the government which government funds are limited.

 

[EricK]

tbf Athena, you may not have mentioned the government but Jacobin did. But I agree with the Jacobin article so I'll encourage you not to shy away from being pro-government involvement.

I am not shying away.

I just want the record to show which poster brought up the subject of govt AND how you never read "we the people could form an NGO and hold both the govt and the charities accountable"

Just want the record to show...

If you post an article without comment, it is not unreasonable for people to assume you agree with the content. Do you?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I am not shying away.

I just want the record to show which poster brought up the subject of govt AND how you never read "we the people could form an NGO and hold both the govt and the charities accountable"

Just want the record to show...

If you post an article without comment, it is not unreasonable for people to assume you agree with the content. Do you?

oh, but I did comment

Coloraoatheist even quotes my comment before he brings up govt (a comment where I try to bring the discussion back to the op before it gets bogged down in words like "racism", defensives positions and hurt feelings.)

Was the comment attached to the quote? No, but it doesn't have to be.

Now we are making this all about me. Still not talking about why we give money and dump water on our heads specifically for ALS while we ignore other conditions.

Care to?

 

[coloradoatheist]

If you post an article without comment, it is not unreasonable for people to assume you agree with the content. Do you?

oh, but I did comment

Coloraoatheist even quotes my comment before he brings up govt (a comment where I try to bring the discussion back to the op before it gets bogged down in words like "racism", defensives positions and hurt feelings.)

Was the comment attached to the quote? No, but it doesn't have to be.

Now we are making this all about me. Still not talking about why we give money and dump water on our heads specifically for ALS while we ignore other conditions.

Care to?

I'm not sure we ignore other conditions. Breast cancer has a month. MS has a multitude of events dedicated to it. Kids do things like Jump rope for heart. We have a bunch of other ones too. This one was just creative that caught on.

 

[EricK]

If you post an article without comment, it is not unreasonable for people to assume you agree with the content. Do you?

oh, but I did comment

Coloraoatheist even quotes my comment before he brings up govt (a comment where I try to bring the discussion back to the op before it gets bogged down in words like "racism", defensives positions and hurt feelings.)

Was the comment attached to the quote? No, but it doesn't have to be.

Now we are making this all about me. Still not talking about why we give money and dump water on our heads specifically for ALS while we ignore other conditions.

Care to?

Ultimately, like all forms of charity sponsorship, it is because talk is cheap, but actions are more expensive; and nobody has the time or inclination to investigate all possible charities and what is the best use for their money. So people are more prepared to donate if somebody else shows they are prepared to make some sort of sacrifice for the charity, than if that other person just said "this is an important charity".

And the more people who are prepared to make the sacrifice, the more important or worthwhile that particular charity appears.

Of course it is not just ALS which benefits from particular charity drives. In the UK there are a number of annual events for various charities. Including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_Need, and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Biggest_Coffee_Morning etc

 

[doubtingt]

Does anyone know of how donations to other diseases during the past 6 months compare to the same period in prior years?

If almost 80 million in "extra" donations to ALS have been made, then any "zero sum" theory of charitable giving would predict an observable drop in donations to other causes. The effects might be delayed and not be seen right away, but it would be interesting to see if we can already observe a corresponding drop in other areas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've said before that crowdsourced funding can't hope to fund the big things. When I'm not the one saying it I see a lot of agreement.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It's going to die the same way the Harlem Shake died. Also I think it's practically harmless.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

oh, but I did comment

Coloraoatheist even quotes my comment before he brings up govt (a comment where I try to bring the discussion back to the op before it gets bogged down in words like "racism", defensives positions and hurt feelings.)

Was the comment attached to the quote? No, but it doesn't have to be.

Now we are making this all about me. Still not talking about why we give money and dump water on our heads specifically for ALS while we ignore other conditions.

Care to?

I'm not sure we ignore other conditions. Breast cancer has a month. MS has a multitude of events dedicated to it. Kids do things like Jump rope for heart. We have a bunch of other ones too. This one was just creative that caught on.

I have no problem with pet rocks, hula hoops, and stuffing college students in phone booths. But what does it say about the narrative of a nation, about its practiced politics, about its attention span, about its members' critical thinking skills to have this generous windfull come to the fight against a deadly condition simply because people like seeing water dumped on George Bush (which I can see the appeal there)?

 

[dismal]

tbf Athena, you may not have mentioned the government but Jacobin did. But I agree with the Jacobin article so I'll encourage you not to shy away from being pro-government involvement.

I am not shying away.

I just want the record to show which poster brought up the subject of govt AND how you never read "we the people could form an NGO and hold both the govt and the charities accountable"

Just want the record to show...

Yes, let the record show it was the link in the OP.

Hachuunngk. (Law and Order sound effect)

 

[Axulus]

Another reason why things like Malaria don't get that much attention in the developed countries is that no one knows anyone else who has suffered from the disease. A lot of what motivates people is personal experience.

Even still, Malaria does get plenty of funding and attention, and progress is being made:

Malaria mortality rates have fallen by 42% globally since 2000, and by 49% in the WHO African Region.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/

If this is evidence of racism (that it only fell by 42% because of racism), that's really stretching - people seem to want to blame race every time there is a racial disparity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another reason why things like Malaria don't get that much attention in the developed countries is that no one knows anyone else who has suffered from the disease. A lot of what motivates people is personal experience.

Even still, Malaria does get plenty of funding and attention, and progress is being made:

Malaria mortality rates have fallen by 42% globally since 2000, and by 49% in the WHO African Region.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/

If this is evidence of racism (that it only fell by 42% because of racism), that's really stretching - people seem to want to blame race every time there is a racial disparity.

Yeah, the average American never sets foot in the malaria zone. Furthermore, most of them who do take the drugs and don't get sick.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Another reason why things like Malaria don't get that much attention in the developed countries is that no one knows anyone else who has suffered from the disease. A lot of what motivates people is personal experience.

I doubt millions of people have had experience with ALS.

Even still, Malaria does get plenty of funding and attention, and progress is being made:

Malaria mortality rates have fallen by 42% globally since 2000, and by 49% in the WHO African Region.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/

If this is evidence of racism (that it only fell by 42% because of racism), that's really stretching - people seem to want to blame race every time there is a racial disparity.

no, not really. And quite frankly I wasn't thinking about race when I started the thread. I was thinking about how we make decision on how to spend healthcare money.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Here is an interesting spin from the people in Gaza

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/26/rubble-bucket-challenge_n_5714327.html