Reply to Komen CEO Nancy Brinker’s life among the 0.1 percent

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Komen CEO Nancy Brinker’s life among the 0.1 percent"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Agree with PP.  Komen is a fairly inefficient non-profit that has signaled that, in addition to being inefficient, cares more about signaling support for right-wing social issues than it does making sure that poor women have access to health care.

[quote]In 2010, the last year for which Susan G. Komen for the Cure released an annual report, total gross revenue (all dollar values have been rounded to the nearest million; all percents to the nearest tenth) was $421 million.  They chose to spend those funds as follows:

Direct benefits to donors and sponsors – $20 million (4.8%)
Research – $75 million (17.8%)
Education – $141 million (33.5%)
Screening – $47 million (11.2%)
Treatment – $20 million (4.8%)
General administration – $41 million (9.7%)
Fundraising costs – $36 million (8.5%)
Change in net assets – $41 million (9.7%)

Or, stated a bit differently:

Running Susan G. Komen for the Cure – $97 million (23.0%)
Putting more money in Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s coffers – $41 million (9.7%) [INCREASE IN ENDOWMENT DUE TO STOCK MARKET INCREASE]
Telling people about breast cancer – $141 million (33.5%) [EDUCATING LOW INCOME PEOPLE ABOUT BC.  EDUCATING GOVT TYPES ABOUT THE NEED FOR MORE GOVT FUNDING ON RESEARCH]
Looking for breast cancer using proven methods – $47 million (11.2%) [DETERMINING WHETHER LOW INCOME WOMEN HAVE BC]
Treating breast cancer using existing methods – $20 million (4.8%) [HELPING LOW INCOME WOMEN WITH BC TREATMENT]
ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR “THE CURE” – $75 million (17.8%)[/quote] [LETS HOPE BETTER TREATMENTS ARE FOUND]

(http://bit.ly/w8VQnC)

Message received, and no hard feelings. I hope they're successful in their new incarnation as a right-wing organization.
[/quote]

Criticisinng SKF for not focusing exclusively on research is nuts.  SKF helps low income women with education, diagnosis and treatment.  Is that really bad?   One can debate whether a narrow research focus or a broader focus is best for SKF and women in general.  But the narrow research focus means no money for PP, or for low income women.  Maybe, that is a reasonable view on the theory that other organizations are taking care of low income women, and that, in the long run, all women benefit if research leads to better treatment. While one can legitimately argue for the narrower view, I do not think it is fair to say SKF's view is that wrong.  Those who are criticizing SKF here have really not though thru their views.  The criticism implied above means no PP funding.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics