Stem Cell Rift in GOP
Sen. Frist: "If your daughter has diabetes or your dad has Parkinson's, if your sister has a spinal cord injury, your views will be swayed more powerfully than you can imagine by the hope that cure will be found in these magnificent cells recently discovered that today only originate in an embryo.As a physician, one should give hope, but never false hope. Policymakers, similarly, should not overpromise and give false hope to those suffering from disease."
"We must be careful to always stay within clear and comprehensive ethical and moral guidelines. The soul of our civilization and the conscience of our nation demand it. Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream, but the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus."
"Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It's time for a modified policy, the right policy for this moment in time."
- Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, MD
This is a huge announcement which was buried last Friday. The issue of stem cell research has the potential to divide the Republican Party deeply between those who believe in the potential progress of science and those whose religious interpretations leave them out of the American mainstream on issue after issue . I hope Democrats actively support Senator Frist's desire to move stem cell research forward.
By Kyle - 7/31/2005
8 Comments:
I think this entire stem-cell debate is a waste of time.
As long as non-governement money can be freely invested in stem-cell research, there is no real "stem-cell research ban."
Anyone who thinks this country is in danger of "falling behind" when it comes to our medical technologies, need only look at the ever increasing medical advancements made available by corporations. When other technological advancements clear the road for viable stem-cell theropies, then the market will respond, and the corporations will foot the bill for the necessary investments. These people know what they are doing, they know how to manage money, and unlike our governent, their existence (and yearly intake of money) depends on their performance.
Government funded research should only be geared towards government responsibilities, and no matter how often champions of the left insist that "health care is a right," it is not.
Jeff,
The debate is centered around the fact that this administration's policy prevents money from being freely invested. That is the stem-cell debate. Of course there isn't a "ban," but there are major restrictions on what stem cells can be used severly limiting the progress that may be made using this technology.
I strongly disagree with a strictly "free market" approach to medecine. All that gets us is a bunch of bonner pills because that is where the money is. Don't get me wrong, those will be very important to me someday.
I am a proud member of the left and I do think that health care is a right. You may recall our founding fathers saying things like "life, liberty, property" as being the basic rights of all men. It is tough to have "life" without being able to see a doctor. I support health care for all because I am selfish. I don't want to have to wait for 3 hours in the emergency room because of the 20 uninsured people with a cold who are in line ahead of me. By giving them health care, it improves the level of care I am able to receive and their quality of life. Everybody wins.
Money can be freely invested, just not federal money.
Your comment on boner pills was retarded. You know more about how markets work than to say something like that, and besides, why is the U.S. the leader in producing new medications; by your reasoning we should just be making boner pills while compassionate Europeans are busy making useful drugs, but this isn't exactly the case.
I know you are a leftist, and I know that you are proud, but your usage of our declaration of independence to support a "right to healthcare" is preposterous.
Life, Liberty, and PROPERTY. Our founding fathers saved this one for last, because it is of chief importance to be able to have life and liberty. When voters decide that I must help pay for a public health care system, my property rights just took a hit. To imply that the founding fathers were guarunteeing the People health care is madness, given that the biggest concern of our founding fathers was keeping the government small. Your logic would lead to a governement that is responsible for the lives of americans, instead of a govenment that creates a nation where one is free to live. Under your interpretation, the government could and should ban anything that could possibly lead to death. No more motorcycles, no more smoking, and definately no drinking. Basically, nothing fun.
The founding fathers created a government that provided the frame work necessary for individuals to live as the wanted. That was the goal, and they succeeded....
Untill the people of the U.S. began taking their freedom for granted, and began to tred down a path of quasi-socialisism. I am a proud libertarian, and will hold my ground on this point. You may believe that it is morally right, and sensible to have universal health care, but those are your morals, not mine. I hold freedom on a higher level than compassion to my fellow man. I would never ask another to pay for what I believe, I want each man to be free to do as he wishes, as long as no one else's freedoms are restricted. Without freedom man is nothing to be compassionate about.
As we both know, the lions share of R&D dollars for medicine come from direct or indirect government sources. Thus the debate over stem cell research centers around whether this administration is going to allow science or social conservatism to dictate their policy.
If you read the Declaration of Independence you will notice the language used is "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That is quite different than property. You may want to rework your argument.
I mentioned property because it is certainly important in many of the writings by our founding fathers.
A key point in my argument is my use of "I" rather than "our founding fathers" in talking about a person's rights. I didn't suggest that our founding fathers guaranteed healthcare for all. "I" believe these things and that is exactly what I said.
My bonner comment was a joke. Lighten up. Free markets have no conscience and that was my point. Issues like healthcare and medicine deserve an ethical consideration as well as an economic one.
You're right about the dec of independence. I wrote that post hastily, but it doesn't matter much. The document that protects the rights of you and I , and spells out the limits on our federal governemnt is the constitution, where property rights play a key role
I know your boner comment was a joke, but such thinking is all to common, and leads many to underestimate the beauty of capitalism, and all that it brings us.
About R&D dollars, I don't know where you get your numbers. I've read that 50% of the money is public money.
That is still a large ammount of money but it isn't the ammount of money that counts, it is how the money is used.
Remember the Human Genome project, where two competing groups raced to complete it first? The government funded group HGP had a head start, as well as ten times the budget (3 billion, vs. 300 million) of the private venture Celera.
Guess who mapped the genome first?
Not only was this use of taxpayer dollars unnecessary, but it was inefficient.
I know this is incredibly anecdotal evidence, but it does raise the importance of studying the productivity of the private sector vs. the public sector, rather than just comparing their budgets.
Honestly, would you care to wager that your government money is being better spent than investments by the private sector?
I tried to find how much R&D money is public vs. private and couldn't find an exact number. I assumed that the sum of grants, university research, and whatever else is more, but I don't know for sure. Bad to assume on my part.
Interesting stuff on the HGP. I remember Coss worked on that shit.
I believe in the private sector and competition too. I'm just not sure how we would determine whether government money or private sector investment is better for the public good when it comes to medicine. I'd be curious to know.
[url=http://www.vipaocgold.com/][b]aoc gold[/b][/url][url=http://www.aocsale.com/][b]aoc gold[/b][/url][url=http://www.aocsale.com/][b]age of conan gold[/b][/url][url=http://www.buyfastgold.com/][b]aoc gold[/b][/url][url=http://www.aocgold10.com/][b]age of conan gold[/b][/url][url=http://buy-aoc-gold.hellgate-pd.com/][b]aoc gold[/b][/url][url=http://buy-aoc-gold.rgtrcredit.com/][b]age of conan gold[/b][/url]
aoc gold aoc gold age of conan gold aoc gold age of conan gold aoc gold age of conan gold
[url=http://www.vipaocgold.com/][b]aoc gold[/b][/url][url=http://www.aocsale.com/][b]aoc gold[/b][/url][url=http://www.aocsale.com/][b]age of conan gold[/b][/url][url=http://www.buyfastgold.com/][b]aoc gold[/b][/url][url=http://www.aocgold10.com/][b]age of conan gold[/b][/url][url=http://buy-aoc-gold.hellgate-pd.com/][b]aoc gold[/b][/url][url=http://buy-aoc-gold.rgtrcredit.com/][b]age of conan gold[/b][/url]
aoc gold aoc gold age of conan gold aoc gold age of conan gold aoc gold age of conan gold
Post a Comment
<< Home