[quote]Ren wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Ren wrote:
Wow, I love how people say that stem cell research has yielded little to no results so far so it should be discarded. They only figured out how to harvest stem cells from embryos in 1998. In that time researchers have managed to create heart and nerve cells from stem cells, and successfully integrate the heart cells with living mice. Amongst other breakthroughs.
Yes, clearly a whole lack of potential right there.
Did I say it should be discarded? No. I don’t think that it should. I think it should continue. AND I don’t have a real problem with goverment funding for it, even though I am anti-abortion.
What I do have a problem with is that the issue is dishonstly framed. Candidates are not opposed to embryonic stem cell research. They are opposed to government funding for that research. There have been very few results. That’s a fact. I stated it. I didn’t say we should scrap the whole deal because of that. I don’t believe that.
I think that if there is research that we can do that ease the suffering of human beings that we should conduct that research exhaustively until we KNOW that it’s a dead end.
Ok, so arguably the whole problem here is that the government doesn’t want to fund the cultivation of new lines, since research is allowed but using only existing lines? Does it cost that much money to create new lines of stem cells? (let’s not even get into the moral arguments of the issue).
Oh yeah, as of 2006 there were only 22 lines of stem cells left, most of which have severe damage to them.[/quote]
It’s ALL moral arguments. I don’t know how much it costs. Although, nothing’s cheap. I know you want to argue. But I think we agree.
[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Ren wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Ren wrote:
Wow, I love how people say that stem cell research has yielded little to no results so far so it should be discarded. They only figured out how to harvest stem cells from embryos in 1998. In that time researchers have managed to create heart and nerve cells from stem cells, and successfully integrate the heart cells with living mice. Amongst other breakthroughs.
Yes, clearly a whole lack of potential right there.
Did I say it should be discarded? No. I don’t think that it should. I think it should continue. AND I don’t have a real problem with goverment funding for it, even though I am anti-abortion.
What I do have a problem with is that the issue is dishonstly framed. Candidates are not opposed to embryonic stem cell research. They are opposed to government funding for that research. There have been very few results. That’s a fact. I stated it. I didn’t say we should scrap the whole deal because of that. I don’t believe that.
I think that if there is research that we can do that ease the suffering of human beings that we should conduct that research exhaustively until we KNOW that it’s a dead end.
Ok, so arguably the whole problem here is that the government doesn’t want to fund the cultivation of new lines, since research is allowed but using only existing lines? Does it cost that much money to create new lines of stem cells? (let’s not even get into the moral arguments of the issue).
Oh yeah, as of 2006 there were only 22 lines of stem cells left, most of which have severe damage to them.
It’s ALL moral arguments. I don’t know how much it costs. Although, nothing’s cheap. I know you want to argue. But I think we agree.[/quote]
That we do. I am still curious about the cost, just for interests sake.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Then the pharmaceutical companies laugh all the way to the bank making millions on medications that they spend very little to develop.
This is called corporate welfare!
I’m pretty sure those millions would be nicely taxed, no? Lots of little startups hiring lots of smart people, attracting lots of imported brains, who’ll also make lots of money. While helping people.
It’s called investing, and of course the government should be involved
[/quote]
If you want your tax money going to fund research, that you will have to pay for again in the form of drug costs, then you are a dumb fuck.
Companies should pay for the R&D themselves or plan to not make a profit when selling the product that the government funded.
So of course, Government should no way in hell fund any research unless it will benefit tax payers. And by benefit I also mean financial. It doesn’t help to find the cure for cancer when the drug costs too much for people to afford.
MICHAEL J. FOX, ACTOR: Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like Diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research.
Fortunately, Marylanders have a chance to vote for Ben Cardin. Cardin fully supports life-saving stem cell research. It’s why I support Ben Cardin. And with so much at stake, I respectfully ask you to do the same."
Its all about the federal bonanza, along with hatred of Bush.
Laughable!!
[/quote]
“Life saving research”, that’s rich. Not one life has been saved by stem cell research.
I value freedom over goverment funding for such research. That’s right, I’d rather not be taxed in an effort to cure Michael J. Fox. I’m such a monster!
I’d recommend those clamoring for such funding to do so through private channels. I applaud free individuals who CHOOSE to be philanthropic.
Guys, health care research funding is a huge thing and is certainly not limited to stem cells.
Maybe you should rail against all of it, instead of just this facet of it, so that you don’t sound like completely inconsistent imbeciles.
Now, if you are against all government funded research, because of your free market fantasies, you need to understand that free markets only work in areas where there is in fact a market.
Economic segments that do not yet have a market don’t operate at all, because of the lack of a market to operate in. Generally, such as with railroads or national highway systems, when they were new, it takes a huge act of government to create the initial systems or infrastructure to support the new types of economic activity.
The Internet is one example of this type of research.
Also, in terms of health care, if some of the promise of stem cell research pans out, it could end up saving a lot of money in the long wrong by actually curing some conditions instead of having a person remain on expensive treatments for twenty or thirty years.
No, I am not trying to sell anyone stem cell research in any way, but if you are going to try to argue about it, at least know a little bit about the subject instead of throwing out pithy little black and white statements that sound exciting but don’t actually have any meaning.
Let the politicians play those games, but don’t actually buy any of it!
Maybe we’re not caring enough?! Maybe we should double our tax burden, in order to drastically increase funding? Why do you need a new stereo system when there are diseases the government could use your money to fight? I call into question our commitment to fight disease!
Federal Funding is pandering for votes. “Vote for us, we’ll spend more of someone else’s money to beat your ailment!”
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Ahahahahahaha! Yes, damn it, sick people should stay out of politics, only everyone else can have an opinion…
Right. Fuck man, let’s just kill’em, they’re screwing up the gene pool anyway.[/quote]
Now that’s a solution to the looming economic crisis I hadn’t considered… howabout we off all retired people and sick people whether young or old?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
But does Asthma have an easy to sympathize with celebrity figure involved in political ads?! Hmmm?
Ahahahahahaha! Yes, damn it, sick people should stay out of politics, only everyone else can have an opinion…[/quote]
Sarcasm! It only works if you’re addressing the point made. Let’s take this exchange, for example.
Nowhere have I suggested that sick people shouldn’t be involved in politics. My post was a sarcastic comment regarding the Parkisons vs. asthma debate.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
But does Asthma have an easy to sympathize with celebrity figure involved in political ads?! Hmmm?
Ahahahahahaha! Yes, damn it, sick people should stay out of politics, only everyone else can have an opinion…
Right. Fuck man, let’s just kill’em, they’re screwing up the gene pool anyway.[/quote]
You’d think libertarians were proposing making private funding and research illegal. I’m pretty sure taxation and federal redistribution (federal funding) is the debate I myself have been engaged in. I don’t know, maybe that distinction isn’t so easily made by some.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Economic segments that do not yet have a market don’t operate at all, because of the lack of a market to operate in. Generally, such as with railroads or national highway systems, when they were new, it takes a huge act of government to create the initial systems or infrastructure to support the new types of economic activity.
[/quote]
This is true, but not in the case of medical research. Pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies, etc all make a shit-load of money off the patients. So when it comes to medical research, free market has everything to do with it. And these companies should not get a free ride on R&D and then make a killing off the public.
Dude, the expense of a treatment has to do with competition and efficacy. No matter how much it costs to produce your goods or services in the healthcare market, if you have little competition and the product is effective, you can charge whatever you want. So the only money being saved is by the companies that benefit from Government funding. They then turn around and charge outrageous prices for their services. This is why healthcare takes up almost 1/3 of the GNP.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You’d would think libertarians were proposing making private funding and research illegal. I’m pretty sure taxation and federal redistribution (federal funding) is the debate I myself have been engaged in. I don’t know, maybe that distinction isn’t so easily made by some.
I believe public funds should be used.
It is for the betterment of society as a whole that we do the best we can to help the sick and terminally ill.
Hell, Congress will only blow the money on Alaskan bridges and illegal wars anyway, so why not do something good for once.[/quote]
How does it better society when Government funds research that helps to develop some cure or treatment that only the rich can afford? So when you say benefit society, you meant the upper class society. Ok, now I get it.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
How does it better society when Government funds research that helps to develop some cure or treatment that only the rich can afford? So when you say benefit society, you meant the upper class society. Ok, now I get it.[/quote]
Some of the more advanced, modern countries offer free universal healthcare to their citizens.
A new process, even if it’s been developed in the US, can help each and everyone of those countries’ people. Even the poor ones.