Comments:

-AS! - 2004-10-15 14:07:17
First, let me say that I've loved reading you for a really long time now and getting notes from you and I really hope we come out on the other side of this conversation the same. Second, let me thank you for taking the time to respond. I posted this all over the Internet yesterday and I got one response and it was half-baked. I really appreciate you taking the time to answer me. Third, I wrote almost all of this. It contains several quotes and ideas from two entries the night before. The rest was all written in the little while box of Diaryland from my brain to my fingertips on the keyboard. It's all original. Fourth, (and this is where it gets political) I don't know how to ask this more nicely than why is it my responsibility to fund your healthcare? Why should my taxes pay for your $3,700 a year plus co-pays? If you can afford pedicures and manicures, then you should be able to dig up enough money to fund your medical expenses. It's all about priorities. No, not everyone has your income and I don't have a problem helping out those that honestly can't afford it. However, you still choose not only to have healthcare, but who your provider is. Kerry very much made it sound like there were no options. There are several options -- they just cost money. It's not that healthcare isn't a problem in this country -- it's that it's none of the government's business. It's their job to protect you from others, not from yourself or germs. I'm all for fronting the money for those that are unable to help themselves at the time until a time where they can pay back that debt. But I don't think it's the responsibility of the country as a whole to foot your bill. I also think that R&D is a bunch of cock and bull. However, I think it's because there are these massive drug companies in place and they have the ability to do that. Capitalism relies on the ability of start-ups to get in the game. And the truth is that taxes and laws prevent new companies from forming. Inherently this causes the price of the few that have the ability to do R&D to drag their feet and jack up their prices. If you want the price to come down, there has to be an alternative so that they're not monopolistic. But if you're taxing small business out of house and home, you're not going to get competitors and by extension you will not have competitive prices. There's a shortage of flu vaccine not because of anything our country did, but because Britain shut down the company we ordered it from and they didn't inform us of that until October 6. Regardless of whether or not Bush wants to play it up like his Administration decided it was in our best interest to not receive the shipment, it wasn't his choice. It was the British crown's choice and they made it. It in no way effects them if we have a shortage of vaccines. Also, and again, I hope you don't take this personally, but what does the 23-year-old making more money have to do with anything? It's not the President's or Congress's or Justice's job to make sure you get paid fairly. We don't live in a communistic country. And the intent of my post wasn't to push Bush -- it was to question Kerry. I just don't think he makes economic sense. Empty political promises to help you get elected. Even his healthcare plan has nowhere to pull the funds from. For being "Pay as you Go" he sure dropped the ball on this one. Indeed, a plan is not a litany of complaints. Have a great weekend, Patty. I hope I didn't fire you up too much. :o) -AS!
-------------------------------
Chickpea - 2004-10-15 14:13:46
Here's an incredibly vague statement: Lawyers like Edwards are the reason malpractice is so high which is why doctor's visits cost so bloody much which is why I can't afford $3K a year in healthcare. The entire system is fucked and neither candidate is going to fix it. Too bad I hate Bush as much as Kerry or this would be an easy vote.
-------------------------------
-AS! - 2004-10-15 14:50:56
One other thing that one of my readers pointed out that I forgot to mention to you -- Bush supports adult stem-cell research but limits on embryos. Bush was the first president to fund embryonic stem cell research. (Oct 2004) Supports adult stem-cell research but limits on embryos. (Jun 2003) (From the non-partisan OnTheIssues.org website: http://www.issues2002.org/George_W__Bush.htm)
-------------------------------
-AS! - 2004-10-16 14:38:35

About embryonic stem cell research, the research I'm looking at shows that it's not as productive as adult stem cell research.

Begin article:
So, how do ES [embryonic] and adult stem cells score at this point? These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities. The risks involved in using the cytomegalovirus promoter to drive over-expression of the transcription factor are undetermined. To avoid immune rejection, the ES cells have to be tissue-matched from a bank of stem cells created from 'spare' human embryos. Otherwise, a special human embryo has to be created for the purpose, by transferring the patient's genetic material into an empty egg, a procedure prone to failure and morally objectionable to many, including scientists.

By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumours. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimising intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich.

add your comment:

need some more pattymelt? - diaryland