Another nail in the GW coffin.http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=3362833
Replies
62
Beach Fanatic
Great post tampa!
Limiting or blocking legal and ethically conducted scientific research in ANY way is bad!
Doing so because of a minority religious group whose views do not represent the majority of the country is even more wrong!
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!
How many times do I have to say it to get you to notice - the government isn't limiting research, it's limiting federal funding. Seeing that the number of federal grants requested exceed the number granted, all federal funding of scientific research is limited.
Beach Fanatic
I too am sorry that someone close to you is suffering. Btdt. It sucks.
I presume this means you've read about clinical trials at least once or twice -- many of them are funded not by private research or drug companies but by federal funding, the kind of federal funding you derided in an earlier post. It is hard to argue that such funding for clinical trials isn't money well spent (at least in most cases!).
In the case of stem cell research, please tell me which companies would be likely to throw huge bucks into stem cell research. Stem cell research is not a "drug" that could be backed by J&J or Wyeth or Merck or Pfizer. It's not a medical device that could be developed by the device companies.
Also, since the various diseases that stem cell research MAY help cure down the road are so varied, it seems unlikely that the MS society or Alzheimer's or Parkinsons or spinal cord groups are going to get together and pool funds, because there will still have to be researchers working on stem cells and how they impact each disease. Plus those are non-profit organizations that don't have the kind of reserves needed.
So that leaves ... government funding, unless of course Gates and Buffett start throwing all that money of theirs at stem cell research. Who else can step up to the plate?
Thanks. I understand that stem cell research will not offer drugs, or devices, but it will offer different treatment. Treatments can be profited from. Or it could be funded privately, by those with vested interests. I just don't believe in federal funding for medical research. Or education. Or agriculture. Or energy. Or transportation. Or housing and urban development. In short, I believe that the President's cabinet should look more like Washington's cabinet, minus the Postmaster General.
Beach Fanatic
Hypocracies and lunacy of the Bush Administration keep stacking up - it is tragic he used his first veto on limiting federal funds for stem cell research -I can only hope private companies are marching full steam ahead on this but I have no idea since i am not in the medical field and have no time to even start tracking this. My extremely prejudiced and myopic take on this is EXACTLY the way I see abortion (NOT an issue to be legislated as it is mainly moral and personal - government should stay the hell away from this!)
I can tell you that I harvested the stem cells from both of my children (from umbilical cord) on the recommendation from a top oncologist at MD Anderson who had recently lost a patient (and a friend of mine) to leukemia after a partial match bone marrow transplant. His ONLY advice to me was, "this will hopefully be the promise of the future for SOME cures" -it was all I needed to hear.
If either one of Bush's children had a serious disease whose potential cure could be in stem cell research does anyone even believe for a second he would have vetoed bill????? No-one need answer this question - it is purely rhetorical.
Edwards is at least coming forward with a plan for universal health care which is a hell of a lot more than many democrats (including Hillary who still cannot seem to articulate her position and how she will propose funding this....) - so I am staying tuned to him to gain a better understanding.
I can tell you that I harvested the stem cells from both of my children (from umbilical cord) on the recommendation from a top oncologist at MD Anderson who had recently lost a patient (and a friend of mine) to leukemia after a partial match bone marrow transplant. His ONLY advice to me was, "this will hopefully be the promise of the future for SOME cures" -it was all I needed to hear.
If either one of Bush's children had a serious disease whose potential cure could be in stem cell research does anyone even believe for a second he would have vetoed bill????? No-one need answer this question - it is purely rhetorical.
Edwards is at least coming forward with a plan for universal health care which is a hell of a lot more than many democrats (including Hillary who still cannot seem to articulate her position and how she will propose funding this....) - so I am staying tuned to him to gain a better understanding.
Beach Fanatic
Since abortion was brought up, I believe the debate should be ultimate individual right issue. Rather than arguing over what day the fetus is viable, or when it should or shouldn't be aborted, I'd err on the side of caution. Many argue that life begins at conception, others that it begins later, but that's treading fine lines. The "my body, my choice" is false, as once one has procreated, it is no longer one body. Determining when a fetus is viable, or when ending life would be appropriate and if murder is wrong should not be decided by religion, and it is not. I don't think that any politician has the nerve to say that, but they should. I do not believe that abortion should be legal, for that reason, but I believe it should be left up to the states, as the Warren Court usurped authority from the legislative branch. I know that outlawing abortion is not popular here, and it would probably never pass Florida's legislative branch, but at least the decision would be left to the lawmakers and thus the people, rather than an unaccountable group of judges. If Florida wanted to outlaw abortion, those that wanted an abortion could leave the state. If they did not, I could choose to leave for a state that did not permit it. Regardless, it should be in the hands of the people, and saying that overturning the Roe decision is based on religion is ignorant of the law.
As for stem cell research, I could honestly be persuaded either way, but creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it bothers me. Again, I'm not really taking sides on this one.
As for stem cell research, I could honestly be persuaded either way, but creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it bothers me. Again, I'm not really taking sides on this one.
Beach Fanatic
Send the General Home
An unnecessary office.
By Tom McClusky
The House of Representatives held a hearing last week that included a number of former surgeon generals who are upset that they were forced to follow the orders of their presidential bosses. ?The horror,? they (the gaggle of surgeon generals) collectively said, ?That I had to follow the orders of the guy who gave me my job.? In response the equally horrified Democratic-controlled Congress wants to make the job more independent so as not to be constrained with silly things like following orders. ?Just imagine,? they (this time the Democrats) collectively said, ?the wonders that former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop could have done about smoking or Jocelyn Elders could have done about . . . errrr well you know, if they weren?t constrained by being answerable to anyone.?
While I will watch with amusement as Congress makes recommendations for the position I have a better idea, one that would totally eliminate the possibility of this politically appointed job getting any more political: Abolish the Office of the Surgeon General.
When the position of surgeon general, then called supervising surgeon, was first created in 1781, the appointee actually had something tangible to do. The first supervising surgeon, Dr. John Woodworth, was actually in charge of his own troops. According to the surgeon general?s website, he was in charge of ?a mobile force of professionals subject to reassignment to meet the needs of the Public Health Service (PHS).? Since then, the duties of the surgeon general have been demoted so many times he?d barely be a buck private if his title kept up with the changes.
In 1968 President Lyndon Johnson took away the responsibility of overseeing the PHS and made the position of surgeon general into one of a glorified adviser who is answerable to the assistant secretary to the secretary of Health and Human Services. So while the former surgeon generals were complaining of the road blocks they faced with the respective presidents they served, there were, in fact, a few levels of bosses in their way before they reached the Oval Office. Meaning that these levels of government bureaucracy actually protect its citizens by stopping implementation of some of the cockamamie ideas coming from the surgeon general?s office, including drug legalization and universal health care paid for on the backs of U.S. taxpayers.
The position of surgeon general today has become mostly one of a bully pulpit to serve as a federally funded advocate for various health causes (complete with a uniform straight out of a Gilbert and Sullivan play ? ?I am the very model of a modern surgeon general.?) The authority of the surgeon heneral has been reduced through reorganizations and, we are led to believe, a politicization of the confirmation process. Today, the office has a budget of $3 million and the surgeon general is paid close to $200,000 annually. However they have little or no authority to coordinate the federal government?s public health activities. This coordination is already being done by more than 50 different federal offices that are involved in protecting public health.
I think most people would agree that the surgeon general?s $3 million budget would better serve the taxpayers in a search for cures and treatments for cancer, heart disease, or other life-threatening illnesses. As an example, that $3 million could have been spent on Nevirapine, a retroviral drug that costs less than $4 a dose and has proven to prevent HIV transmission from mother to child with the administration of just two doses. More than 750,000 infants around the world could have been treated and spared from HIV infection. However, the money instead went towards a bootless position that lost its way before most Americans were even born.
So to save the taxpayers? money, to eliminate yet another unneeded voice in the health-care cacophony, to free up a uniform for the local high school?s Pirates of Penzance performance and to save C-SPAN viewers from any more surgeon-general alumni reunion tours like last week?s hearings ? eliminate the Office of Surgeon General today.
? Tom McClusky is vice president of government affairs for the Family Research Council.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MGI4ZjIyNTZjYjhiZDRjZDA0OWQ3YmVlZGI2OWYxZDg=
An unnecessary office.
By Tom McClusky
The House of Representatives held a hearing last week that included a number of former surgeon generals who are upset that they were forced to follow the orders of their presidential bosses. ?The horror,? they (the gaggle of surgeon generals) collectively said, ?That I had to follow the orders of the guy who gave me my job.? In response the equally horrified Democratic-controlled Congress wants to make the job more independent so as not to be constrained with silly things like following orders. ?Just imagine,? they (this time the Democrats) collectively said, ?the wonders that former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop could have done about smoking or Jocelyn Elders could have done about . . . errrr well you know, if they weren?t constrained by being answerable to anyone.?
While I will watch with amusement as Congress makes recommendations for the position I have a better idea, one that would totally eliminate the possibility of this politically appointed job getting any more political: Abolish the Office of the Surgeon General.
When the position of surgeon general, then called supervising surgeon, was first created in 1781, the appointee actually had something tangible to do. The first supervising surgeon, Dr. John Woodworth, was actually in charge of his own troops. According to the surgeon general?s website, he was in charge of ?a mobile force of professionals subject to reassignment to meet the needs of the Public Health Service (PHS).? Since then, the duties of the surgeon general have been demoted so many times he?d barely be a buck private if his title kept up with the changes.
In 1968 President Lyndon Johnson took away the responsibility of overseeing the PHS and made the position of surgeon general into one of a glorified adviser who is answerable to the assistant secretary to the secretary of Health and Human Services. So while the former surgeon generals were complaining of the road blocks they faced with the respective presidents they served, there were, in fact, a few levels of bosses in their way before they reached the Oval Office. Meaning that these levels of government bureaucracy actually protect its citizens by stopping implementation of some of the cockamamie ideas coming from the surgeon general?s office, including drug legalization and universal health care paid for on the backs of U.S. taxpayers.
The position of surgeon general today has become mostly one of a bully pulpit to serve as a federally funded advocate for various health causes (complete with a uniform straight out of a Gilbert and Sullivan play ? ?I am the very model of a modern surgeon general.?) The authority of the surgeon heneral has been reduced through reorganizations and, we are led to believe, a politicization of the confirmation process. Today, the office has a budget of $3 million and the surgeon general is paid close to $200,000 annually. However they have little or no authority to coordinate the federal government?s public health activities. This coordination is already being done by more than 50 different federal offices that are involved in protecting public health.
I think most people would agree that the surgeon general?s $3 million budget would better serve the taxpayers in a search for cures and treatments for cancer, heart disease, or other life-threatening illnesses. As an example, that $3 million could have been spent on Nevirapine, a retroviral drug that costs less than $4 a dose and has proven to prevent HIV transmission from mother to child with the administration of just two doses. More than 750,000 infants around the world could have been treated and spared from HIV infection. However, the money instead went towards a bootless position that lost its way before most Americans were even born.
So to save the taxpayers? money, to eliminate yet another unneeded voice in the health-care cacophony, to free up a uniform for the local high school?s Pirates of Penzance performance and to save C-SPAN viewers from any more surgeon-general alumni reunion tours like last week?s hearings ? eliminate the Office of Surgeon General today.
? Tom McClusky is vice president of government affairs for the Family Research Council.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MGI4ZjIyNTZjYjhiZDRjZDA0OWQ3YmVlZGI2OWYxZDg=
Beach Fanatic
The WSJ asked why didn't he publically speak out and face the consequences or take a stand and resign. "Either decision would have been more honorable than the one Dr. Carmona chose to indulge - which is to engage in a late hit on the President who appointed him, and only now that he will pay no personal price and it is politically fashionable to do so."
SoWal Expert
Since abortion was brought up, I believe the debate should be ultimate individual right issue. Rather than arguing over what day the fetus is viable, or when it should or shouldn't be aborted, I'd err on the side of caution. Many argue that life begins at conception, others that it begins later, but that's treading fine lines. The "my body, my choice" is false, as once one has procreated, it is no longer one body. Determining when a fetus is viable, or when ending life would be appropriate and if murder is wrong should not be decided by religion, and it is not. I don't think that any politician has the nerve to say that, but they should. I do not believe that abortion should be legal, for that reason, but I believe it should be left up to the states, as the Warren Court usurped authority from the legislative branch. I know that outlawing abortion is not popular here, and it would probably never pass Florida's legislative branch, but at least the decision would be left to the lawmakers and thus the people, rather than an unaccountable group of judges. If Florida wanted to outlaw abortion, those that wanted an abortion could leave the state. If they did not, I could choose to leave for a state that did not permit it. Regardless, it should be in the hands of the people, and saying that overturning the Roe decision is based on religion is ignorant of the law.
As for stem cell research, I could honestly be persuaded either way, but creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it bothers me. Again, I'm not really taking sides on this one.
I don't want to open the abortion can of worms, I am just going to say that it is sometimes a medically necessary procedure and I do NOT want the church or government interfering with me receiving the best possible medical treatment. Obviously, the fewer that were performed, the happier I would be, but I would much rather that people focus their efforts on eliminating the causes for abortions (getting rid of sex ed and insurance refusing to cover birth control sure isn't the way to start), then by outlawing medical procedures.
All of the arguments for banning abortion that I have heard are religious and/or philosophical in nature, not medical.
Stem cell research does not create life and then destroy it. It uses existing embryos and cells that would be discarded and destroyed if not used.
If we got rid of every elected office that had become political rather than serving the voters' interests, there would be alot of free office space in every state capital and D.C.!
Beach Fanatic
I don't want to open the abortion can of worms, I am just going to say that it is sometimes a medically necessary procedure and I do NOT want the church or government interfering with me receiving the best possible medical treatment. Obviously, the fewer that were performed, the happier I would be, but I would much rather that people focus their efforts on eliminating the causes for abortions (getting rid of sex ed and insurance refusing to cover birth control sure isn't the way to start), then by outlawing medical procedures.
All of the arguments for banning abortion that I have heard are religious and/or philosophical in nature, not medical.
Stem cell research does not create life and then destroy it. It uses existing embryos and cells that would be discarded and destroyed if not used.
If we got rid of every elected office that had become political rather than serving the voters' interests, there would be alot of free office space in every state capital and D.C.!
My response was to the statement that supporting the overturn of Roe was based on religion was wrong. Supporting the overturn of Roe should be obvious to anyone the least bit familiar with the way it was decided. It is the foremost reason Madison feared enumerating rights, and why Bork referred to the 9th amendment as an ink blot.
Regardless, I would be happy with exceptions to outlawing abortions, but I believe the discussion is all for naught as I don?t believe many states, specifically Florida, would significantly limit abortions.
SoWal Expert
A topic on the Daily Show last night. They showed clips of him being interviewed on another news show.
Especially loved how he wasn't allowed to support the Special Olympics because it was a Kennedy charity and that he was required to make a mention of Bush 3x a page when giving speeches!
Especially loved how he wasn't allowed to support the Special Olympics because it was a Kennedy charity and that he was required to make a mention of Bush 3x a page when giving speeches!
Beach Fanatic
A topic on the Daily Show last night. They showed clips of him being interviewed on another news show.
Especially loved how he wasn't allowed to support the Special Olympics because it was a Kennedy charity and that he was required to make a mention of Bush 3x a page when giving speeches!
Do you get your print news from the funny pages as well?
SoWal Expert
I get my news and other information from a wide variety of sources. The Daily Show just brought the topic to my attention again. It is my chosen nightly news show because it is the only one I've found that I can watch w/o throwing something at the TV.
The actual interview I am referring to was on CNN w/ Wolf Blitzer, if that better satisfies you as a "credible" news source.
Don't knock the funny pages, best part of the paper!
The actual interview I am referring to was on CNN w/ Wolf Blitzer, if that better satisfies you as a "credible" news source.
Don't knock the funny pages, best part of the paper!
Beach Fanatic
I enjoy The Daily Show, but I wouldn't trust it for my news, and I wouldn't give much credibility to the cut and paste clips they showed. Regardless, it's pretty disingenuous to talk about this now. If he had any character he would have done it when he was in office.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.