Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Stem Cell veto; Thoughts?
Topic Started: Jul 27 2006, 05:21 PM (753 Views)
Irockwayhard
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
It would make no sense for a government who cares about the health and well-being of its populace to underfund or neglect to fund research that could potentially save millions of lives and alleviate the effects of a number of diseases.

To those who say that the government shouldn't fund projects like this: Why? You pay your taxes, they help save your life or your friends' lives or your family's lives. Should the government stop funding hospitals, and make them entirely private?
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
No, they are not funding because they think it is immoral to create stem cells just for research, with the stong support of many companies to back them up. I think this entire veto is bullshit and it is Bush's first attempt to try to please the ignorance of America.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tom Joad
Member Avatar
Gap tooth so my dick's got to fit.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Irockwayhard
Jul 28 2006, 01:57 PM
It would make no sense for a government who cares about the health and well-being of its populace to underfund or neglect to fund research that could potentially save millions of lives and alleviate the effects of a number of diseases.

To those who say that the government shouldn't fund projects like this: Why? You pay your taxes, they help save your life or your friends' lives or your family's lives. Should the government stop funding hospitals, and make them entirely private?

What I'm saying is that I think the government should quit funding tons of projects that could be funded by investors instead. It saves the taxpayers money, it gives the investors a chance for income if their project works, and it gets the government out of the project so they won't mess it up as bad. I think the government should be there only to monitor trade (issue currency, etc.)provide us with basic civil needs (public schools, courts, police, firefighters, etc.) and defend us militarily. I think there should be a missive privitization of health care and other luxeries that our government can't support.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Jim
Member Avatar
Nihil estis, Omnes sum
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The problem is that the people who would invest into it would have opinions on the matter. You cannot do things your investors don't want or you will lose their money, which means that the research isn't going to the benefit of the nation, but to the benefit of the investors. And anyone with money, from drug companies to evil geniouses can invest. Generally, good people don't have money, and the ones that do don't invest it.
...Matt was no exception to this. When he stood in the street and noticed his chest started to really hurt again, he made the decision to look down. He screamed like a grown man would scream when that grown man sees a laser burning his chest, and that is like a little girl...
-From Super Naked Moose Man
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Muller
Member Avatar
Planning World Domination
[ *  *  *  * ]
We are going to have to sit back and wait for other countries to get involved first (like Switzerland). I'm not saying its the best way to go about it, but right now thats all people can really do.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
-Seneca the Younger
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tom Joad
Member Avatar
Gap tooth so my dick's got to fit.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dr. Jim it doesn't matter if the government researches it or not, the people with the money are going to be calling the shots. I just believe that advances will always come if you allow people to sell thir product to people who want to buy it. Then somebody else will inovate so everybody will buy their product, and on and on. As long as you limit monopolies the economy and technology will take care of its self.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Irockwayhard
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
Private funding vs. Public, Government Funding: Private funding equals capitalism, while capitalism has historically been shown to promote technological growth - it has been growth in the intrest of private industry. We still can benifit from the advances private industry can offer, but in the current age, where governments are more able, structured and interdependant, we no longer have to rely on private investors. Private investers will always have agendas. Governments will have agendas, as well, but they are held accountable by their constituencies.

And Tom, "I think the government should be there only to monitor trade (issue currency, etc.)provide us with basic civil needs (public schools, courts, police, firefighters, etc.)" Why do you not include healthcare in with the other "basic civil needs"? Privatization in healthcare has done nothing for those unable to afford or uneligible for private healthcare in the history of the US. "[M]assive privitization" would do nothing but reinforce this fact.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tech Junkie
Member Avatar
Styx Ferryman
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Dr. Jim
Jul 28 2006, 11:43 AM
The problem is that the people who would invest into it would have opinions on the matter. You cannot do things your investors don't want or you will lose their money, which means that the research isn't going to the benefit of the nation, but to the benefit of the investors. And anyone with money, from drug companies to evil geniouses can invest. Generally, good people don't have money, and the ones that do don't invest it.

Yes, and the government, pure as the wind-drive n snow, doesn't have opinions, doesn't sway with the wind of polls, and doesn't take bribes and other gratuities from various private sources. Oh, and none of it's members are also private investors with personal financial interests.[/sarcasm]

How is a government investment different from a private one? The private investors, ya know, actually demand results instead of looking at how it looks in the press. Profit is in their best interests, and if this or any other technology proves profitable, the investors win.

Both tell you what you can and can't do to retain funding. One just has no reason to actually push for results, and may hinder research to 'keep the issue on the table'. Guess which.
May the blessing of Our Lady of the Workshop be upon you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Irockwayhard
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
Tech Junkie
Aug 7 2006, 10:21 PM
How is a government investment different from a private one? The private investors, ya know, actually demand results instead of looking at how it looks in the press. Profit is in their best interests, and if this or any other technology proves profitable, the investors win.

That's pretty cynical - to assume that government would only fund what looks good in the press or what's politically exploitable. That's true to a degree, but it's not the status quo. A government, a political party is still accountable for its actions by its constituency - that's what they call the ultimate check and balance.

You say investors win, and you're right. Investors win when pharmecutical companies mark their products up 800%+. When profit drives health science - consumers, the sick loose.

And what about funding to research universities? They're not looking for media face time or political sway. They're looking for the glory that comes with producing technology (with government funding) that revolutionizes a given field.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
严加华
Member Avatar
Magister Ludicrous
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Irockwayhard
Aug 8 2006, 08:30 PM
And what about funding to research universities? They're not looking for media face time or political sway. They're looking for the glory that comes with producing technology (with government funding) that revolutionizes a given field.

Oh, were that but true. :( It's a nice vision, but the reality is significantly different.
LC Sez: Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tom Joad
Member Avatar
Gap tooth so my dick's got to fit.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Irockwayhard
Aug 8 2006, 12:30 PM
You say investors win, and you're right. Investors win when pharmecutical companies mark their products up 800%+. When profit drives health science - consumers, the sick loose.

If nobody can buy a product then everybody loses, the company and the consumers. Health care is no different than any other industry. If a company can not sell its products for a high price then they will lower the price if possible.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Irockwayhard
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
Tom Joad
Aug 8 2006, 10:43 AM
If nobody can buy a product then everybody loses, the company and the consumers. Health care is no different than any other industry. If a company can not sell its products for a high price then they will lower the price if possible.

Weil, there were, as of 2004, about 46 million people in the US who couldn't buy healthcare. And those numbers were trending up.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Necronomicon
Member Avatar
omar comin' yo
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
But people who can pay, do, and that's what keeps the rollers greased.
omar yo. omar comin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tom Joad
Member Avatar
Gap tooth so my dick's got to fit.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Irockwayhard
Aug 8 2006, 04:05 PM
Weil, there were, as of 2004, about 46 million people in the US who couldn't buy healthcare. And those numbers were trending up.

If in 2010 there are 100 million people in the US who can't pay for healthcare then maybe the health companies will have to lower their prices. My family has terrible healthcare because my father owns his own business, but I'm not complaining. When you have free healthcare you abuse it. You go to the doctor's when you don't need to and you buy medicine that you don't need.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Irockwayhard
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
Tom Joad
Aug 8 2006, 05:34 PM
Irockwayhard
Aug 8 2006, 04:05 PM
Weil, there were, as of 2004, about 46 million people in the US who couldn't buy healthcare.  And those numbers were trending up.

If in 2010 there are 100 million people in the US who can't pay for healthcare then maybe the health companies will have to lower their prices. My family has terrible healthcare because my father owns his own business, but I'm not complaining. When you have free healthcare you abuse it. You go to the doctor's when you don't need to and you buy medicine that you don't need.

Hmm...that's a little presumptory. You don't give the 46 million+ people without healthcare much credit do you? Is that fair? And doctors prescribe the medicine, not the patients, so if you think patients would get medicine they "don't need", take it up with the doctor.

And when you don't have healthcare, two things happen: 1) you get sick and die. 2) you get sick, don't go to the doctor becuase you don't have healthcare and can't afford it, get real sick as a result and have to go to the emergency room where you either die an expensive death or get treatment for an ailment that woud have been alot easier and cheaper to treat earlier on...if say...you had gone to the doctor.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Made by Sionthede of the IFSZ.