Obama Ends Stem Cell Research Ban (merged)

#101
#101
TennTradition said:
You're saying this in the context of the federalized health care, right? I was not making my comments in that context or referring to that portion of the discussion...perhaps I should have clearer..I was just trying to address the issue of private vs. federal investment and how I see their roles. I agree that federalized health care could and will likely provide a disincentive for private investment in biomedical research.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the price fixing point being made in this thread, I don't see how this could be part of the federalized program being offered. Nevertheless, I am certainly no proponent of federalized healthcare either, but wouldn't having more people insured provide a larger base of customers for biomedical products? This is an honest question, it just seems like it would make sense.

I do agree that no matter how large or small private investment in this research has been up to this point, governement subsidation outside of the federalized healthcare context would encourage more private investment.
 
Last edited:
#102
#102
allvol123 said:
Don;t pretend that would amount to only chicken feed. I bet it is more in the several hundred million dollar range.
Click to expand...

I really don't know what the number would be - but it is fair to say that on the order of a hundred million I would say. If it were 300 million, then that would total 1% of NIH's annual medical research budget.
 
#103
#103
rjd970 said:
I am certainly no proponent of federalized healthcare either, but wouldn't having more people insured provide a larger base of customers for biomedical products? This is an honest question, it just seems like it would make sense.

I do agree that no matter how large or small private investment in this research has been up to this point, governement subsidation outside of the federalized healthcare context would encourage more private investment.
Click to expand...

To your first question: no. People get the care today and the program as laid out by Daschle will limit the numbers of people to get high dollar, controversial or risky treatments. That doesn't even address the problems of artificial market pricing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#104
#104
TennTradition said:
I really don't know what the number would be - but it is fair to say that on the order of a hundred million I would say. If it were 300 million, then that would total 1% of NIH's annual medical research budget.
Click to expand...

Don't start getting cute with numbers and percentages. All that post would tell me is that the NIH's budget is absurdly big.
 
#105
#105
rjd970 said:
I am certainly no proponent of federalized healthcare either, but wouldn't having more people insured provide a larger base of customers for biomedical products? This is an honest question, it just seems like it would make sense.

I do agree that no matter how large or small private investment in this research has been up to this point, governement subsidation outside of the federalized healthcare context would encourage more private investment.
Click to expand...

Having more people insured will open up the possibility for more applications of treatment options, but not necessarily more profit. While it is possible that most people will retain their private insurance...how long will that last? I would think that the US government would become a very large provider of insurance (particularly when factoring in the medicaid/medicare population) and when that happens, they will have enormous capability to negotiate ... and perhaps even set ... prices for these procedures/treatments. It would obviously be in the government's interest to not price these things to a point that there is no private investment in future treatment...but who knows.
 
#106
#106
BigPapaVol said:
To your first question: no. People get the care today and the program as laid out by Daschle will limit the numbers of people to get high dollar, controversial or risky treatments. That doesn't even address the problems of artificial market pricing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

But that same program still allows for the high dollar treatment for those with better, private insurance. This is where they make their money now, and will in the future regardless of the federal healthcare. It seems this would provide incentive for people to go out and get their own insurance.

I wasn't aware that the Daschle plan would actually fix prices, but I am not that familiar with it. If so, it is yet another reason this bastard of a healthcare solution should be scraped.
 
#107
#107
allvol123 said:
Don't start getting cute with numbers and percentages. All that post would tell me is that the NIH's budget is absurdly big.
Click to expand...

What in the heck do you mean cute with numbers? Do you mean cute as it "actually providing a real number in the discussion?" Last year, NIH spent $29 billion on medical research. Maybe that's too much...debate it if you want. But, my point is that if NIH placed 5% of its medical research budget into stem cell research, then that would more than quadruple current investment (assuming that the current investment is 300 million...which like I said passes a sanity check, but I don't know it and I couldn't find any documentation for a number representing annual private investment).

My entire point in that post was to point out that while private investment wasn't peanuts in real dollars...compared to the money that is put into medical research by NIH, it is. It is worth noting that NIH only provides about 1/3 of the total medical research [all forms of research] dollars being spent in the US, though...so there is significant private investment...but these biotech companies are not putting their money in stem cells...it's going into drugs...because the ROI is more established there.
 
Last edited:
#108
#108
rjd970 said:
But that same program still allows for the high dollar treatment for those with better, private insurance. This is where they make their money now, and will in the future regardless of the federal healthcare. It seems this would provide incentive for people to go out and get their own insurance.

I wasn't aware that the Daschle plan would actually fix prices, but I am not that familiar with it. If so, it is yet another reason this bastard of a healthcare solution should be scraped.
Click to expand...
You would also think that the myth of all the uninsured would drive people to get better insurance or care too, but it doesn't. Those new masses in the freeloader system aren't going the better care route. The give route is an upgrade.

Controlled pricing due to pricing power of a huge payor is a tenet of the program. That and 2500 of data sharing savings, which I find very entertaining.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#110
#110
TennTradition said:
Gotta head off to bed, folks...look forward to seeing where this discussion goes by tomorrow :).
Click to expand...

Been fun. I'll likely avoid this joint tomorrow as I have of late. The Poly forum has gone to the dogs. Used to be entertaining and educational. Now it pretty much blows.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#111
#111
BigPapaVol said:
You would also think that the myth of all the uninsured would drive people to get better insurance or care too, but it doesn't. Those new masses in the freeloader system aren't going the better care route. The give route is an upgrade.

Controlled pricing due to pricing power of a huge payor is a tenet of the program. That and 2500 of data sharing savings, which I find very entertaining.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I still think if it is profitable now with those with good insurance it will be when everybody else the the crap governement plan. The ability to negotiate prices below true market value is concerning though.

Anyway, like I said, I am not going to sit here and defend social healthcare.
 
#112
#112
BigPapaVol said:
Been fun. I'll likely avoid this joint tomorrow as I have of late. The Poly forum has gone to the dogs. Used to be entertaining and educational. Now it pretty much blows.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Football season can't get here fast enough.
 
#114
#114
BigPapaVol said:
Or a few of our new and highly prolific thread starters go the hell away.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

According to Patrick Cox.

"The ability to create induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells from adult cells has changed everything.

The use of embryonic cells in future therapies is now unnecessary, if not foolish."
 
#116
#116
BigPapaVol said:
Been fun. I'll likely avoid this joint tomorrow as I have of late. The Poly forum has gone to the dogs. Used to be entertaining and educational. Now it pretty much blows.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This is one of the rare occassions where we are in total agreement.
 
#117
#117
BigPapaVol said:
Been fun. I'll likely avoid this joint tomorrow as I have of late. The Poly forum has gone to the dogs. Used to be entertaining and educational. Now it pretty much blows.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I thought maybe it was just me? I really think this forum has gone to sh!t. It seems to be all about posting the last novel you read and regurgitating as your own thoughts.
 
#118
#118
"What President Obama did when he reversed President Bush's executive order banning embryonic stem cell research was based not on solid science, but his desire to cater to the anti-life, pro-abortion forces and their media allies who helped elect him.

In doing this, he created the potential for an outbreak of potentially fatal cancerous tumors caused by the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells.

Moreover, he killed another Bush presidential order that funded some of the most promising research on the creation of embryonic-like stem cells from harmless but potent adult stem cells. ...

What most people are unaware of is that there are three types of stem cell research:

there is embryonic stem cell research (ESC),
there is induced pluripotent (IPSC) research,
and adult stem cell research (ASC).

When Barack Obama rescinded George Bush's ban on federal funding on certain types of embryonic stem cell research he also rescinded Bush's Executive Order 13435 which had provided federal funding for induced pluripotent stem cell research using harmless adult stem cells manipulated into mimicking embryonic stem cells without the risk ESC cells entail.

This is where 72 different diseases are now being remedied or cured.

There are no embryonic stem cells being used anywhere in the world on humans, with one tragic exception.

A boy treated with embryonic stem cells for a rare genetic disease developed benign tumors, casting doubt on claims of the therapy's safety and effectiveness. ...

There is a 100 percent mortality rate among lab animals that develop these tumors.

That's why George Bush banned this lethal form of research that Barack Obama, who should have known better, has now legitimized by overturning this life-saving ban."

--radio talk-show host and columnist Michael Reagan

-----------------------

"What will constrain science? The president says it will be up to the National Institutes of Health to come up with 'guidelines' for the use of embryonic stem cells.

He specifically came out against creating embryos for the purpose of human cloning. But the question is this, if there are to be no moral, ethical, or religious restraints on the initial experiments, why should anyone expect them to be invoked later?

One can only be a virgin once. After a moral or ethical line has been erased, it is nearly impossible to re-draw it."
--columnist Cal Thomas
 
#119
#119
Why do embryonic stem cell treatments have a higher risk of causing negative effects than other sources of stem cells?

Answer: No one is really sure.

Solution: More research. Understanding why can help improve stem cell use from all types.


If we had stopped researching nuclear technology because atomic bombs were bad and radiation was terrible, we would have lost out on a lot of great applications of the field, including medicine.

ps: I didn't get invited to the prom :(
 
#120
#120
IPorange said:
Why do embryonic stem cell treatments have a higher risk of causing negative effects than other sources of stem cells?

Answer: No one is really sure.

Solution: More research. Understanding why can help improve stem cell use from all types.


If we had stopped researching nuclear technology because atomic bombs were bad and radiation was terrible, we would have lost out on a lot of great applications of the field, including medicine.

ps: I didn't get invited to the prom :(
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but if I understand correctly other sources of stem cells do not cause this same kind of reaction. If that is so why bother with sources that are known to have horrible effects on those that receive treatments made from them when other sources that don't create the same negative effects are available?

Maybe I didn't understand it correctly?
 
#121
#121
Other sources of stem cells do rarely cause those sort of benign tumor issues. Also, not EVERY or even most embryonic cell treatments result in those sort of problems. It's just usually fatal if that does happen.
 
#122
#122
IPorange said:
Other sources of stem cells do rarely cause those sort of benign tumor issues. Also, not EVERY or even most embryonic cell treatments result in those sort of problems. It's just usually fatal if that does happen.
Click to expand...

Care to explain the logic behind the overturning of Bush's Executive Order 13435????

That should put you into some liberal contortions that could be very entertaining. :)
 
#123
#123
I'd rather not spend tax dollars on anything other than constitutionally mandated things like the common defense. Not really much of a contortion. There should be no barriers to private research, though (not saying there are).
 
#124
#124
gsvol said:
Care to explain the logic behind the overturning of Bush's Executive Order 13435????

That should put you into some liberal contortions that could be very entertaining. :)
Click to expand...

Executive Order 13435 is about "expanding stem cell research in ethically responsible ways." It includes a lot of words about how nascent life must be protected and how because embryonic stem cell research is not ethically responsible, we should pursue induced pluripotency.

I would say that it is a rather logical progression that if you are going to overturn Bush's ban on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, that you would overturn this EO as well. It was put in place to answer critics concerns that adult stem cells are not pluripotent while at the same time continuing the political point made by Bush in his ban concerning E. stem cell research.

The EO makes points that are in opposition to Obama's new policy, so why wouldn't he rescind it? Overturning the EO in no way prohibits funding of induced pluripotency by the NIH.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top