I support the veto of federally funded stem cell research...

[mikelewis]

...but not for the same reasons as Bush. Bush claimed to oppose this legislation on strictly moral grounds, he said "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." Anyone whose not been in a complete coma for the past 5 1/2 years knows this is complete and total bullshit. Bush doesn't give a fuck about morals and decency and he damn sure doesn't care about respecting anyone's society; other than that of his lapdog "elite". Everyone knows this veto was a bone he threw to the Anti-Christian Dogs he calls his base. However this was also a bone for his sycophantic Congress lackeys who need an issue that will allow them to distance themselves from that fucking idiot and his evil doings. His veto had nothing to do with morals, decency and respect; it had everything to do with playing yet another twisted evil game with other peoples lives. He is a royal shit stain who, out of purely political reasons, vetoed a bill that could have saved countless lives and possibly benefited all of humanity.

However, I applaud his veto of this bill and support it 100%. My reason is this: For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone could, in good conscience, support forking over hundreds of millions of dollars for research into "possible" miracle cures when 45 million citizens of this nation have not a shred of health insurance coverage. Whose going to benefit from these new advances? Whose going to be able to afford the new drugs or the new procedures? I can guarantee you, it won't be someone whose without health insurance. Even if with this technology they able to extend our lifespan by 200 years, I'd still oppose this bill. I'd oppose any legislation that took from those who have not and benefited only those who have. Don't talk to me about spending any Federal money, money from all the people, on anything concerning the health of our citizens unless you are talking about providing health care to all our citizens. This was a shameful bill, a shameful attempt at political maneuvering and a shamefully immoral discussion in front of millions of our countrymen who are forced to choose between food and health care. Fuck stem cell research. Use what we got to help every citizen in this country before you come to me with "possibilities".

Yes, stem cell research is important and we should explore the possibilities. We may have in our hands a means to end all manner of terrible afflictions that wreak suffering on innocent victims. To not focus all our energy into developing these miracles is immoral, it is indecent and it is disrespectful. Bush's callous political game only adds more color and depth to the "Fucking Asshole" painting that is his life yet I support this veto. Spend that money on health care for our nation's children before you come up with new cures they can't afford. Not to do so "crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." Our nation deserves universal health care before it deserves any miracles and maybe, just maybe, if we started acting like a decent respectful society, He might just hand us a few for good measure.

[WindRavenX]

1. completely, utterly disagree

You sound exactly like those who would deny a HPV vaccine on the grounds that it doesn't save enough lives.

Bullshit. If we can find ways to better millions of lives, then you damn well do it.

[mikelewis]

9. First of all...

There is no guarantee that stem cell research is going to be the miracle we're told it's supposed to be. Yes, it looks more than promising but there is a chance, albeit slight, that it might not be the miracle its being touted as. Keep in mind, we were "sold" the Iraq war so I'm not so keen on buying into every "possibility" the majority of the people support.

However, we already have a guaranteed way of bettering millions of peoples lives right now by investing in universal health care. As of yet, stem cell research only offers hope for the future, universal health care can offer real tangible benefits that can immediately better 45 million peoples lives. I'd support using the tax dollars of the 45 million tax payers to fund stem cell research if those same 45 million were guaranteed access to these miracles they paid for.

[NVMojo]

2. please excuse me while I puke ....

[blonndee]

3. I disagree.

We need this AND we need universal health care. If we'd stop the war machine, we'd have plenty of money for both.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

4. That's a perspective I hadn't considered

I think what you're getting at is a "cart/horse" situation.

It doesn't take a medical miracle to save an uninsured person with high blood pressure. Even heart disease can be alleviated if caught in time. Many cancers are now curable.

But only if the sick person has access to adequate health care.

I won't agree with you in applauding the veto. But I will certainly applaud you for some damned fine dot-connecting.

Of course, I maintain that the whole affair was nothing but a charade engineered specifically for a handful of Repiglican Senators and Congressvermin. What? Like the Repig leadership didn't count votes before it was taken? Like the 19 Repigs in the Senate who voted for it didn't already know they were safe with their knuckle-dragging base because it was veto-proof?

It was all wrasslin', friend. Every last bit.

[havocmom]

12. Speaking of carts and horses...

(and I do like the nobel critters) How many kids could be helped with the money spent to try and save one Kentucky Derby winner?

Medical care for horses of the rich and tax reduced... Tough noogies for kids of the working poor. That I have a problem with.

[longship]

5. I can't agree either.

It makes no sense to destroy those blastocysts and not get any benefit from them when there are so many possibilities for a breakthrough.

[Bluebear]

6. Well, the GOP will *not* spend it on health care.

So until we can have both federally funded research AND universal health care, my wish was for a possible miracle cure :)

[DanCa]

8. We would have had health care in this country if people knew how to vote (

[mikelewis]

15. The people do know how to vote...

...its that the criminals know how to make it so our votes don't count.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

[DanCa]

7. Will you sit in my wheel chair for 24 hours?

Have you been inside a stem cell lab? Will you watch the films of the brain surgey that is my only option to live a productive life at this point? Maybe if your time was running you would understand the need to waste millions of dollars. Sone of us don't have that luxury. I appreciate your honesty nevertheless.

[mikelewis]

13. I never claimed it was a waste...

I never claimed it was a waste of millions of dollars, in fact, I thought I made it pretty clear that it is something we should be pursuing. As bad as I feel for your situation, I feel equally as bad for those who don't even have the option of surgery. Without insured health care, it becomes more likely that a cancer victim won't be diagnosed and treated before the ailment becomes fatal. Without insured health care, it become more likely that an entire family will slip into destitution and homelessness. Without access to health care, millions of people suffer needlessly and without any options. Any federal money we spend on health care should be available for all the citizens, not just a majority; because its not just the majority that pays those tax dollars.

[ConsAreLiars]

10. Talk about a false choice!!! Whatever makes you think that

killing off one health program will mean the money will be used instead for another? Both are possible and desirable, and the monsters that killed off funding for stem cell research are the same ones who will make sure that the US health system never operates for the greater good.

Do you have some secret information that suggests that that relatively small amount of dollars, once vetoed, is going to get put toward universal health care? Of course not. That idea is just plain delusional.

(edit typo)

[DanCa]

11. I think this might be the equivallent of

cutting of one's nose to spite their face.

[ConsAreLiars]

14. Worse than that.

At least your example works, even if it is dumb. This "idea" is probably the silliest ever posted on DU. The OP suggests that the desired consequence (better health care) is going to be somehow magically granted to us all by the benevolent masters of the Corporatist cabal because they (the Benevolent Masters) have killed off yet another attempt to improve health care. Strange. Very Strange.

[mikelewis]

16. No, it does not, in any way suggest that...

it states that we do not deserve to spend the nations treasure on the possible benefits of stem cell research until we have universal health care. Until the benefits of these miracles are universal, people should not be expected to pay for something that they will not be able to benefit from.

[ConsAreLiars]

24. You seem to be arguing that no federal spending on research, or, I

suppose, transportation, the CDC, National Parks, filling potholes, or anything else until UTOPIA has first arrived. Grover Norquist may want to hire you. Have you sent in your resume?

(edit typo again)

[mikelewis]

29. Why should we consider Universal Healthcare a Utopia?

England, Germany, Sweden, Norway, France and Japan are certainly not Utopia's, yet they have universal healthcare. Offering care to the sick is the most important moral issue of our day. Right now, stem cell research only holds promise but universal healthcare offers results, real tangible results that everyone can benefit from. Yes, fund research but not until you can guarantee that everyone has access to the benefits. Universal healthcare is not a utopia and yes, I would argue that this should be the most important issue before congress and the nation.

[ConsAreLiars]

33. You' re arguing that nothing worthwhile should be done until all will

benefit equally. You're the one who demands utopia precede progress. Why? Just another variant on the usual RW crap, in my view.

(edit spelling)

[mikelewis]

34. Universal Health Care is neither a Utopian idea nor is it RW...

Let me see if I understand your point...

You support a bill that will only serve those who have enough money to pay for the treatments this federal money helps develop. You say universal healthcare is some utopian idea that is somehow much less important than fixing potholes or running our national parks and yet you call me a Right-winger? I find that to be really bizarre. I had not heard that the RW was working on Universal Healthcare and I was not aware that Republicans cared about guaranteeing access to all when there is federal money involved. In fact, I was under the assumption that right-wingers had no problem with taking tax money from the poor and using to benefit only the wealthy; as you seem to advocate. The intent to develop medical cures and procedures from medical research is a noble cause but to deny those benefits to the uninsured and under-insured is immoral.

[DanCa]

17. I know am having a hard time following this logic.

Let's take cancer. Should we stop researching cures for cancer because there isn't a universal health care? Are cancer researchers being immoral because there looking for cures while there isn't universal health care? I am having a real disconnect here but it could be because I have to much invested in this.

[mikelewis]

20. No, we should demand that those who pay for that research...

gain the benefits of that investment. The citizens of this nation spend just under $5 billion for cancer research and 45 million citizens don't have access to those benefits. It's not the doctors who are immoral but those who would take from others to benefit themselves. Cancer research is an investment made by all and should be shared by all. Whatever benefits reaped belong to everyone equally or none at all.

[DanCa]

22. Sighs there is a real disconnect here.

I am not sure if it's in my objectivey or the op. I am not insulting you I am just trying to figure out how asking for federal money for research that can cure millions is a bad thing.

The only thing that I agree with you is that the current health care system is a mess. However the intent of H.R. 810 wasn't meant to fix the health care system. I think that your blending two things into one because the way I see it there is nothing wrong wiith asking for momeny for this research just like there's nothing wrong with asking money for medical research for any cure.

You do make a valid arguement why health care should be made availabe. But as far as H.R. 810 goes I just can't follow your logic. I am trying real hard to be objective here mind you it's just that I am a little lost here.

[mikelewis]

25. Because H.R. 810 wasn't intended to benefit everyone who contributes...

and may need access; it was intended to provide investment income in research for drugs and procedures that will be sold at prices only those with insurance can afford. This is why it is immoral. It is taking money from those who have no insurance and benefiting those who do have it. You're treating these issues as two separate things but they are not. For the procedures and drugs to be administered, the population has to go through the health care system to gain access. If they cannot afford the treatment, they do not get the benefit of the drugs and procedures that they helped pay for. So essentially, they are being robbed. Any bill that calls for the use of public money and doesn't guarantee access of benefits to the public is immoral. Our government is not a corporation in the business of selling goods and services, it is an institution put in place by the people of this land to provide protection for the rights of every citizen. One of those assurances is that every citizen has a right to get what they paid for. This bill never had any intention of guaranteeing universal access to the benefits gleaned from the public coffers and so it is immoral.

[DanCa]

26. Thats a false statement

Can you please read the bill before posting about it.

You can read the bill here www.parkinsonsaction.org

[DanCa]

27. Read the damn bill first and then decided.

Meet my ignore list . Nice Try.

[mikelewis]

28. No where in the bill does it state that there is a guarantee that this...

research will benefit the citizens of the U.S. It will only benefit some of the citizens of the U.S. Take me for instance, I do not have Parkinsons disease and yet I have no problem with any of my tax dollars going towards research to combat this disease. I gain no benefit from this yet I have the expectation that should I need that research to help me, it will be available to me. I have this expectation because I paid for the research just as you paid for it, in my tax dollar. However, if I do not have health coverage, the benefits I already paid for are out of my means. It is immoral to say to one, you can't partake of our harvest even though you contributed to the work. The benefits gleaned from this research belongs to the American people, not the United States Government. Until that becomes a reality, I won't support any legislation that serves only the majority as they try to live forever and leaves the minority to suffer in pain and death.

[dorktv]

18. Cannot see why we cannot do both.

Just by nationalizing health care access, we can save a ton of money.

But keep federal funding of medical research completely seperate. The US has been funding medical research for the past 50 years and I think it has shown to be a good thing.

[DanCa]

19. Exactly

what am trying to wrap my mind around is how is crafting a bill under the current health care system immoral? It's not the bill that's immoral it's the current health care system that's screwed up. I think we might be arguing over semanatics here. I do applaud his honesty and wish for a universal health care system though.

[dorktv]

21. I have never understood why not doing something completely unrelated

to something else makes the other thing better.

[DanCa]

23. I think that's my point.

Give my credit though. I am holding my temper.
:hug:

[ErisFiveFingers]

30. Would you be against a federal funding of a possible cure for AIDS?

...If only rich people got it first?

That seems to be your basic argument.

[mikelewis]

31. As it stands now, they're not only the first ones to get it...

but the only ones to get it. And yes, this is why I'm opposed to the bill. I'm not opposed to medical research, I'm opposed to federal funding for research that does not offer its benefits to all citizens.

[ErisFiveFingers]

32. Well, there are the poor Guinia Pigs...

(what an awful term)

Anyways, the rich got polio vaccines first, cervical cancer vaccines first, smallpox vaccines first...

What are you proposing to prevent the weathly from having access to technologies before the poor?

-Eris

[mmonk]

35. Well, I guess we can leave it to a more advanced country.

It will come our way anyway.

[ProfessorGAC]

36. Two Dimensional Thinking

The lack of medical coverage and the research into major medical breakthroughs are mutually exclusive. There is no x/y relationship between the two.

And the cost of covering those 45 million is at least two orders of magnitude higher than the dollars intended for this research. So, limiting the research accomplishes nothing to protect the 44.5 million left after these dollars covered the other 450,000.

Your reasoning is flawed because you are trying to draw a correlation where none exists.
The Professor

[mikelewis]

40. There is a correlation between tax dollars spent and access to the...

benefits of the research. If we spend money on defense, is it moral to allow the military to only protect a few citizens who can afford to pay additional money for that protection or should we protect all of citizens? If we spend money on National Parks, should only certain people be allowed to have access to those parks, namely the one's who can afford to pay an exorbitant entrance fee? If we take money from the poor to fund health research, is it moral to deny them access to the benefits gleaned from that investment? Seeing as how all of the benefits that will be gleaned from this research will be administered through the health care system, we are in effect taking money to fund research that these people will not have access to. That is the correlation between research and health care.

Our current legislation does not stop stem cell research, private companies can still develop this research and offer it to the American people for profit. This bill was intended to augment the private dollars with an influx of federal money; these federal tax dollars would invariably be taken from those who do not have health care and will not benefit from the research from their forced investment. If you want to fund stem cell research, I say "Great!" but first make sure that all those who pay for that research have access to the benefits.

I'm in no way implying we shouldn't fund stem cell research; I'm saying that it is immoral to force those who will not benefit from that research to pay for it. One day, you may be without health care. How would the knowledge sit with you when those who do have health care coverage have access to drugs and procedures you helped fund and you do not? The amount funded is irrelevant to my point. If we spend a dollar of the people's money, then all the people deserve access to the benefits when needed. To limit the benefits to only a select few is wrong; especially when all of us are required to pay for that research.

[skipos]

37. This is not an "either/ or" case. nt

[Odin2005]

38. Same bad logic used by people against space exploration.

[Beelzebud]

39. Exactly....

[Orangepeel]

41. silly. why connect the two?

Our nation does deserve universal health care, but stem cell research sure as hell isn't the reason we don't have it.