You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Vote
- Thread starter serendipity730
- Start date
Contrary to popular belief, Bush is not "against" stem cell research. He just believes in establishing some controls over the methods. Most likely, he's like the rest of us who believe life begins at conception - very conflicted. Yes, we want to see cures for this disease and many others even though using embryos, albeit frozen and discarded, is contrary to our beliefs. Hence the conflict. I do believe stem cell research is not in "God's will" but I also realize that this is not a "godly" world and that there is great potential to heal many people with stem cell research. For that reason, I think legally, it should be allowed but there must be controls or things that sound outrageous now may not be that far off in the future. Just my opinion<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
MEL
MEL
Hi, you sit and talk about how the stem cell research is bad,but like most of you say if it is going to find a cure for my grandson who has cf then I say go ahead.Like the other person said they throw them away any how so why not use them.Also they say that the cells that are used are only a week or two old and that means there is no real harm.Now the other person who talked about abortions I don't like them either but I fell if you have a real good reason then do it,ie,health or something in that way other wise I'm against it.Also flip,flop,I know you did not go there because if we want to talk about things that are wrong with these two guys lets do so,well Bush has a problem with telling the truth,you could say he would'nt know what it was if it bit him in the ass,meaning he started after Bin Laden then before we new it,he was going to war with Sadam,Also to find out there never was any weapons of mass destruction,and I think that was a ploy to get us off the fact that he could'nt find Bin Laden,which I don't think he could find his nose in front of him.So what was the sense in going to war,can anyone really answer that.But Bush can point his finger at someone else and say he did'nt get all the info or no one told him about this or that.It is time to let someone else do the job,but I also feel for that person because Bush has made a big mess ie,jobs,health ins,meds,war and the other things he has ..... uped.
Again, Bush is NOT stopping stem cell research, just controlling it. The main difference I see is that Kerry would allow researches to create embryos for the SOLE PURPOSE OF stem cell research. That, to me, is unequivocally wrong. Creating and ending a life for the sole purpose of *attempting* to save another life is wrong. (and yes, it is just an attempt because while the research is very promising, there's no guarantee anyone's life will ever be saved as a result of stem cell research.) I know to those who don't believe that life begins at conception, that may not seem bad, but remember every time we push an issue, it just keeps getting pushed further and further out until something that may seem ludicrous now becomes reality...
One more thing on stem cell research, and then, I promise, I'll keep my opinions to myself<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif" border="0"> - while killing an embryo at just one or two weeks may seem like "no harm done", remember, the heart is BEATING within just a few short weeks after conception...
On the jobs, I agree, Bush screwed up. Plain and simple. On the war, Bush made decisions based on the information he had at the time. I think we need to remember that we may not always agree with the reasons why we went to war (in ANY war), by invalidating the war, we're invalidating the service men and women who served in that war, not to mention those who lost their lives. I will agree though that Bush made mistakes with the war, too. No doubt he's screwed up a lot but I guarantee, if Kerry gets elected, in 4 yrs, we'll have plenty of negative things to say about the policies & decisions he's made.
Ok, I promise I'm finished<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif" border="0">
On the jobs, I agree, Bush screwed up. Plain and simple. On the war, Bush made decisions based on the information he had at the time. I think we need to remember that we may not always agree with the reasons why we went to war (in ANY war), by invalidating the war, we're invalidating the service men and women who served in that war, not to mention those who lost their lives. I will agree though that Bush made mistakes with the war, too. No doubt he's screwed up a lot but I guarantee, if Kerry gets elected, in 4 yrs, we'll have plenty of negative things to say about the policies & decisions he's made.
Ok, I promise I'm finished<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif" border="0">
I"m with you totally, Grandmother of grandson w/ cf. I also beleive you shouldn't vote for someone based on one reason. But look at the entire picture. I beleive research should be in some kind of controlled circumstance. But should be researched non the less. If the only thing that comes out of it is new meds to help alleviate some of our symptoms than so be it. Eva 35w/ cf diagnost at 30.
Does anyone have <i>an unbiased </i>website that states the key issues and objectively summarizes each candidate's plan to address the issue? Everything I've found is extremely slanted one way or the other - nothing neutral in between. Even watching the debates doesn't help much because the candidates redirect focus off their "weak spots" and mostly spout a bunch of rhetoric or else name call. Thanks.
serendipity730
New member
On the topic of stem cell research....
I strongly believe in stem cell research and science (I have degree in biology I better.) Stem cell research DOES NOT use aborted fetuses. It uses fertilized eggs that are frozen - they would otherwise be disposed of, why not use them? They are not life (in my opinion, at least), they were not impanted in a womb. I am not sure what stem cells can do for CF, but they certainly have A LOT of potental in neurodegenrative diseases. We know what it is like to have a chronic illness, don't we owe others with chronic illness the chance to hope? Adult stem cells are not nearly as plentiful and useful as embryonic stem cells. In my opinion, stem cell research isn't an ethical dilemma. What is more important, fertilized eggs that will NEVER become people or people who are alive and fighting illness? <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/">For more information about stem cells visit this site.</a>
Mary
I strongly believe in stem cell research and science (I have degree in biology I better.) Stem cell research DOES NOT use aborted fetuses. It uses fertilized eggs that are frozen - they would otherwise be disposed of, why not use them? They are not life (in my opinion, at least), they were not impanted in a womb. I am not sure what stem cells can do for CF, but they certainly have A LOT of potental in neurodegenrative diseases. We know what it is like to have a chronic illness, don't we owe others with chronic illness the chance to hope? Adult stem cells are not nearly as plentiful and useful as embryonic stem cells. In my opinion, stem cell research isn't an ethical dilemma. What is more important, fertilized eggs that will NEVER become people or people who are alive and fighting illness? <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/">For more information about stem cells visit this site.</a>
Mary
I am a huge Kerry supporter. I believe he is far superior to Bush, more measured, more intelligent and more concerned about the important issues our society faces. I am astonished by Bush supporters.Unless they are very wealthy, I cannot imagine how anyone's life has improved during this administration.
And best of all.....Kerry tells you what you want to hear! Oh, what a good quality!
Actions speak louder than words to me and at least Bush stands strong on what he believes. You know the old saying....Stand for something or you'll fall for anything. Which part of that do you think applies to Kerry?
Actions speak louder than words to me and at least Bush stands strong on what he believes. You know the old saying....Stand for something or you'll fall for anything. Which part of that do you think applies to Kerry?
heres the story of medicare lol...
medicare was available for everyone. you could be a billionaire and youd still get free healthcare. that was australias first mistake, it should have been made specifically for the chronically ill and poor. so, because no one at all was paying for healthcare, the funds are starting to disappear and the government wont put anymore money into it. because anything inside a public hospital is free and funded by the underfunded medicare, the hospitals suffer the most. there is no new equipment, waiting lists are about 3 years or more for some people, no nurses, no doctors [this applies alot to perth. heaps of doctors leave here to go elsewhere]. also, people who cant afford to see gp's end up clogging free emergency departments with stupid things. it costs 40 to 50 dollars upfront to see a gp here. not to mention one of the hospitals here hasnt been touched in like 30 years. one section doesnt even have air conditioning. that section happens to be the respiratory dept hah, lucky us?
so instead of john howard keeping medicare for the poor and chronically ill, hes either going to get rid of it all together or keep it the way it is now and make no improvements. we also have overpriced private insurance with hardly any benefits. so not many people are insured or they are insured and realise that it means nothing and that they still have to pay for most of their treatment. it cost my parents 200 dollars for me to just walk through the doors of a private hospital, as well as paying part of the cost of my sinus surgery. so next time i will go public. its all the wrong way round here! sorry to bore anyone.
medicare was available for everyone. you could be a billionaire and youd still get free healthcare. that was australias first mistake, it should have been made specifically for the chronically ill and poor. so, because no one at all was paying for healthcare, the funds are starting to disappear and the government wont put anymore money into it. because anything inside a public hospital is free and funded by the underfunded medicare, the hospitals suffer the most. there is no new equipment, waiting lists are about 3 years or more for some people, no nurses, no doctors [this applies alot to perth. heaps of doctors leave here to go elsewhere]. also, people who cant afford to see gp's end up clogging free emergency departments with stupid things. it costs 40 to 50 dollars upfront to see a gp here. not to mention one of the hospitals here hasnt been touched in like 30 years. one section doesnt even have air conditioning. that section happens to be the respiratory dept hah, lucky us?
so instead of john howard keeping medicare for the poor and chronically ill, hes either going to get rid of it all together or keep it the way it is now and make no improvements. we also have overpriced private insurance with hardly any benefits. so not many people are insured or they are insured and realise that it means nothing and that they still have to pay for most of their treatment. it cost my parents 200 dollars for me to just walk through the doors of a private hospital, as well as paying part of the cost of my sinus surgery. so next time i will go public. its all the wrong way round here! sorry to bore anyone.
Thanks for the insight. I agree that Medicare should not be available to everyone. I also think that the government should not be in control of what Dr's I see, where I can go, etc.
What I do wish the government would do is: I wish they would put caps on drug companies, where, say, they can only mark up drugs a certain percentage. You can't tell me that TOBI & colistin, among others, cost even close to what the consumer pays. It's just outrageous! And now that CHIRON lost income for flu shots, I hope the cost of TOBI isn't going to rise even higher than it already is! I would love it if the financial statements of these drug companies were made public, I think we would be shocked<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif" border="0">
What I do wish the government would do is: I wish they would put caps on drug companies, where, say, they can only mark up drugs a certain percentage. You can't tell me that TOBI & colistin, among others, cost even close to what the consumer pays. It's just outrageous! And now that CHIRON lost income for flu shots, I hope the cost of TOBI isn't going to rise even higher than it already is! I would love it if the financial statements of these drug companies were made public, I think we would be shocked<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif" border="0">
I have been watching the Kerry and Bush debates.
I believe that Kerry is the best choice for USA.
Bush said “Our healthcare system is the envy of the world” in the last debate.
I’m from Sweden and we have government-controlled health care.
The maximum amount we pay to go to doctors in a year is 120, 65$ and the maximum amount we pay for medicines in a year is 241, 31$. The rest is free.
We still have to pay for hospitalization, 9, 38 - 12, 07$ per day.
If you stay longer then 21 days in a row the rest is free.
I get paid 302, 97$ once a month to help finance extra expenses I have due to my CF.
I read on this forum that in USA, the average life span for someone with CF is 32. In Sweden it’s 40.
So the quality off our care is better then yours. I do not envy you.
USA can do better.
Maybe it’s time for a change?
Sorry about my English, Ginny from Sweden.
I believe that Kerry is the best choice for USA.
Bush said “Our healthcare system is the envy of the world” in the last debate.
I’m from Sweden and we have government-controlled health care.
The maximum amount we pay to go to doctors in a year is 120, 65$ and the maximum amount we pay for medicines in a year is 241, 31$. The rest is free.
We still have to pay for hospitalization, 9, 38 - 12, 07$ per day.
If you stay longer then 21 days in a row the rest is free.
I get paid 302, 97$ once a month to help finance extra expenses I have due to my CF.
I read on this forum that in USA, the average life span for someone with CF is 32. In Sweden it’s 40.
So the quality off our care is better then yours. I do not envy you.
USA can do better.
Maybe it’s time for a change?
Sorry about my English, Ginny from Sweden.
From what I've read, Kerry doesn't actually have a true plan fully worked out for health care. He *says* he has a plan but when I listen in the debates, or read online what he's said, most of what he's saying is what's WRONG with the current system. When he does actually explain how he'd fix it, I haven't heard HOW he'll pay to fix it. And, while I believe in equal rights, and don't want to start a debate, if he does allow governmental benefits to gay/lesbian couples, where will that money come from? That means the gov't will be giving money to them for SS and any other program the partner qualifies for. The problem is, those programs are already depleted of funds, cutting back, etc, so where will the money come from? Look at medicare - none of the drug cards either candidates want to offer will "fix" the problem that our seniors are paying for their own meds. My parents being one of them, with two on cholesterol lowering meds, one on plavix and a beta blocker, another on asthma meds, and both on allergy meds, you can guess how much their pharmacy bill is!! That said though, I do NOT want the government making medical decisions for me. HMOs are bad enough! I think Bush is on the right track with his plan, it just needs to be more extensive and we need to find more money to help fund it. But, in the end, we should be CONSUMERS of health care, just as we are everything else (ie meaning making informed choices instead of just doing what some dr tells us to do without researching everything about it including it's cost.)
As far as the pharmaceutical companies are concerned, the problem is multi-faceted in my opinion. First thing, other countries DO put caps on what drug companies can charge. Some of those caps ARE at less than what it cost to make the drug (remember there were significant R&D costs attached besides the actual cost to manufacture.) As a result, the US is subsidizing those countries because if the pharmaceutical companies have to sell to them at a loss, they have to recoup it somewhere so guess where?! Next, in my opinion, they spend WAY too much on advertising. Why should there be tv commercials for meds? Your dr should be the one determining which meds are the best for you, (along with your input from past history and your own research), all commercials do is market to people who don't/can't/won't do their own research!! Another thing, drug reps spend too much on entertainment. We're at the dr's office weekly for allergy shots and at probably half of our visits, they're receiving something from the drug reps whether it's cookies/donuts, full luncheons, or just some silly trinkets! And, then, of course there's the fact that company execs make so much money. Ever notice how some execs are making 100s of millions/year while their company is in the red?? Maybe if they wouldn't make so much, the consumer wouldn't have to pay so much and companies wouldn't lose so much & wouldn't need to lay so many people off.
As far as the state of the economy, if you trace the decline back it STARTED IN CLINTON'S administration. Bush is the fall guy. Not that he hasn't contributed by helping out his rich buddies with tax breaks, but it certainly isn't all his fault. If you're totally honest, NEITHER candidate is really out there to help any of us... Just my opinion. (Oh, and for what it's worth, I will be voting for Bush.)
Oh, and Kylie, I agree, sounds like Australia really screwed up! My guess is they didn't limit to poor/uninsured because they didn't want to be accused of discriminating. But, it certainly sounds like your medical system is as screwed up as ours. I think there's just no easy answers<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif" border="0">
As far as the pharmaceutical companies are concerned, the problem is multi-faceted in my opinion. First thing, other countries DO put caps on what drug companies can charge. Some of those caps ARE at less than what it cost to make the drug (remember there were significant R&D costs attached besides the actual cost to manufacture.) As a result, the US is subsidizing those countries because if the pharmaceutical companies have to sell to them at a loss, they have to recoup it somewhere so guess where?! Next, in my opinion, they spend WAY too much on advertising. Why should there be tv commercials for meds? Your dr should be the one determining which meds are the best for you, (along with your input from past history and your own research), all commercials do is market to people who don't/can't/won't do their own research!! Another thing, drug reps spend too much on entertainment. We're at the dr's office weekly for allergy shots and at probably half of our visits, they're receiving something from the drug reps whether it's cookies/donuts, full luncheons, or just some silly trinkets! And, then, of course there's the fact that company execs make so much money. Ever notice how some execs are making 100s of millions/year while their company is in the red?? Maybe if they wouldn't make so much, the consumer wouldn't have to pay so much and companies wouldn't lose so much & wouldn't need to lay so many people off.
As far as the state of the economy, if you trace the decline back it STARTED IN CLINTON'S administration. Bush is the fall guy. Not that he hasn't contributed by helping out his rich buddies with tax breaks, but it certainly isn't all his fault. If you're totally honest, NEITHER candidate is really out there to help any of us... Just my opinion. (Oh, and for what it's worth, I will be voting for Bush.)
Oh, and Kylie, I agree, sounds like Australia really screwed up! My guess is they didn't limit to poor/uninsured because they didn't want to be accused of discriminating. But, it certainly sounds like your medical system is as screwed up as ours. I think there's just no easy answers<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif" border="0">
The way I see it, as someones else earlier posted.....Bush ain't done nothing for me!
That is except my TOBI prices went up.
Obviously all the candidates make promises that they can not fulfill!
Just review what Bush promised. Can't find much he followed through with!
But one of the most important factors for me is our economy.
The way administrations usually do it is they balance the countries budget.
As they take money for one situation they make sure the money is made up for some where else.
Bush and his administration have not done this.
I don't buy the hype from any of the candidates.
They are all spouting a lot of crap in order to sound better than the other day to day.
Or to just make the other sound worse.
Well pay as you go is something that the last democratic president did and something that Kerry proposes.
So I think you know who will get my vote.
Jake
That is except my TOBI prices went up.
Obviously all the candidates make promises that they can not fulfill!
Just review what Bush promised. Can't find much he followed through with!
But one of the most important factors for me is our economy.
The way administrations usually do it is they balance the countries budget.
As they take money for one situation they make sure the money is made up for some where else.
Bush and his administration have not done this.
I don't buy the hype from any of the candidates.
They are all spouting a lot of crap in order to sound better than the other day to day.
Or to just make the other sound worse.
Well pay as you go is something that the last democratic president did and something that Kerry proposes.
So I think you know who will get my vote.
Jake
I would like to point out that President Bush wanted to "double" the National Institutes of Health annual budget to 30 billion dollars and the National Institutes of Health is the research arm of the federal government. Today, the National Institutes of Health budget has reached 28 billion dollars under President Bush, which is almost "double". This increase funding will benefit cystic fibrosis research in many areas.
President Bush stated that he wanted to increase research funding, President Bush has increased research funding by almost double- 28 billion dollars annually.
President Bush stated that he wanted to increase research funding, President Bush has increased research funding by almost double- 28 billion dollars annually.
serendipity730
New member
I can't read this post anymore, it is too upsetting.<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif" border="0">
Serendipity,
I just wanted to thank you for starting this thread. WHile it's obvious we don't all agree, your thread has encouraged me to do a lot more studying on stem cell research. I'm still really conflicted over how I feel about some of it. I know I'm totally against creating embryos just for the purpose of research and I do still believe very deeply that using embryos is not morally right BUT I also feel very deeply that it has a purpose, and if the embryos will be destroyed anyway, if they can help us get closer to a cure for this and other diseases, I don't think it should be banned or restricted to the extent it currently is. I've also learned a lot more about Bush's policy on stem cell research. Unfortunately, there are just too many other reasons why I am still in favor of Bush (also researched those much more closely) BUT, I am much more enlightened and that will help me to vote better in future elections. As it stands, my state always votes Republican anyway.
I know you're disappointed by the path this thread has taken but I just wanted to say thank you. I am much more enlightened and know all of my facts much better as a direct result of this thread. So, anyway, THANK YOU for being the catalyst which helped me to do my research<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
I just wanted to thank you for starting this thread. WHile it's obvious we don't all agree, your thread has encouraged me to do a lot more studying on stem cell research. I'm still really conflicted over how I feel about some of it. I know I'm totally against creating embryos just for the purpose of research and I do still believe very deeply that using embryos is not morally right BUT I also feel very deeply that it has a purpose, and if the embryos will be destroyed anyway, if they can help us get closer to a cure for this and other diseases, I don't think it should be banned or restricted to the extent it currently is. I've also learned a lot more about Bush's policy on stem cell research. Unfortunately, there are just too many other reasons why I am still in favor of Bush (also researched those much more closely) BUT, I am much more enlightened and that will help me to vote better in future elections. As it stands, my state always votes Republican anyway.
I know you're disappointed by the path this thread has taken but I just wanted to say thank you. I am much more enlightened and know all of my facts much better as a direct result of this thread. So, anyway, THANK YOU for being the catalyst which helped me to do my research<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">