Vampire_Hunter_Bob
Cats are great
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090307/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_stem_cells
This is good news for researchers. I'm looking forward to hearing about all the illnesses this stuff can fix.
I still don't really understand what all the controversy was about. The embryos were going to be destroyed in the first place, why not give them to researchers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090307/ap_on_go_pr_wh/health_overhaul
I find the whole argument that it's going to push private companies out of buisness just stupid. Basically it's going to end up being the same thing as public schools when they were first introduced. Still I don't see the problem with it. This will free up a lot of money for everyone all around because they can get something that's not going to cost a lot, yet the people that really want their private insurance company still have the option to use them instead.
WASHINGTON – Eight years of frustration are close to an end for scientists seeking ways to use embryonic stem cells to combat illness and injury.
On Monday, President Barack Obama plans to reverse limits imposed by President George W. Bush on using federal money for research with embryonic stem cells.
The long-promised move will allow a rush of research aimed at one day better treating, if not curing, ailments from diabetes to paralysis — research that is has drawn broad support, including from notables like Nancy Reagan, widow of the late Republican President Ronald Reagan, and the late Christopher Reeve.
But it stirs intense controversy over whether government crosses a moral line with such research, and opponents promptly denounced the move.
Obama will hold an event at the White House to announce the move, a senior administration official said Friday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the policy had not yet been publicly announced.
Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases — such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics, cells that could help those with Parkinson's disease or maybe even Alzheimer's, or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.
"I feel vindicated after eight years of struggle, and I know it's going to energize my research team," said Dr. George Daley of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's Hospital of Boston, a leading stem cell researcher.
But the research is controversial because days-old embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells. They typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away.
Under Bush, taxpayer money for that research was limited to a small number of stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001, lines that in many cases had some drawbacks that limited their potential usability.
But hundreds more of such lines — groups of cells that can continue to propagate in lab dishes — have been created since then, ones that scientists say are healthier, better suited to creating treatments for people rather than doing basic laboratory science.
Work didn't stop. Indeed, it advanced enough that this summer, the private Geron Corp. will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered a spinal cord injury.
Nor does Obama's change fund creation of new lines. But it means that scientists who until now have had to rely on private donations to work with these newer stem cell lines can apply for government money for the research, just like they do for studies of gene therapy or other treatment approaches.
The aim of the policy is to restore "scientific integrity" to the process, the administration official said.
"America's biomedical research enterprise experienced steady decline over the past eight years, with shrinking budgets and policies that elevated ideology over science. This slowed the pace of discovery and the search for cures," said Sean Morrison, director of the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology.
Critics immediately denounced the move.
"Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for experiments that require the destruction of human life," said Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council. "President Obama's policy change is especially troubling given the significant adult stem cell advances that are being used to treat patients now without harming or destroying human embryos."
Indeed, there are different types of stem cells: So-called adult stem cells that produce a specific type of tissue; younger stem cells found floating in amniotic fluid or the placenta. Scientists even have learned to reprogram certain cells to behave like stem cells.
But even researchers who work with varying types consider embryonic stem cells the most flexible and thus most promising form — and say that science, not politics, should ultimately judge.
"Science works best and patients are served best by having all the tools at our disposal," Daley said.
Obama made it clear during the campaign he would overturn Bush's directive.
During the campaign, Obama said, "I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations."
He said he would lift Bush's ban and "ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight."
"Patients and people who've been patient advocates are going to be really happy," said Amy Comstock Rick of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research.
The ruling will bring one immediate change: As of Monday, scientists who've had to meticulously keep separate their federally funded research and their privately funded stem cell work — from buying separate microscopes to even setting up labs in different buildings — won't have that expensive hurdle anymore.
Next, scientists can start applying for research grants from the National Institutes of Health. The NIH already has begun writing guidelines that, among other things, are expected to demand that the cells being used were derived with proper informed consent from the woman or couple who donated the original embryo.
This is good news for researchers. I'm looking forward to hearing about all the illnesses this stuff can fix.
I still don't really understand what all the controversy was about. The embryos were going to be destroyed in the first place, why not give them to researchers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090307/ap_on_go_pr_wh/health_overhaul
WASHINGTON – The search for agreement on health care may be short lived.
The flashpoint is a proposal that would give Americans the option of buying medical coverage through a government plan. President Barack Obama and many Democrats have endorsed it, as one part of a broader health overhaul. On Saturday, Republicans laid down a challenge.
"I'm concerned that if the government steps in, it will eventually push out the private health care plans millions of Americans enjoy today," Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said in the Republican weekly radio address.
Blunt, who will play a leading role in the debate, warned: "This could cause your employer to simply stop offering coverage, hoping the government will pick up the slack."
The proposal he referred to would, for the first time, offer government-sponsored coverage to middle-class families, as an alternative to private health plans. By some estimates, it could reduce premiums by 20 percent or more — making it much more affordable to cover the estimated 48 million people who don't have health coverage.
It could also be a deal breaker for broad, bipartisan agreement on health care.
Insurers fear competition from a government plan could drive them out of business, and Republicans worry it would lead to a government takeover of health care. Liberals, meanwhile, are equally adamant that Americans deserve the choice of government-sponsored health care.
"The purpose of health care reform is to make sure all Americans have health care, not to promote the insurance industry," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who serves on a House panel that will help write the legislation.
The new government coverage could be similar to what seniors have in Medicare, which is run directly from Washington. Or it might be designed like the federal employee health plan, available to members of Congress, and delivered through private insurers.
Asked at the White House health care summit this week about the brewing controversy, the president promised to address the qualms felt by some. But he did not abandon the notion of a government plan.
"I'm not going to respond definitively," Obama said, answering a question from Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. "The thinking on the public option has been that it gives consumers more choices and it helps ... keep the private sector honest, because there's some competition out there.
"I recognize, though, the fear that if a public option is run through Washington, and there are incentives to try to tamp down costs ... that private insurance plans might end up feeling overwhelmed."
Obama says he is committed to preserving a health care system in which government, employers and individuals share responsibility. Many Americans may not realize the government already picks up nearly half the nation's $2.4 trillion health care bill, through programs including Medicare and Medicaid.
A public plan for the middle class could give a final nudge that puts the system firmly in government hands.
Obama's campaign proposal — a foundation for Democrats in Congress — called for setting up a national insurance marketplace through which individuals and small businesses could buy coverage. People could pick private insurance or opt for a government plan that would resemble coverage for federal employees.
A recent analysis by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit group that sponsors health care research, is giving supporters of a public plan some ammunition.
The study estimated costs and coverage under a hypothetical health reform plan similar to what Obama proposed in the campaign. It found that a public plan like Medicare could reduce projected health care costs by about $2 trillion over an 11-year period. Premiums in the public plan would be at least 20 percent lower, partly because of reduced administrative costs. Within a decade or so, some 105 million people would be in the public plan, compared with about 107 million with private insurance.
Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis said the administration has been very interested in the study. "Some of their top economists are on the phone, poring over it," she said in an interview.
Democrats say they will fight to ensure a public plan stays in the final bill.
I find the whole argument that it's going to push private companies out of buisness just stupid. Basically it's going to end up being the same thing as public schools when they were first introduced. Still I don't see the problem with it. This will free up a lot of money for everyone all around because they can get something that's not going to cost a lot, yet the people that really want their private insurance company still have the option to use them instead.
