Printable View
The old guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss_mUjre5Kw
The new guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9PIN03qGjg
The new guy gets the edge, no doubt; he even enlists the vulgar "ain't" to aid his inclusive vision.
It's all the same in the end, though.
Ain't it.
On a sidenote, I'd be very interested to hear from anyone willing to honestly appraise/characterize/discuss the difference between the two.
Honestly.
The next president will say innit.:)
IMO both are after the same objectives. One was speaking in a boom period the other was speaking when firms were going to the wall. Because of that I cannot honestly compare.
I wonder how Repuplicans will feel about their health care when the DNA exclusions start appearing in a big way. Almost everyone is wired to be susceptible to certain afflictions. When the Insurance companies demand a DNA test before issuing a policy and charging, or failing to pay accordingly. Will they then demand an appraisal of the present, IMO, unfair system. I don't think so. It will be a case of "let more of them eat cake"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
There are those (I am one of them) who believe the greater risk of such things lies in the direction Obama favors.
I don't know how you've arrived at your conclusion, Bob.
Even the liberals here aren't saying that, and they love all the DNA/cloning/genetic-engineering stuff.
The republicans have been the ones resisting it.
The Republicans- dominated as they are by the Christian Right- "resist" that "stuff" because they can't find a Biblical citation for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
One wonders how they justify cars/airplanes/iPods...but I'm sure there's a twisted logic that can be brought to bear.
DNA discrimination was outlawed by an act of congress here.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aGlkCem6Llnc
Quote:
By Rob Waters and Aliza Marcus
April 24 (Bloomberg) -- Companies and health insurers would be forbidden to use the results of genetic tests to deny people jobs or medical coverage under legislation approved 95-0 today by the U.S. Senate.
The measure, an amended version of one the House passed a year ago, is intended to protect people from discrimination based on DNA tests showing a genetic predisposition to disease. The House is expected to accept the Senate changes, and President George W. Bush is expected to sign the legislation.
Genetic tests can help predict a person's likelihood of getting cancers and other diseases and are used by researchers seeking new treatments. The legislation would bar insurers from using test results to deny coverage or raise premiums. Employers would be blocked from collecting genetic information on workers and using results in hiring or firing. This will enable people to get tested without fear of repercussion, supporters said.
``Up until now, our laws have not kept pace with emerging technology,'' Senator Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, said in an e-mailed statement after the vote. ``What good are genetic breakthroughs if their benefits are not realized by those they would benefit?''
Health plans and insurers also would be barred from requiring that patients take particular gene tests.
``This bill recognizes that discrimination based on a person's genetic identity is just as unacceptable as discrimination based on a person's race or religion,'' Senator Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, said. ``The administration cooperated and we are grateful for its support.''
Administration Support
Michael Leavitt, secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, said he hoped the House would move quickly to pass the measure.
``No American should have to worry that their genetic information will affect their ability to get health insurance or a job,'' Leavitt said in an e-mailed statement. ``New advances in medical research have been accompanied by an uneasiness about how this information will be used -- and that is a barrier we must remove.''
The legislation would make it easier for scientists working to uncover links between genetics and common diseases such as heart disease and diabetes, Kathy Hudson, director of the Washington-based Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University, said in a telephone interview.
Reprisals Feared
More than 90 percent of people in the U.S. surveyed by the center say one of their biggest concerns about taking part in such medical research is the possibility that their genetic information will be used against them, Hudson said.
``Now, researchers will be able to say no, it won't happen,'' Hudson said.
The legislation also removes an obstacle that keeps some people from getting tested to find out whether they have a high risk of developing diseases such as breast or colon cancer, said Gregory Critchfield, president of Myriad Genetics Laboratories, a unit of Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics Inc.
``If we talk to patients who have decided not to be tested, the No. 1 reason given by those individuals for not being tested is the fear that they might possibly be discriminated against,'' Critchfield said in a telephone interview yesterday.
The issue became personal for David Resnick, a Boston attorney who works with local hospitals and researchers. His mother died 10 years ago of ovarian cancer and he wondered whether he might be a carrier of genes that may boost the chances of a man developing prostate cancer. The genes increase a woman's risk of breast cancer.
No Guarantee
He spoke with genetics counselors at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston about whether to get tested and agonized over what they told him.
``They explained to me that there is no guarantee that there wouldn't be genetic discrimination,'' he said in a telephone interview today. ``I didn't get the test done.''
The legislation should help assure patients that their genetic information can't be ``misused,'' Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the Washington trade association, said in an e-mailed statement.
Lawmakers will follow the measure's implementation to ensure that people's privacy is respected, Senator Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said.
``We will not hesitate to revisit the bill,'' he said on the Senate floor.
More than a dozen companies sell genetic tests, including Servx, DNA Direct, Roche Holding AG, Genelex and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings.
Years of Effort
The bill was first introduced in the House 13 years ago by Representative Louise Slaughter, a Democrat from Rochester, New York. After its passage last year by the House, Senate action was blocked by Senator Tom Coburn, a doctor and Republican from Oklahoma. Coburn was concerned the bill would be a ``trial lawyer boon'' that would encourage lawsuits against employers and insurers, Coburn spokesman Don Tatro said in an e-mail.
Coburn allowed a vote after changes were made easing his concerns, Tatro said.
Well, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerThe Republicans- dominated as they are by the Christian Right- "resist" that "stuff" because they can't find a Biblical citation for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
One wonders how they justify cars/airplanes/iPods...but I'm sure there's a twisted logic that can be brought to bear.
Liberals must be okay with the lot of it because they are totally bereft of scruples, per Mr. Alinsky's blueprint.
BTW-
Have you heard fetal stem cells are no longer necessarily "preferred" over other sources or do you have the same crowd presiding over the relative science as you have doing your shoddy work on man-made global-warming.
Also-
Kudos to Bob for at least attempting to stay on topic.
Someone should really get a mod to rename this section of the forum to reflect what it really is. Maybe "The j2k4 Zone" or "Conservocore with j2k4."
"Shoddy work on man-made global-warming"?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Luddite, thy name is j2.
Yes, I was easily persuaded by evil factage to disbelieve that feeble construct.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker"Shoddy work on man-made global-warming"?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Luddite, thy name is j2.
Actually I have had to dissuade them from doing precisely that on several occasions, ftw.Quote:
Originally Posted by FleshGregor
You should start a blog or something (if you haven't already). You'd probably reach a wider audience. Seriously, though, keep up the good work.Quote:
Actually I have had to dissuade them from doing precisely that on several occasions, ftw.
Thank you, but I don't feel my production here would be blog-worthy, I haven't the time to give it what it would require, and frankly, I'm not up to my own standards for such activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by FleshGregor
It's one of the reasons I don't read blogs.