Rickey's Place

Civil debate on any subject

About the blog owner

The owner's name is Rickey Braddam.
E-mail me Send mail

Recent posts

Recent comments

Authors

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in anyway.

© Copyright 2008

Pro-Life

There may be as many different definitions of "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" as there are people using one of those labels for themselves or others. Mine is just like anyone else's, unique and totally mine in spite of any resemblance to anyone else's. I do not seek to change, or even challenge, anyone else's beliefs but only to describe mine so that if, in the future, it comes up in discussion you'll know why I say what I do.
IMAO, both sperm and egg are alive prior to fertilization of an egg, but each contains only half the DNA required to define a human. The point of that is, that there is no point at which life begins - life is already there. AFTER fertilization, the egg contains all the DNA required, and is a human being. We recognize infancy, adolescence, and adulthood as stages of growth of a person, to not recognize the period of growth from fertilization of the egg to birth as a similar stage of growth is illogical at best. The egg may be part of the mother until she ovulates and releases it, but after that it is independent of her and can even be fertilized then implanted in a different woman and survive to birth. Also, to consider a baby part of the mother because it is Dependant on her is like considering a child part of the Department of Education if they qualify for free lunches at school. Tell me, does the mother's blood circulate in the fetus?
Having said all that, I do NOT think that issues like Pro-Life/Choice are within the domain of the Federal Government's delegated authority. In fact, I believe that those issues are specifically prohibited to the Federal Government in the First Amendment where it is prohibited from establishing a State Church and thereby a State definition of morality and/or religion. That's state in the sense that countries are states.
I may expand on this at a later date and consider the term 'state' as one of the several states of the United States, but for now I'll close with a question.
Why is it that if a woman decides to abort her pregnancy and the fetus/baby dies it isn't even a crime, but if someone kills her and consequently the fetus/baby dies the killer's punishment can be elevated from a prison sentence to the death penalty?

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Categories: Social Issues
Posted by RBraddam on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:14 AM
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSSRSS comment feed

Research funding for medicines

The 'structure' of our health care system is up-side down.

The federally funded programs we have are focused on paying for doctor, hospital, and preventative costs, while research and development are done by private pharmacological corporations. Those corporations patent their findings and charge high prices for them to recover the costs of the research and generate profits.

Maybe if we reversed that the system would work better.

I mean, let's pay for the development of new medicines with public funds, and the patents for new ones be owned by the government. When new ones are found and tested the gov't could license ALL the 'pharma' companies to produce them. That way every new drug would be a 'generic' from day one. The producers would face price competition and the drugs would be less expensive.
Not only that, but more resources could be directed at natural sources for new medicines. Has anyone bought any vitamens lately that say "with Lycopene" on the label? Lycophene has been available in health food stores for a long time, and has been proven to be effective in improving 'heart health'. It's the chemical in some vegetables that gives them their red color. Plant extracts (phytochemicals) do not treat the symptoms of a disease or condition, they cure the disease or correct the condition. Unfortunately, phytochemicals can't be patented because they occur in nature, so corporations can't make big profits from them.

Wal-Mart fills prescriptions for a large number of generic medications for $4.00 each. How much would insurance costs go down if ALL medications were $4.00 per prescription?

I know that we provide grants and other forms of 'support' for developing new medicines already... so why do the companies who develop those new medicines get the patents? Or do they?

The other side of the system is insurance. If the price of drugs came down significantly the cost of insurance would also come down. An 'assigned risk" system could be used to ensure that insurance is available to everyone. Insurance companies could get tax deductions for the 'above normal' costs (to them) of servicing high-risk policies. They also adjust rates based on personal choices which statisically increase the risk of a high pay-out.
The general idea is to get the government out of the insurance business and put them into the business of co-ordinating and funding research. Sure, research is expensive, but I think that the savings to the public would substantially outweigh the costs of research. Additionally, researchers would be just as motivated to find naturally occuring treatments and cures as to developing expensive procedures to synthesize drugs from those naturally occuring chemicals.

Crazy idea?

P.S. There are already natural treatments and cures for many of our problems, like cancer and diabetes.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Categories: Social Issues
Posted by RBraddam on Saturday, February 09, 2008 1:37 PM
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSSRSS comment feed