Missouri Prop 2

[MTM]

Wayne. These people own several compnays that will make a lot of money off of this bill. And the tax payers will be footing the bill. I suggest you do some reading on it. I also found that in the bowels of this bell it says that colning is OK and will be done. People had best read this bill before voting on it. It will make Missouri the place to go or come to for this type of thing. It will be just a might late if you vote before reading this bill. Ron

[damselfly]

There has been much discussion about Amendment 2, so to add to it, here is a link to an editorial in the sprfld newsleader today from Dr. Duda.

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a.../610310314/1091

hope i did this right.....

[Wayne SW/MO]

Ron, I have read it, and while I'll admit I might have missed something, I'm still seeing that cloning is allowed, but not the cloning of a human being.

I've been treated for cancer twice, and both times some companies made some money, but it was my only option because there is no government controlled health care, and I'm thankfully for that. I'm glad that some companies were willing to make the investments to take medical technology to new levels.

My mother has had cancer twice, and she's 90 and its in spite of the government, not because of them, its because companies invested money to offer something some people would not want to be without.

I have no doubt that if stem cell research succeeds, a great many people will ether have a better life, or a longer fuller life, and I have no doubt that there will be some profits made. I can take some comfort though in the fact that a lot of this profit will find its way into peoples retirements and other beneficial endeavors.

I don't see the argument that because some company will make money, good health is is a tainted product.

[gonefishin]

I have no doubt that if stem cell research succeeds, a great many people will ether have a better life, or a longer fuller life, and I have no doubt that there will be some profits made. I can take some comfort though in the fact that a lot of this profit will find its way into peoples retirements and other beneficial endeavors.

I don't see the argument that because some company will make money, good health is is a tainted product.

It is not a matter of the companies making money. It is a matter of the tax payers footing the bill for the company then getting screwed by the company when a treatment/drug comes out.

Its like this. People say "Yeah stem cell research is a good thing so lets pay for the research and they do. Then later a cancer cure comes from the research. Some person who voted for and paid taxes to do the research is later diagnosed with a cancer that can be cured using the results of the research. What is the person who voted for and paid for the research told? Yeah, you have cancer and we have the cure for it that you voted for and paid your taxes to develope now here is the deal,gGive us $250,000 and live or don't give us the money and die, we dont care which.

If the research and development is fully paid for by the company who comes up with the treatment no problem they can charge what they want but, when the taxpayers pay for the research and development they (the taxpayers) should not be cheated.

[Wayne SW/MO]

What is the person who voted for and paid for the research told? Yeah, you have cancer and we have the cure for it that you voted for and paid your taxes to develope now here is the deal,gGive us $250,000 and live or don't give us the money and die, we dont care which.

Well I'm at a big disadvantage here because I've never heard of a case like this?

Government grants for research are generally given to schools and non profit institutes. Any successes are shared with any and all commercial organizations, at least thats the only thing I can come up with. With that in mind it would seem that going that route would kick in the competative aspect of marketing 17 years early.

Are we being ripped of by all the great advances from the research money invested in the space program? Many of them involved health.

[gonefishin]

Well I'm at a big disadvantage here because I've never heard of a case like this?

Government grants for research are generally given to schools and non profit institutes. Any successes are shared with any and all commercial organizations, at least thats the only thing I can come up with. With that in mind it would seem that going that route would kick in the competative aspect of marketing 17 years early.

Are we being ripped of by all the great advances from the research money invested in the space program? Many of them involved health.

You are right Wayne but is this issue different? I think so otherwise there would not need to be an ammendment. Here are a couple of quotes from earlier discussion:

I just saw a new commercial for this prop #2 - stem cell initative. It was the fire fighers.

I have a big problem with the way they are spinning this issue.

It's all about the $$$$$$$$$... not cures.

This amendment will guarantee state money for research. It's a blank check to research firms to study stem cells.

Stem cell: there are several kinds. Adult, ambilicord, embryo... I support research of stem cell too, but not at that price.

What about the money... the way the amendment is written, the state cannot turn down a request for funds by companies who want to do this research. The ads say, "make $$ available" but it's more than that.

Basically the taxpayers in MO would be investors no different than if they bought into businesses on the stock market. I dont think the stock holders would be very happy if they pay all the bills and never get any returns while someone else is getting ultra rich. I think Enron tried that and it didnt work. If they are going to pursue this venture in this manner then the only way I can see to protect the stockholders (taspayers) interest and investment is to make all discoveries public domain rather than give one company or person patent rights. In this manner at least any drugs or therapies would be generic.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I assume this is the section they are quoting.

5. To ensure that no governmental body or official arbitrarily restricts funds designated for purposes other than stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures as a means of inhibiting lawful stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures, no state or local governmental body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that (i) lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures, allows for such research or therapies and cures to be conducted or provided on its premises, or is otherwise associated with such research or therapies and cures, but (ii) receives or is eligible to receive such public funds for purposes other than such stem cell-related activities, on account of, or otherwise for the purpose of creating disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with, or preventing, restricting, obstructing, or discouraging, such stem cell-related activities.

Again, I don't read it that way.

[Champ]

Personally, I feel Jim Stowers can put his money wherever he wants.

It's just good to know where that money comes from, Stowers' personal fortune made by American Century.

Also, not-for-profit corporation does not mean big money isn't involved.

I don't know if Jim Stowers will gain anything from this, but the Stowers institute will.

The way I understand, at the end of the year, the not-for-profit must make sure the money taken in is put somewhere as to not show a profit.

I am not an accountant, but the money can go to employee salaries, investments, buildings, land, charity, etc.

[gonefishin]

I assume this is the section they are quoting.

5. To ensure that no governmental body or official arbitrarily restricts funds designated for purposes other than stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures as a means of inhibiting lawful stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures, no state or local governmental body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that (i) lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures, allows for such research or therapies and cures to be conducted or provided on its premises, or is otherwise associated with such research or therapies and cures, but (ii) receives or is eligible to receive such public funds for purposes other than such stem cell-related activities, on account of, or otherwise for the purpose of creating disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with, or preventing, restricting, obstructing, or discouraging, such stem cell-related activities.

Again, I don't read it that way.

I dont know how else to read it. To me it says that monies have to be paid to stem cell research above all other things...emergencies, schools, public health ect ect

Another cool touch is that women who have their ovaries over stimulated during egg farming causing infertility have no rights to recourse.

Yep. This is an ammendment I am going to rush out and vote on.......NOT

[Wayne SW/MO]

Don't think so GF, I believe its to guard against something similar to what Holden pulled when he withheld money from the schools. It does say provided or eligible to be provided, I.E. earmarked money.