Text 14844, 169 rader
Skriven 2007-05-22 21:13:08 av Josh Hill (1257.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: unions
==================
On Tue, 22 May 2007 03:48:59 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <dqh453tb5han7mtkmabcgmodi1hu07s2i1@4ax.com>,
> Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 00:50:56 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <vvb4531v0nj337c9opf7f258u3odijmi4e@4ax.com>,
>> > Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Slashing the death rate from cancer (no one knows how to "cure" it)
>> > Small nit, but that isn't right.   Testicular cancers for the most part 
>> >are cured (thanks to the boys at Indiana University, the 5-year cure 
>> >rate runs about 90% or so. . Some of the forms of lukemia are cured. 
>> >Most of the actual curing is being done by the private sector taking 
>> >advantage of some of the basic research being done by the feds.
>> 
>> The process would be virtually nowhere without the basic research
>> financed by the Federal Government.
>   Yep. And basically nowhere without the development of actual 
>medications by the private sector.

Which has what to do with my point, as opposed to the one you did the
other day? I said that the government should do what the government
does best. Similarly, I believe that the private sector should do what
it does best.
 
>> >> Slashing the death rate from AIDS (again, no one knows how to cure it)
>> >
>> >  But again most of the heavy lifting has been done by private 
>> >entitities after the feds did much of the basic stuff. 
>> 
>> In that case, yes. But again, the process would have gone nowhere
>> without the basic research.
>> 
>     But what good is the basic research if the next step isn't taken? 
>Both are needed. But the government research should be the really basic 
>stuff.

>       Even then there are interesting concerns. There are a number of 
>studies (including of AIDS research and others) that show no correlation 
>between NIH research funding and the impact of diseases as measured by 
>numbers of individuals, cost to the country or other measures. Funding 
>is a political process so funding goes to those making the most noise. 
>Not a real pristine system. 
>    For example:
># For every AIDS death, NIH allocated $43,206 in research -- for a total 
>of $1.4 billion.
>
># Research into heart disease commanded only $1,160 per heart-disease 
>related death -- at a total cost of $851.6 million.
>
># Yet 733,834 heart patients died in 1996, versus just 32,655 from AIDS.
>     You see the same thing in cancers where much of the money is 
>allocated to childhood cancers despite the fact that overall, they are 
>relatively rare. 
>     Some other examples at:
>http://www.ncpa.org/health/pdh39.html

There are undoubtedly political factors at work here, some IMO
justified (do we not find childhood cancer particularly horrific and
children especially deserving of our protection and concern) and some
not (e.g., higher funding for breast cancer research than the even
more lethal prostate cancer).

At the same time, logic suggests that such statistics are incomplete
without context. They don't appear to take into account, for example,
the number of years of life lost -- a disease like AIDS strikes the
young, whereas heart disease strikes old duffers like me. They don't
seem to take into account worldwide death rates, e.g., AIDS is much
more common and takes a much higher toll in Africa than it does here.
They don't seem to take into account the cost/benefit ratio -- a
dollar spent in one disease may save more lives, or years of life,
than $10 spent in another.

I don't begin to know how valid our research priorities are when all
of these considerations are taken into account. I /do/ know that the
doctors I know uniformly lament that since Reagan money has dried up
for basic research. Right-wing politicians tend, I think, to be
hard-headed business types who have the businessman's practical bent
and contempt for theory. They insist upon "practical results" and
"practical research," without understanding that such results occur
only because of basic advances.

>> >> Slashing our energy consumption below what it would otherwise have
>> >> been
>> >> 
>> >> That last requires a bit of explanation. You point out, rightly, that
>> >> the government didn't end our dependence on foreign oil. But you
>> >> ignore the fact that that was in large measure because the
>> >> anti-government, pro-business right, along with corrupt energy-funded
>> >> politicians of every stripe blocked steps that would have moved us in
>> >> the right direction. I think you'll admit that it's fairly silly to
>> >> block government on the grounds that it's ineffectual and then say
>> >> "See? Government is ineffectual." Yet that's what the anti-government
>> >> right does all the time.
>> >
>> >    So, you are in favor of an emminently corruptable entity being in 
>> >charge of pretty much everythgin. 
>> 
>> Where exactly did I say that, or anything like that? I'm in favor of
>> the Government being in charge of whatever it's best at being in
>> charge of, and opposed to knee-jerk ideological sound bites like
>> "government is bad."

>     YOU said above that the reason we don't have less dependence on 
>foreign oil is because.. and I quote you personally: 
> But you

Something seems to have gone wrong with your paste, so I'm not sure
what it is you say I said.

>> >> ignore the fact that that was in large measure because the
>> >> anti-government, pro-business right, along with corrupt energy-funded
>> >> politicians of every stripe blocked steps that would have moved us in
>> >> the right direction. 
>      What else I am supposed to take from "corrupt energy-funded 
>politicians of EVERY STRIPE (emphasis mine before you mention it)"?
>>  
>> >> >So, some predictions for what government could do if they got involved 
>> >> >in the energy crisis business?  Sponsor Halliburton to build a massive 
>> >> >hydrogen infrastructure across the US, including retrofitting pipelines,

>> >> >filling stations and massive electrolysis stations.  It would cost us 
>> >> >billions, would feather the pork nests of 100s of congresscritters, and 
>> >> >would leave us unable to move once we found out how much the cars and 
>> >> >fuel would actually cost.
>> 
>> >      Yet you want these guys to take over and run things? Wussup with 
>> >dat? 
>> 
>> That was Charlie's comment, not mine. In point of fact, the degree to
>> which government money is spent wisely seems to be highly dependent on
>> the administration and somewhat dependent on the political makeup of
>> Congress.
>       Oops. Mea culpa. 
>
>      You have anything remotely resembling a fact to back this up or 
>are just citing your personal biases again?

Talk about Hobson's choice questions!

I answered as I did because I sat here and thought about it -- that
is, I ran through my mental Rolodex file of presidents and congresses
and my recollections of how much pork they had tolerated, as well as
articles I've read over the years and reached a tentative conclusion.

You seem to reject thought of that sort out of hand. I find that it
usually leads to the right answer.

But -- what matter. If I had quoted an article to the same effect,
someone would have flamed me for getting all my information from
Google.

-- 
Josh

"The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet
that people have the right to live life as they please,
as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. . . .
The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members
do not care about the Constitution and they are the
ones making all the noise." - Barry Goldwater
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)