Destroying embryos or destroying these guys’ grants?

If it’s at all possible to boil a high-profile lawsuit down to “This would cut in on our action,” you should probably just ignore the plaintiff. This is the case in Sherley v. Sebelius, in which two researchers, James Sherley and Theresa Deisher, are suing the federal government over grants for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research:

They argued that they were at risk of being squeezed out of federal grants for their own work with adult stem cells, which does not involve the destruction of embryos.

You can’t see me right now, but I’m sarcastically rubbing the tips of my thumb and index finger together. But let’s explore their “It’s not about us” argument anyway:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to review a challenge to federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research brought by two researchers who said the U.S. National Institutes of Health rules on such studies violate federal law. . . . U.S. law prohibits the NIH from funding the creation of human embryos for research or research in which human embryos are destroyed, but leaves room for debate over whether that includes work with [hESC].

This case is from 2009; an executive order from that year opened up hESC research on “embryos that come from fertility clinics and were going to be thrown away otherwise.” A district court ruling later blocked that order, followed by a ruling from an appellate court that allowed the funding to resume. The U.S. Supreme Court, like the rest of us, doesn’t want to deal with it anymore.

Some of you might wonder how it’s possible to extract stem cells from an embryo without destroying it or, in other cases, creating a new one. If you’re willing to read through a whole lot of biological jargon, you can read up on two methods, this one and this one, that researchers have discovered that skip either step. Assuming a future stem cell research project uses either method or something similar, nothing in U.S. law would prevent them from federal funding.

After that’s out of the way, the loudest arguments you’ll hear against using federal funds for hESC research are moral. The embryos that need not be destroyed do come from fertility clinics, after all, which means researchers are benefiting from abortion in many cases. That’s not a good enough reason to cut off opportunities for medical research with enormous potential to save and improve the lives of humans that have already been born. Are you a pro-lifer who disagrees? Don’t waste your time by telling me so.

As far as Sherley goes, there’s nothing more for the Supreme Court to do, and they responded accordingly by refusing to review the challenge to the appeal ruling. My condolences to Sherley and Deisher for potentially missing out on that sweet, sweet federal grant money. P.S. lol

Don’t hate the games, heal the players

Reasonable causes to link to the Newtown shooting: lax gun laws, even more lax mental health services. Unreasonable causes: the decline of school prayer, unarmed principals (we’ll get deeper into this later), homosexuals (I rarely say this, but go, Anonymous!) and violent video games, which suspected shooter Adam Lanza was known to enjoy. Yet the latter may figure prominently in Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) proposed “national commission on violence“:

I’m always reluctant about commissions, but I really believe we ought to have a national commission on violence. . . . That includes looking at violence in the entertainment culture, mental health services and, of course, gun laws.

Well, two out of three ain’t bad. Certainly after six high-profile mass shootings by disturbed individuals across the U.S. – Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Columbine, Virginia Tech and Oak Creek – it’s time to take as comprehensive a look possible at the circumstances that help them happen, and where governments can step in to correct them. But “violence in the entertainment culture?” I thought we were off that.

Adam plays violent video games on a regular basis. He loves going to see movies with gore and explosions. He actually finds the use of props in professional wrestling entertaining. But I don’t recall a single story of him so much as punching someone. He’s less prone to violence than me (I don’t deal well with uncooperative electronics), and I have no use for that kind of entertainment. That’s not the X-factor. They don’t create violent people.

At worst, this kind of entertainment is best not seen by those suffering from mental disorders that include elements of violence and paranoia. Imagine if the child in this story – which, thankfully, has spread like wildfire – played Halo all day and was able to access a weapon not unlike those in the game in his parents’ home. That’s a problem much more fundamental than the presence and accessibility of the gun.

While I’m generally also reluctant about commissions, this situation necessitates one. The failures of America’s mental health system, from diagnoses to prescriptions to housing to weapons access, are a national problem. But such a commission should not allow itself to be distracted by violent video games. It’s both as convenient and as pointless to blame South Park or Marilyn Manson for kids’ behavioral problems.

Finally, a word about Gohmert’s idea. In theory, had Principal Dawn Hochsprung had an M-4 and got to it in time, she could have taken out Lanza. But that theory hasn’t panned out in any of said mass shootings, and there’s no guarantee that it would if more people conceal-carried. And doing so in an environment where the majority of the population is young children is pure insanity.

Monstrous amounts of stimulants

I have consumed at least one cup of coffee per day, three tops, since the age of 14, but never an energy drink. Adam tried 5-Hour Energy once and found it ineffective, and he never drinks coffee, just a lot of Diet Pepsi. That’s the long and short of our experience with highly caffeinated beverages. Other people’s experiences with energy drinks have resulted in death (or so it’s claimed), which is why the government is getting involved in the form of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigation and possible new regulations. And nobody likes those.

While a causal relationship has yet to be established, Monster Energy Drink has been linked to five deaths and one non-fatal heart attack, leading to calls for more thorough research into the effects of its ingredients, and those of other energy drinks, on children and people with weak hearts. As this chart shows, Monster is on the higher end of caffeine content, although not even twice as high as a regular cup of Starbucks. (I strongly recommend against consuming that stuff, but for a different reason that I will not specify here. You should know.)

An investigation is merited if it can determine exactly what ingredient in an energy drink should not be consumed by children or the literally faint of heart. In Monster’s case, is it really the caffeine? Or is it the taurine? The L-carnitine? The guarana seed? And how much of it can be consumed safely by the above two groups on its own, without being mixed with alcohol or anything else? Why don’t they know any of this already?

Possible regulations could take the form of federally mandated can sizes, although if someone truly believes that more energy drinks = enough energy for them to pull an all-nighter (without thinking of the inevitable crash), I don’t know what would stop them from buying more than one can. What would be next? Preventing sales to minors in stores? Preventing all sales in vending machines? How often does that stop the kids?

The FDA’s investigation will create an opportunity for education on the effects of energy drinks, which is what’s most necessary here. They’re not for everyone, and they’re definitely not for every situation, especially the ones in which you think they’ll help you work better. If your job was to push the same button as many times as possible for hours, that would be one thing. But you know what helps you do some actual thinking best? Sleep. And not procrastinating. (Yes, I’ve done that. I have a short attention span. But I regretted it every time.)

We were all told once that coffee was just for adults. Now we need to determine once and for all who energy drinks are “just for.” Because if the most obvious caffeinated drink in the world isn’t for kids, one with taurine and other ingredients you’ve never heard of can’t be all that healthy, either.

Disposal Day #128: It’s kinda sorta constitutional, bitches

STORY #1: What just happened?

The conversation about the individual health insurance mandate tucked into President Obama’s health care reform legislation has, since yesterday’s ruling, shifted from “Is it constitutional?” to “Who won?” In the beginning, it looked like Obama had won; the Supreme Court allowed the mandate to stay, but it was justified under congressional powers of taxation, not the Commerce Clause. And since Obama spent a lot of his time in 2010 insisting the mandate wasn’t a tax, well, sucks to be him now.

What about former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA)? The word “tax” couldn’t be a more potent political weapon for him. He’s already vowed to repeal Obamacare on his first day as president. To which I ask: 1. All of it? Even the parts that make insurance companies less ridiculous? 2. Wasn’t a focus on health care reform from the outset Obama’s mistake? Remember jobs and debt? This may sound odd, but they’re kind of more important!

STORY #2: The get-it-first bias

One of the many upsides of pre-taping a TV show, as I do at my workplace, is that you won’t run into problems like this. CNN, which I thought was beyond mistakes like this, and Fox News, which I didn’t think was beyond mistakes like this, both put graphics on their screens claiming that the individual mandate had been struck down. They ran into the same initial confusion as everyone else; I wouldn’t expect them to have avoided it. I would, however, have expected them to wait before putting it on national television.

Is it really all that important for a network to break the story before anyone else, to the point that you can’t take five minutes to read the necessary material thoroughly? This is one of many problems with the modern news media lost in all the talk of political partisanship and the interests of advertisers. The real competition should be, to paraphrase a very snide MSNBC, to get it right instead of getting it first.

STORY #3: Stay where you are

Exactly how little do you Americans know about Canada?! Immediately after the ruling came down, vows to move here from angry Americans started pouring onto Twitter. If you happen to have made one of those vows yesterday, let me give you some advice: Not only will you have to deal with a system that allows this and this to happen, you will most likely be forced into a union depending on what kind of job you get. And don’t even get me started on abortion and gay marriage. But, mostly, stay away from Canada because we already filled our annual quota of idiots. Thank you, and good night.

Congress and those jagged little pills

Guess what, you guys? Congress failed to do something again! But this time it may come down to something deeper than partisan politics. This time it may be as simple as just plain not knowing what they’re supposed to be doing. Neither, apparently, do any of the private-sector parties they’ve been consulting with. But one of them had better come up with something good before any more people take fake Avastin. (It’s a cancer drug. If it was fake Cialis, I’d just laugh.)

The intention was a national plan to track medications, hoping to stem the tide of counterfeit drugs entering the supply chain after vials of counterfeit Avastin was sold to multiple medical practices. The plan was designed as a measure in a funding bill for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), proposed by Sens. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Michael Bennet (D-CO). Both chambers of Congress eventually decided that they couldn’t figure out what the plan would look like or who would pay for it.

It’s not that they don’t have a couple of ideas; options include an inspection user fee and a track-and-trace system (which, in my ideal universe, would include a holographic decal on the bottom of the vial like on Canadian bank notes). Various pharmaceutical lobbies prefer the user fee option. And why shouldn’t they? Any costs incurred by them for the inspection process pay for themselves, thanks to consumers, most of whom need those medications and probably have plenty of other health care costs to contend with.

Even once the issue of payment is settled, they’ll have to deal with the question of giving new regulatory powers to the FDA. Given their existing regulatory powers and the fact that the vast majority of this commerce is interstate, that shouldn’t be legally difficult. Politically difficult, maybe, but likely less so than other regulatory powers. So, really, the only sticking point is the payment issue. Does it really take that long to figure out, considering they’ve been working on this for at least two years?

It’s worth noting that the 12 largest pharmaceutical companies alone raked in over $44 billion in profits last year. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the industry pay for inspection fees themselves. They’re the ones who ultimately lose money because of counterfeit drugs. Why shouldn’t they pay extra to protect themselves? Or is it just the possibility of the word “tax?”

These days the thing politicians fear most is the idea of making private businesses pay for things. I might err on that side of caution if we weren’t talking about an industry that makes $44 billion a year. But drug safety is worth the expense. (And please do consider the decals. They work well for our cash.)

A half-liter idea with a one-ounce message

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. For the record, I admire the goal of combating obesity, and this is certainly best done on the local level. Other mayors have done it by encouraging city-wide physical activity and prioritizing healthy, locally grown food. (See: This, this and this.) But Bloomberg has always had an independent streak, and it certainly came out when he vowed to crack down on really big cups of soda.

Under his plan, restaurants, delis and cinemas would only be permitted to sell drinks at or under a half-liter/16-ounce limit. That’s roughly the average size of an individual bottle – which I rarely finish in one meal – and I’d be hard-pressed to name anyone who would be all that upset by not being able to drink that much at once. Besides, if we’re talking about regular soda, that sugar content does pack a punch. Not to mention the subsequent bloating that, if it doesn’t actually make you fat, will certainly make you feel that way for an hour or two. (It’s called water, people. Look into it.)

However. Bloomberg has not proven that massive sodas are such a leading cause of obesity that they merit a full-scale ban. And even if this is just the tip of the iceberg – what’s next, a surtax on bacon? – is it either productive or right for the city to ban specific foods and beverages? We’re not talking about bath salts here. Sugary soda might be bad for you, but anyone above the age of 12 should be well aware of that before they put every available flavor of Slurpee into their Big Gulp cup. (I had friends in high school who would do that. They were typically overweight. Just throwing that out there.)

If anyone is going to phase out massive sodas, it should be the responsibility of the businesses themselves taking the lead on portion control. The trend of small/medium/large became popular in the 70s when businesses wanted to benefit more from already enormous profit margins on snacks and drinks. Only all of those portions were smaller then. Imagine what a PR coup it would be for a major chain to announce that they were downscaling everything. Remember how ridiculous Hardee’s looked when this came out? Downscaling could be the natural response, albeit a late one.

In the meantime, Bloomberg, trust your own citizens to figure out what’s good for them. Or teach them what’s good for them. But this isn’t education. This is just public shaming.

Color commentary on the Obamacare Games

Incredibly, I was able to find some stuff about the Obamacare hearings to cover this week. OK, there is the factor of pro- and anti-Obamacare groups wasting precious hours outside the Supreme Court to agitate for their preferences, but that doesn’t merit the attention of a post. As we speak, the justices are debating exactly what to do if the individual health insurance mandate ends up being ruled unconstitutional. Their options are as follows:

1. Strike down the entire law, as the individual mandate impacts other provisions and the Obama administration itself says the law as a whole wouldn’t work without it.

2. Eliminate the provisions that are only possible with the mandate, including itself.

3. Eliminate the mandate only and leave the rest of the law intact.

Speaking in purely legislative terms, I would go with option 2. It would be both intellectually consistent and, possibly, an effective deterrent for future Supreme Court battles over Obamacare’s constitutionality. (Sidebar: For those who are bothered by my use of the term “Obamacare,” I am doing this to spare myself the exertion of typing “the health care reform law” every time.) The trouble is that the Supreme Court is not the legislative body. Even if they only ruled certain elements of the law unconstitutional, it would be up to Congress to remove them. This argument may have been appropriated by the left side of the court, but it makes perfect sense to me.

I did chuckle at Justice Antonin Scalia’s response to the idea of looking for every constitutional hiccup: “You want us to go through 2,700 pages?” It is sad that this legislation would take up about 15 percent of the space on my bookshelf, based on a completely unscientific glance upward from my computer. Unfortunately, that’s the massive hand that the court has been dealt. Someone really needs to figure out a methodology for writing executive summaries of this stuff.

One thing that has disappointed me throughout this process is how many observers have failed to make the distinction between a state-imposed mandate and a federally imposed one, instead choosing to judge the concept in isolation. As I’ve written, while I initially opposed the idea, observations of other countries’ success with it has led me to change my views. But they don’t favor decentralized law the way the U.S. Constitution does. That is the issue.

Final word for the day, as we will no doubt revisit this later: If you are a business who would benefit from a decision going a certain way, please do us all a favor and keep quiet.

Rethinking Obamacare many, many challenges later

One idea of Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) campaign-era ideas that I always liked was a requirement that proponents of any federal legislation must prove its constitutionality. Had that rule been in place before President Obama spent his entire first year in office on his health reform law (except for the stimulus package), we might be spared the forthcoming ruling on the constitutionality of the law’s individual insurance mandate. It’s not looking good.

The administration has attempted to use the Commerce Clause to justify the mandate; you’ll find that most arguments about an overstep of federal authority will include the Commerce Clause on someone’s end. Lawyers for a group of 26 states opposing Obamacare say the clause does not permit the government to compel individuals to buy anything from private companies. I say “private companies” because these same individuals are compelled to buy into Social Security and Medicare.

Health care delivery systems in Germany and Switzerland prove that there is a place for individual mandates in theory. You have to remember, though, that their governments are more federalist than that of the U.S., thus allowing them to create mandates and provide public health services on a national scale. For their models to work throughout the U.S., each state would have to adopt them on their own time, unless Obama were willing to amend the Constitution to put health under federal purview. He might have done that in 2009.

The ultimate goal, then, for health care is fivefold: making sure the most necessary coverage can be accessed by anyone, privately or publicly (1), while respecting states’ rights (2), containing frivolous costs (3) and maximizing efficiency (4) without skimping on quality care (5). States with their own versions of Medicaid have already taken a big step toward this. Were they to regulate commerce on the part of association-based insurance companies, i.e. Blue Cross Blue Shield, if they didn’t already, frivolity might be less of an issue, too.

The federal government could regulate activity on the part of insurance companies operating on an interstate scale, i.e. Humana, and providing financial support to states that demonstrate that they are taking the steps to reach the fivefold goal described above. Obama had the right idea about the public option and the individual mandate; he was just wrong in assuming his government was within its rights to provide it. Look what a mess that made.

The upside of decentralization is that nothing keeps the feds from teaching states what’s sensible and tempting them to enact it.

Hey, look! A real-life job-killing tax hike!

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by whoever thought this was a good idea: a 2.3 percent excise tax on the medical device industry, imposed to pay for Obamacare. I admit, I have been skeptical when Republicans accuse every proposed tax hike under the sun of being a surefire job-killer. I was starting to wonder if that trope was just a fiction they’ve perpetuated over the years to keep people scared, like vampires, or other vampires. Yet, here it is.

Both the Senate and the House have medical technology caucuses, composed primarily of members from Minnesota, which employs 6.9 percent of the entire industry. During the amendment stage of Obamacare, the Senate caucus’s Democratic leader, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), succeeded in getting the original tax cut down from $40 billion in impact to $20 billion. That wasn’t enough to stop the tax from being set to slash an estimated 2,700 jobs in Minnesota in 2013. After all, why would the manufacturers bother keeping shops in America where they can just abandon those pesky taxes?

While this may be the worst time to recommend any move that might result in a loss of revenue, no revenue should be earned this way. This is a tax that did not need to happen. It directly affects American-based manufacturers, which are collectively the key ingredient in modern job creation. More importantly, it affects an industry that, ironically, would further the cause of health in America. This is like paying for a sweeping healthy food plan by taxing makers of apple corers and carrot peelers.

In the future, I would like lawmakers to ensure that the objective of the tax hike is proportional to the byproduct. No industry, least of all one involved with health, should risk hemorrhaging jobs because someone had an agenda (however well-intentioned) they wanted to fund. Given Obamacare’s dubious history, I’m not sure that anyone outside of the less-private health care voting bloc would say it’s worth the tax increase.

Here’s the secret to tax hikes: Impose them on the things only idiots want. Like Nickelback albums. And other vampires. And tofu, which to this date is the worst thing I’ve ever ingested. Medical technology that has the potential to save lives? Not so much.

And in the red corner . . .

I have absolutely no sympathy for lobbyists who fear that USConJointSelComDefRed may be impervious to their influence. They can take that influence and stick it Jack Abramoff’s craphole, as far as I’m concerned. The nation’s 29 Republican governors, on the other hand, are a different story. They’re using the existence of the debt supercommittee as occasion to fight for more control over how Medicaid monies are spent.

The Gang of 29, as we will call them hereafter, believes “outdated or inappropriate federal guidelines” are hindering their ability to provide the most effective care to their residents. They would prefer to receive lump sums from the feds, mete it out according to state-based guidelines and “be held accountable for the results.” Navigating existing federal rules and waivers is too much of a headache, especially in the fiscal sense.

I would be interested in getting my hands on a copy of the report they sent to the feds. The above link does not specify current inefficiencies and gaps. Knowing what those are would enable we commentators to have a clearer view of where the real problem lies. Is it burdensome regulations? Is it waste and abuse? Or is it, simply, underfunding? Even then, the Gang of 29′s plan would address all of these if handled properly.

I must say that I am personally very impressed with their handling of what they perceive as a troubling situation. They’re not railing against the federal government like Lady Gaga’s disciples railing at Adele. (For the record, I’m sick of both.) They came up with a very comprehensive plan and are presenting it to the powers that be in a way that is, for all intents and purposes, highly respectable. No doubt one or two are motivated by their hatred of Obamacare, but they’re keeping that factor fairly quiet.

Assuming their numbers check out, I can only identify an area in which I can improve upon the Gang of 29′s proposal: There should be increased emphasis on preventative care across the board. Other than that, the plan ensures accountability in a way that is sacrificial, almost deferential. Any regulations on health insurance companies would likely be the responsibility of the feds in the first place, and that should have been the primary focus of Obamacare.

Except most of the White House’s opposition to have a tone of bitterness to it, as if they know they’ve just been skunked. That’s what’s doomed to happen when you overstep your constitutional boundaries with good intentions. This is one area in which they really should concede now.