Cancer cells produce higher levels of a protein called CD47 than do all other cells. CD47 is a marker that blocks the immune system from destroying cells, and cancer cells take advantage of this to survive and grow by avoiding immune reactions.

Now a researcher - biologist Irving Weissman of the Stanford University School of Medicine - has apparently produced and been testing an antibody based drug that can...

...shrink or cure human breast, ovary, colon, bladder, brain, liver, and prostate tumors that have been transplanted into mice, researchers have found. The treatment, an antibody that blocks [the CD47] "do not eat" signal normally displayed on tumor cells, coaxes the immune system to destroy the cancer cells.
[snip]
To determine whether blocking CD47 was beneficial, the scientists exposed tumor cells to macrophages, a type of immune cell, and anti-CD47 molecules in petri dishes. Without the drug, the macrophages ignored the cancerous cells. But when the [anti-]CD47 was present, the macrophages engulfed and destroyed cancer cells from all tumor types.
[snip]
Weissman's team has received a $20 million grant from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine to move the findings from mouse studies to human safety tests. "We have enough data already," says Weissman, "that I can say I'm confident that this will move to phase I human trials."

Nevermind that his own link shows that the darker, original photo was from a low-resolution sign at a protest.  More importantly, Dan Riehl thinks that lightening a photo makes you appear more innocent?

So, she is from Georgia, does that mean you want a member of my family to lose her coverage?

Cleary, some of you do.

And we hate America, apple pie, children and puppies, ...

Our little office pool hit 3 out of 6 and the megaball two drawings ago for a 150 dolla win...so we still got 75 to parlay on the next drawing.

I can't imagine that you don't, but I have to think that if the "she's lucky she can afford coverage" comment had been prefaced with something along the lines of, "I'm so sorry that your family member could have the rug pulled out from under her just when she thought she had some breathing room. Let's hope that doesn't happen and that she can continue to afford to participate in the program - a lot of people were never able to get in because in some states, the cost was still out of reach" it may not have struck you the way it did.

My point about bringing up single-payer was simply to acknowledge the opportunities lost and the very real possibility that, rather than ACA being the first, incremental step in that direction, it will be a dagger in the heart of real reform; while it has helped some people, it has been a bigger boon for providers, and the reason that is so has a lot to do with having kept single payer out of the conversation from Day One - and that was Obama's decision.

I don't have any control over what anyone else says, and while I find myself in agreement with many here, I don't think of myself as having "cohorts," and - believe it or not - I do try not to add to what can sometimes go over into "piling on."

And while I can have a sharp and cutting tone from time to time - you may find that an understatement, lol - it was clear to me that the ad hominem insults you were dishing out were not helping you make your points - they were becoming the point, and people were reacting accordingly.

As much as I - and others - don't think the ACA was a good piece of legislation or a good plan, I don't think any of us who feel that way are so doctrinaire and cold-hearted that we would want anyone who finally has coverage to lose it; however we feel about Obama, I don't think it eliminates the basic compassion that all of us have for most of our fellow countrymen (I say "most" because I don't have any compassion for the 1% who whine about taxes while essentially robbing the people blind).

I just had a close family member get coverage in spite of a pre-exisitng condition under the ACA PCIP program  in California.

The PCIP program is very new.  Apparently, the PCIP program applies nationwide.  

However attractive the offer of federal Medicaid funding may be, the decision whether to accept it always belongs to the States, and not the federal government. Petitioners' claim of coercion is nothing more than an argument that the citizens of their States would hold them politically responsible for either the reduction in benefits that would result from opting out of Medicaid or for the increased taxation needed to fund those benefits entirely at the state level.

In addition, FL is arguing that they just can't trust the US government to pay their 90%. The government is broke, don't ya know!

If the Court does end up striking down the mandate, this will be the second consecutive presidency in which the Supreme Court imposed significant limits on the primary agenda of the sitting President in ways that were unexpected based on precedents at the time the President acted. Last time around, it was President Bush and the War on Terror. The President relied on precedents like Johnson v. Eisentrager in setting up Gitmo. But when the Court was called on to review this key aspect of the President's strategy for the War on Terror, the Court maneuvered around Eisentrager and imposed new limits on the executive branch in cases like Rasul v. Bush and Boumediene v. Bush. The President's opponents heralded the Court's new decisions as the restoration of the rule of law and the application of profound constitutional principle. Meanwhile, the President's allies condemned the decisions as the products of unbridled judicial activism from a political court. If the mandate gets struck down, we'll get a replay with the politics reversed. Just substitute Obama for Bush, health care reform for the War on Terror, the individual mandate for Gitmo, and Wickard for Eisentrager.

Last summer, for instance, the Bank - in order to satisfy creditors who were nervous about the enormous quantity of risky assets on its balance sheet - decided to move some $73 trillion (that's trillion, with a T) in exotic derivative bets from one end of the company into the federally-insured, depository side of the bank.

This move, encouraged by the Obama administration, put the American taxpayer on the hook for an entire generation of irresponsible gambles made by another failed investment firm that should have gone out of business, but was instead acquired by Bank of America with $25 billion in taxpayer help - Merrill Lynch.

When did we make it the job of the taxpayer to buy failed companies, and rescue companies from their own bad decisions?
[snip]
What will your defense be against a future lawsuit for a credit card debt or a foreclosure, when your bank walks into court with a pile of invented documents? Will you wish then that you'd fought harder for Bank of America to be punished now?
[snip]
We don't want Bank of America to fail. Our position is, it already is insolvent, and already has failed - and only our tax dollars, and our government's continued protection, is keeping that failure from becoming more common knowledge.

The Supreme Court spent 91 minutes Wednesday operating on the assumption that it would strike down the key feature of the new health care law, but may have convinced itself in the end not to do that because of just how hard it would be to decide what to do after that.  A common reaction, across the bench, was that the Justices themselves did not want the onerous task of going through the remainder of the entire 2,700 pages of the law and deciding what to keep and what to throw out, and most seemed to think that should be left to Congress.  They could not come together, however, on just what task they would send across the street for the lawmakers to perform.  The net effect may well have shored up support for the individual insurance mandate itself.