Tweet
Originally posted by WuDrWu
-
If you ask the right wing whackos like Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, etc... that would appear correct. The name calling and grandstanding by the GOP is accomplishing alot in this debate.
-
Wow, as opposed to elected national public servants calling American's protesting the health care reform Nazis?Originally posted by ShockCity
Please show me where Palin has called an American a Nazi.
Seriously, you need to step back and get a hold of your problems before they consume you.
I believe you are confusing who is doing the name calling. Think for yourself for a change.Comment
-
Once again...Elitist!Originally posted by WuDrWu
Comment
-
Left wing nut jobs consistently compared Bush's administratino with Nazis . . .
I'm not remember a lot of outrage from the far left peanut gallery about this.Comment
-
He caught a lot of flack from the left with the Patriot Act after 9/11.Originally posted by ABCComment
-
A personal favorite...
Matthew 25:35-37...45-46 (New International Version)
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?...
...45 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."Comment
-
BINGO!
Humans are most effective at providing charity to other humans. Governments are horribly inefficient at it.Comment
-
Lev.19:18: - "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
The previous administration wasn't too good at this.
Comment
-
Interpret it however it pleases and/or angers you.Originally posted by ISASOComment
-
I believe your other moon-bat friends have said you need to quit with the sour grapes...Originally posted by ShockCityComment
-
Dr. Franklin filed a federal qui tam, or whistleblower lawsuit against Pfizer, which had acquired Warner-Lambert and its Parke-Davis division in 2000, charging the company with violations of the False Claims Act. Profits for sales of Neurontin® were increasing from $97.5 million in 1995 to $2.5 billion in 2003. Further, Warner-Lambert reported in 2000 that up to 78% of the prescriptions for Neurontin® were for off-label purposes. The U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston intervened, brought more charges under FDA criminal statutes. This private/public charge on pharmaceutical industry giant Pfizer forced a settlement in the amount of $430 million, the second largest settlement of its kind. While Direct-to-Consumer advertising is rampant, what is more hidden is the industry tactics to influence the prescribing practices of doctors. In this case, we are given a glimpse into the $20 billion spent annually on marketing and promotion by the pharmaceutical industry.Some posts are not visible to me. :peaceful:
Don't worry too much about it. Just do all you can do and let the rough end drag.Comment
-
Same link
And the Journal of Medicine published an article in January, The Neurontin Legacy — Marketing through Misinformation and Manipulation about the case, which you can purchase or read if you have a prescription, or read it here. The authors mention the legacy of this case includes this:
What is Neurontin's legacy? First, we have learned that pharmaceutical marketing can be comprehensive, strategic, well financed, disguised as "education" and "research," influential, and very effective. Promotion of Neurontin was neither discrete, compartmentalized, nor readily apparent; instead, it was intercalated in nearly every aspect of physicians' professional lives, from the accoutrements of practice to lectures, professional meetings, and publications. Although some pharmaceutical marketing may be less opaque, deceptive, and manipulative, evidence indicates that drug promotion can corrupt the science, teaching, and practice of medicine.
Second, such comprehensive marketing involved many people and institutions that apparently failed to recognize the serious ethical and legal problems with their actions. Employees of Parke–Davis, the medical-education companies it hired, and many physicians (consultants, advisors, educators, and researchers) all participated knowingly. Universities, hospitals, professional organizations, and foundations also participated, and oversight agencies such as the FDA and the Department of Justice did not intervene quickly. Apparently, there was a shared acceptance that Parke–Davis's marketing was simply business as usual.Some posts are not visible to me. :peaceful:
Don't worry too much about it. Just do all you can do and let the rough end drag.Comment
-
and ? ? ?
How much is spent advertising male enhancements?
how much is spent advertising yogurt?Comment
-
How much is being spent to rally nationalized health care or to oppose nationalized health care?Comment
-
Well I don’t agree with this author on every issue she addresses; however, tone notwithstanding, I believe she makes some pretty obvious points about this health-care debate. Camille Paglia, who is generally supportive of President Obama, writing in Salon (see its not always the WSJ):
She continues but I don’t want to post the entire article – but it is worth a look. As an aside, as I have pointed out before it is not necessarily only rationing that should be a concern but the artificial shortages that inevitably occur in a centralized system.…I must confess my dismay bordering on horror at the amateurism of the White House apparatus for domestic policy. When will heads start to roll? I was glad to see the White House counsel booted, as well as Michelle Obama's chief of staff, and hope it's a harbinger of things to come. Except for that wily fox, David Axelrod, who could charm gold threads out of moonbeams, Obama seems to be surrounded by juvenile tinhorns, bumbling mediocrities and crass bully boys.
Case in point: the administration's grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform, one of the most vital issues facing the nation. Ever since Hillary Clinton's megalomaniacal annihilation of our last best chance at reform in 1993 (all of which was suppressed by the mainstream media when she was running for president), Democrats have been longing for that happy day when this issue would once again be front and center.
But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.
***
You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.
I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.
As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut, too much has been attempted all at once; focused, targeted initiatives would, instead, have won wide public support. How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.
Comment
Comment