Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
Tea Party Haters
Display Avatars Sort By:
Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 16:58:07 MDT Print View

I'm not sure that I buy that, jerry. Nancy Pelosi truly thinks that she knows what's best for everyone else, and what's best is hard socialism and an absolute gun ban. And Michele Bachmann is indeed batsh!t crazy, a dominionist, and truly believes the drivel that she spews.

I don't believe that either of them just use the political process as a financial scam for personal gain. That might be incidental.

IMHO, of course... ;)

And insider trading would still be illegal, even if you're a politician, and what you described WOULD count. They'd go to jail. I'd ask your author for examples, because he sounds full of you-know-what on that score. That's why all these politicians end up putting their financial stakes into blind trusts- so that they cannot be accused of this.

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 16:58:59 MDT.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
Tea Party Haters on 10/27/2013 17:02:47 MDT Print View

"And, it does appear that Obama either couldn't deliver on that one or made a VERY severe grammatical error... heh. :)"

Why does Obama get the benefit of the doubt that he might have misspoken? Could he not have been lying?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You can keep your plan... on 10/27/2013 17:07:51 MDT Print View

"And insider trading would still be illegal, even if you're a politician"

I've heard that from many sources - politicans not subject to insider trading laws

60 Minutes did a piece on it

Interview was on Bob Brinker radio show and he is more conservative than liberal

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 17:10:33 MDT Print View

@ Tom-

Yeah, as I said in principle I have few objections to a single-party system. I just have doubts about how well it would realistically work in the US within the foreseeable future. And as I said, no one wants to be the generation that goes through the teething pains.

I'm not quite as fatalistic about the pharmaceutical industry as you are, though. Even in the lands of socialized medicine it's still corporations who do almost all of the drug development. Perhaps there's a reason? Profit is one hell of a motivation for innovation, and doesn't raise anyone's taxes. If all research is government-funded, well, that's taxes. And, yes, I'm one of those who think that we are taxed enough if we'd just allocate the money rationally.

We do need to do away the the worst offenses, though, I agree. (Remember- I'm ok with rational regulation.) Evergreening, for example, needs to be illegal.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 17:14:58 MDT Print View

"Gee, Tom, you are psychologically incapable of passing up even the thinnest opportunity to voice criticism on every foreign policy decision the US has ever made, aren't you? :)"

It may seem that way sometimes, but let me assure you there are many US foreign policy decisions that I have agreed with down thru the years. Unfortunately, most of them occurred before the disastrous decision to get involved in Vietnam. Things since then have gone pretty much down the rabbit hole, IMO, and those issues are the ones we always seem to end up discussing. The issue you are referring to here, I think, just happens to be one that I have seen up close and have followed for some 50 years now, and about which I have very strong feelings. For me, it is not just a matter of justice, but also a cause of serious concern over what is has done to my country, particularly since WTC, and the disastrous path we are headed down even now. I will say no more, for reasons I stated in my original post, other than that I continue to anguish over the situation and for the countless innocents on all sides who have suffered, and will continue to suffer, so terribly, so unnecessarily. It is far more complicated than a knee jerk opposition to US foreign policy, my friend.



"Please don't make semantic quibbles with me- I was clearly referring to SELF sacrifices. There are always effects from everything we do, but justice is a basic human psychological need, and is one function that governments have assumed. A system of automatic universal punishmentless forgiveness for all crimes obviously would be disastrous, for instance. The example given was clearly a repugnant crime and does deserve it's own punishment, but a blanket statement about forgiveness is not realistic, either. When people are wronged they need redress. If they can swallow something like Truth and Reconciliation a la South Africa or Rwanda, all the better. But that's a big pill since, clearly, one end result is that a gawdawful lot of horrible crimes go unpunished. People don't like that. So I guess all that I'm saying is that I tend to be a realist about the issue and think that there is a time for Truth and Reconciliation, and a time for justice."

No argument here. And the sooner we get around to meting out justice, the better. Nothing puts the guilty in the mood for a little truth and reconciliation like the prospect of imminent justice. ;0)

And honest, Dean, I wasn't trying to quibble with you semantically. It wasn't clear to me that you were referring to self sacrifice. It has become an alien concept to most in this culture. I apologize if you feel I tarred you with that brush. It was not my intent.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Tea Party Haters on 10/27/2013 17:19:39 MDT Print View

@Dave--

Did I say that? It indeed may have been a deliberate deception. (I reiterate, I am not an Obama-lover.) But it is rational to think that the Obama quote just MIGHT be a case of poor phraseology or honest over-reaching. It is, after all, a quote from 2009, before the ACA was finalized, so he may have just been unable to realize a goal. As opposed to, for instance, the insistence that the IRS is going to form death panels under the ACA. An honest error of some sort at least seems possible with the Obama quote- not so much with the death panels. And unlike when Bachmann claims that for every $3 distributed to the poor as food stamps that $7 are spent on wages and pensions for the federal employees who administer the stamp program- something that is public record, easily looked up, not in contention in any way, and so unbelievably grossly inaccurate that it's hard to attribute it to an honest error. (97% of the money put into the food stamp program gets disbursed to the beneficiaries- look it up on FactCheck.) Or, that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation. Or that her family never made money on their farm, which received a quarter of a million dollars in federal subsidies. That page 92 of the House healthcare bill will make it illegal to buy private insurance. That Geithner wants to abandon the dollar in favor of a fictional currency. That Obama's healthcare adviser wants to withhold medical care from the disabled. (I'll omit a few that might actually be cases of her mis-speaking or getting an obscure fact wrong.) She lives in a different reality than the rest of us, or something. Not to mention that she is demonstrably a failure as a legislater- she's gotten, what, one amendment passed? The one about daycare, or something, IIRC? She clearly prefers to stand in front of a camera and spout drivel to actually doing her job.

In the interests of fairness I'll contrast this to times when Bachmann quotes tax statistics, on which she is usually right. (Which I suppose isn't surprising for a tax attorney.) She tends to be factually correct when she attacks her fellow Republicans, too, oddly.

So, really?

I'm not making fantastical absolute statements, here, unlike the leading Tea Party politicians.

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 18:01:03 MDT.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: For fun on 10/27/2013 17:24:57 MDT Print View

"its kind of hard to expect a politician to quote figures that are 100% correct off-the-cuff."

It gets even harder the more time they have to formulate their answer. ;0)

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: For fun on 10/27/2013 17:27:11 MDT Print View

Probably true. The waffling starts to stack high...

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 17:50:01 MDT Print View

"I make less than half of what I could, but I find it fulfilling."

Understand. My best friend used to do trauma surgery, and that was a lot of what kept him in it. Still, I get this feeling that the work you do confers an added degree of fulfillment that just can't be experienced in the civilian world...

Edited by ouzel on 10/27/2013 17:55:16 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 18:05:31 MDT Print View

Trauma surgery is hard. A relatively large portion of your patients are uninsured and litigious neer-do-wells who won't pay their bill and then are likely to sue you for helping them. In fact the collection rate for trauma care is so low that many states subsidize trauma surgeons- they have to pay them to take call or it just wouldn't be financially worth it for them. (IIRC Oregon is one of them.)

But you do get to be one of the "rock stars" of the medical community...

I did almost nothing on the deployment from which I just returned (though working for CJSOTF was interesting in other ways) but the one before that was great. My little 10-man FST slice saw 1500 patient encounters. Less than 50 of them were Americans- most were Afghan civilian charity cases. Neat stuff, productive, did a lot of good, grateful patients. A few tragedies too, true, but it really doesn't get better.

God help her, I think that my 6-year-old daughter might follow me into medicine. She keeps wanting to look at my photos from deployment. Either that or she's a young psychopath. Hard to tell. :)

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 18:35:22 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 18:33:59 MDT Print View

I guess, to get back to the OP- that's why I don't like the Tea Party. The politicians that they get elected...

I I think you are giving the organization, for lack of a better term, too much credit for organizing.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 18:36:15 MDT Print View

@ Fred "I think you are giving the organization, for lack of a better term, too much credit for organizing."

Heh. Possibly. But at the very least they vote them in.

Edited by acrosome on 10/27/2013 19:12:07 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Heh on 10/27/2013 19:58:41 MDT Print View

Individuals voting. You are giving it the unity of a voting block, like a union, which is inaccurate IMO.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 20:20:10 MDT Print View

"Trauma surgery is hard. A relatively large portion of your patients are uninsured and litigious neer-do-wells who won't pay their bill and then are likely to sue you for helping them. In fact the collection rate for trauma care is so low that many states subsidize trauma surgeons- they have to pay them to take call or it just wouldn't be financially worth it for them. (IIRC Oregon is one of them.)"

Sad, but true. But the hardest part, I'm told, is that the basic reality of trauma surgery is that you are going to lose a lot more patients than just about any other area of surgery; particularly difficult when the patients are young innocents caught up in a drug deal gone wrong or over the edge domestic violence incidents. They're all hard to lose, according to my friend, because they are all fellow human beings, but the young innocents are the hardest.

"But you do get to be one of the "rock stars" of the medical community..."

Heady stuff when you're young, but trauma surgeons don't stay young for very long...

"though working for CJSOTF was interesting in other ways"

What is CJSOTF?


"My little 10-man FST slice saw 1500 patient encounters. Less than 50 of them were Americans- most were Afghan civilian charity cases. Neat stuff, productive, did a lot of good, grateful patients. A few tragedies too, true, but it really doesn't get better."

Now that seriously warms my heart, Dean. What a great way to leave Afghanistan. Is there any chance that we will deploy teams like yours in the event we reach agreement with the Afghan Govt to keep troops in country? That would be a great way to gain support among the Afghan People, if it were tactically feasible.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 20:31:22 MDT Print View

"I just have doubts about how well it would realistically work in the US within the foreseeable future. And as I said, no one wants to be the generation that goes through the teething pains."

I have my doubts, too, but we've got to do something, and the sooner we start, the better, IMO. Some generation is going to have to be the guinea pig. I can't see any other way to do it.

"I'm not quite as fatalistic about the pharmaceutical industry as you are, though. Even in the lands of socialized medicine it's still corporations who do almost all of the drug development. Perhaps there's a reason? Profit is one hell of a motivation for innovation, and doesn't raise anyone's taxes."

You're probably right, but then how do you get Big Pharma to allocate part of their research and manufacturing capacity to things like vaccines and antibiotics, that won't make them a lot of money? It seems like they're always looking for that next blockbuster drug that will make them billions but not have a major impact on the health of the general public. It seems to me that a lot of good basic drug research these days is being done by NIH and universities. Why not build on that, especially in areas where Big Pharma doesn't see the opportunity to make huge profits? Just blue skying here. Personally, I wouldn;t mind seeing more of my tax dollars funnelled into areas like this, but I'm not sure how many of my fellow Americans would agree. Might it just amount to a reallocation of existing taxes, rather than an additional levy?

"Evergreening, for example, needs to be illegal."

A huge +1


Edited to clean things up a bit.

Edited by ouzel on 10/27/2013 20:38:35 MDT.

Jeremy and Angela
(requiem) - F - M

Locale: Northern California
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/27/2013 22:48:35 MDT Print View

Per the CDC, leading causes of death for Americans are:
Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

One can factor in quality of life issues, or argue that most heart disease and cancer cases are "preventable" and shouldn't be such a high priority, but it does argue for a certain direction in research. (Orphan drug programs exist in the US and other countries, which provide incentives for developing rare disease treatments.)

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
congress insider trading on 10/28/2013 08:11:12 MDT Print View

A year ago congress was shamed into eliminating insider trading by government people

Then they quietely undid major parts of it, namely you can't easily get to the records about what trades different people did.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law

Lots of other ways federal government employees can make lots of money.

I like the analogy of congress is like professional wrestling, they act like they hate each other and pretend to fight, but it's just entertainment, behind the scenes they're friendly and just making as living

I remember 60 Minutes did a piece. Asked Nancy Pelosi if it was okay she traded health insurance companies just before ACA was passed. She said it was oaky because she didn't make any money off the deal.

They also interviewed Republicans, I just forget the details

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Tea Party Haters" on 10/28/2013 08:48:34 MDT Print View

"You're probably right, but then how do you get Big Pharma to allocate part of their research and manufacturing capacity to things like vaccines and antibiotics"

Did you see that "Frontline" on PBS. There are more and more cases of bacteria resistant to all antibiotics. So far, only a few people have died but it could quickly escalate to major problem. Then, the solution to an infection will be, for example, to cut pieces off your leg until they get rid of infection. Hopefully there'll be enough of a stump left over to fit a prosthetic.

The last pharma to do antibiotic research pulled out because they make no money. People take antibiotics for only a short time. Pharma makes more money with drugs for high blood pressure, cholesterol, (or erictile dysfunction) because people taker them forever.

NIH could launch major program but they're asleep. Corrupted by the big money that goes into politics. Funding reduced because of the "Tea Party" attack on government spending.

Solution - rather than the "free market" model we have now where pharmas make big money advertising Viagra, we should compensate them based on what's needed for health. NIH could fund research directly, but maybe having private companies do the work is better, pay anyone that can successfully develop a new antibiotic. Or combination of both - government funded basic reasearch and then private development of drugs.

Until we get the money out of politics we're screwed.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
@ Tom on 10/28/2013 12:40:56 MDT Print View

I'm kinda gonna be all over, here:

CJSOTF is the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force. So, as I said- interesting in a different way. Not that I personally did anything more than the same old stuff, mind you, but it's always fun to spend a day at the range getting instruction from people who can do truly terrifying things with a handgun. I was also on a very tiny FOB- fifty guys total- with a very active local amateur artillerist community, which always adds a little zest to daily living. Despite all of the high explosives falling from the sky, though, we only had a single casualty all summer- not life threatening, albeit resulting in a GREAT scar.

There may be troops remaining in Afghanistan but if they include medical resources they will certainly be prohibited from doing charity on a scale like that, if at all. One reason that I did so little on this last deployment is that the medical rules of engagement got a lot more strict in an attempt to force the Afghan government and medical system to develop to be able to care for its own citizens, in anticipation of the day that we would no longer be there in force. There was a not-unjustified perception that the US military had become the defacto trauma care, charity ward, and medical evacuation system for the entire country. So the line guys, as is often the case, had to step in and restrain the medical people from getting carried away. Because we do have a tendency to do that...

I think that the production of cheap and unprofitable but societally beneficial medications like vaccines and antibiotics are where the government can have a bigger role. How exactly, I don't know- subsidies? I'd prefer that to actually having production in the hands of the government. Jeez, I'm just a poor country surgeon, here- I don't have all the answers. But that would certainly be cheaper than totally taking over new drug development- leave that to the corporations.

Is it a bad thing that the pharmaceutical companies always "strive for the next drug that will make a big impact on the health of the general public"? I'd say that's a Good Thing. Profits? Well, that's what corporations are for- IMO we only need just enough reasonable regulation to stop capitalism run amok as in the late 19th century worker and consumer abuses, the Great Depression, the housing bubble, the tragedy of the commons, environmental abuse, etc.

Edited by acrosome on 10/28/2013 13:04:20 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: @ Tom on 10/28/2013 13:53:03 MDT Print View

"Is it a bad thing that the pharmaceutical companies always "strive for the next drug that will make a big impact on the health of the general public"? I'd say that's a Good Thing. Profits? Well, that's what corporations are for..."

definitely

but take Lipitor, the best selling blockbuster drug

there was a study in 2006 that found no difference between atorvastatin (Lipitor), pravastatin and simvastatin. But earlier "phony" studies found Lipitor to be more effective plus huge marketing resulted in it being the best selling drug in history.

So, the reason the pharma made so much money wasn't that they found a drug that made "a big impact on the health of the general public", it's that they scammed the system.

Combination of free market and government regulation will produce "a big impact on the health of the general public" and not a money making scam.