Quote from: Laura Hope on August 09, 2009, 03:22:07 PM
They do to.what does legislating morality have to do with "oil wars"?

nothing. My point is that the last administration burned through money for no good reason. At least this administration is making an effort to burn through money for people who pay the taxes and who live in THIS country and not some other one.

I'm coming in late on this thread but here is my two cents:  I am fully supportive of a single payer system like Canada's or France or even the UK.  However, I think what we will get in the end is something that benefits the health care industry and radically increases costs and reduces coverage to the average citizen.  It is like the no fault auto insurance deals passed in some states that were supposed to lower rates but instead they went up.   The Medicare Part D program that was supposed to give seniors access to prescription drugs was supposed to lower the cost of drugs but instead they went up.  That program is LARGER than Social Security and it benefits the drug companies big time.  I suspect that will happen with this too.  The corporations are just too powerful. 

So if we get coverage for SRS or HRT it will probably be dependent on the same people who deny it or restrict it now under a different organization. 

That's a different point.

I was only disagreeing with the implication that being organized was bad.

something that apparently Nancy Pelosi agrees with me on given her memo listing the groups the Democrats were coordinating with in order to control the message (or try to)

As for the anger and the shouting - if you can find me something from any left wing source decrying the shouting and disruption that went on in anti-war protests....to name just one cause celeb...I'll be more inclined to listen to their outrage now.

It has been SOP for some time now that when a right-of-center speaker appears on a university campus to speak that there's a vocal protest to try to shout the person down and be sure they are not heard.

I find it fascinating how many on the left are so VERY troubled that people on the right are taking plays directly out of the left wing playbook that's been in use for decades.

And protest in great innocence that no such thing ever happened.


Ha.

doesn't really matter anyway. The government will be bankrupt soon enough and this debate will have been pointless.

Having worked for the government, beware that government contracts are usually awarded to the lowest bidder.
"Let the buyer beware" takes on a whole new phrase.

The government could just do like "Cash-for-Clunkers".
I go and get new genitalia with money towards the surgery by trading in the old. They can take the "twig and berries" and render them unsalvagable.
(I don't think my genitalia ever got more than 1 mile to the gallon)

Make it about a $100 dollar-a-month payment for a 5-year note.
Reposessions will not be allowed.

Hugs~

Here's an example of what critics fear when it comes to government health care:

http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html

Oh I certainly AM aware of it.

Indeed, it's part of the problem - that sort of thing is the sort of thing that nationalizing the system is supposed to fix - but won't.

same can be said for a lot of the other unfounded hopes and promises being bandied about right now. the Democrats have a strategy, publicly disclosed, of demonizing private insurance companies - with the unstated implication that if you let them have their plan all those evils they speak of will be fixed.

The thing is, many of the things they call evils of the current system aren't addressed at all in the bills being talked about - it's scare tactics every bit as much as the worst stuff coming out of their opposition.

I'm not ABOUT to say this lady would have gotten better treatment from a private insurer...but it wouldn't have been WORSE so why should we nationalize the system and take on more massive debt to change the identity of the decision maker who's getting it wrong.

Hey the insurance companies didn't need any democratic help getting their demon rating.  As bad as "Hi, I'm from the Government and I'm here to help" sounds - and often it does, "Hi, I'm from Wellpoint Inc. and I'm here to help" does not exactly give off an air of confidence either.

shouting and disruption - I think the left tends to take to the streets (and I don't understand why either) and not meetings, and for the record, they tend not to shout, they chant dumb slogans and sing even worse songs.

But this is not a right/left deal, lots of big corporate executives (not in health care) want to see something down about trying to control the costs.

doesn't really matter anyway. The government will be bankrupt soon enough and this debate will have been pointless.
So, why does the right hate America so much?  Have so little faith in it?  Always running the country into the ground (by government when you have it, by negative thinking when you don't), not having any faith in the goodness of the people, the genius of the system, the abilities and resources we have (and hey, with our military, we can take the stuff we don't have) and our ability to out think problems.  I mean yeesh, OK, so your life sucks.  Lots of people are out of work, but its not as bad as the Great Depression, and we made it out of that.  It's not like WWII with huge empires based on hate and military power bearing down on us - and we won that.  It's not like the Civil War, and that eventually came to an end.  All in all, its not that bad, its only money, we print more - its not like money is real or anything.

The nice thing about studying a lot of history is that every time you start to think "Oh my god, the sky is falling, this is the worst bad time in the entire cycle of worse bad times."  You take a second and think, oh wait, I guess its not.

QuoteHowever, her doctors contacted the pharmaceutical company, Genentech, which agreed to give her the medication without charging her. But doctors told us, that is unusual for a company to give away such an expensive medication.

Of course they did.  It is a bit of PR spin.  They get to say "see we do care about people,"  But they did not come forward voluntarily, it took her doctor to call them.

And it does make sense that the state will cover her death, not her staying alive.  Medicare will do the same thing, when and if assisted suicide becomes federal law.  And that is why I don't think we will have SRS covered by a federal program.  It is all about the money.  Always has been, always will be.

Janet

QuoteSo, why does the right hate America so much?  Have so little faith in it?

How wonderfully snarky and how utterly pointless.

The left says we have a problem (in fact, not so long ago, the deficit was their biggest concern) and they simply "care about our future" - the right says we have a problem and they "hate America and have no faith in it"

Frankly my dear, such childishness doesn't deserve a serious reply.

I think we can stipulate as a given that no side in the debate - on this or any other topic  - "hates America"

Health care and drug companies are necessary 'evils'.  People whine and cry about the cost of health care and drugs, but someone has to pay for the advances in both areas, and that is the beneificeries of those procedures and drugs.  The general public.  And they would not be in business if they didn't make a profit for the investors and themselves.

And it is a good bit of PR for them.  Many drug companies have free drug programs for the un/under employed.  Again good PR. 

The ones that run these companies may really care about the patients, but they have to answer to the investors and the board of directors.  and they are in it for the money.  Don't get me wrong, I am not anti profit.  I would not have a job if it wasn't for profits.  But will we really ever get the kind of health care and medications that we require?  No because it isn't profitable enough for the companies to provide it.

And I really don't think we will have the kind of health care we see in other countries because the general public does not wish to pay for it.  Many may not know it but Medicare isn't free.  Most pay for it at a $100 per month.  Ask any senior.  If I could get the health care I need as a transwoman, for what I pay now for my coverage or at $100 per month I would gladly pay it.  But SRS isn't profitable enough.  HRT is a part of preventive medicine and usually gets covered.

As I said it is all about the money.  Would any of you do wourr job/prrofession for free?  Hack No.  I am in it for the money.

Janet

Then tell me, Janet, why drug companies spend as much,or more, on promoting their drugs?  Because most new drugs are only marginally better then the current ones!  Your taxes have frequently been used to do the original research that underlies new drugs.  The expense is public.  Then, when it is finally turned into something useful, the profits are privatized.  Sweet.  Worse, Americans are forced to pay full price because you can just jack up the cost of insurance.  People in Europe pay maybe 1/3 to 1/2 the cost because their SINGLE payer system negotiates the best, most cost effective drug prices.  Often that isn't the newest drug until it has been proven.  I have an excellent policy and it specifically states that any drug must be FDA approved and not experimental.  So it wouldn't pay for that Oregon womans drug either. 
Guess what, our ability to keep tissue alive is beginning to exceed our ability to pay for it.  What if a drug could keep your body alive-but brain dead- and this drug cost $1,000,000 a month. Some drugs now cost close to 100k a month.  Should we? Could we?  Where do we stop?

Again it is about the money.  Just as an example, which would you rather sell one item at 1 million dollars, or a million items at a $1.  Your profit is the same at 10%.  But at the end of 10 years your profit is $100,000,000.00 for the $1 item, and only $1,000,000.00 for the Million dollar item. That is 10000% increase in profit.

And who will pay a million dollar item every year for the next ten years.  It makes sense to sell the lower price item and make higher profits over the long haul.  Therefore it makes sense to advertise the lower price item.  And the advertising costs can be deferred and even taken off the taxes as the cost of doing business.

I also have a good policy.  Kaiser Permenete of Oregon.  And they also will not pay for experimental drugs.  Most will not.  And if we can keep the body alive with the brain dead, why would we.  But if the brain is still alive and functioning, don't we have a obligation to at least try?  And why do you think that more and more Americans go to Europe and Canada for the medications?  Because a) experimental drugs are available, and b) drugs are cheaper.

And what about "First do no harm?"   I am just saying that while it would be great to have SRS and related health issues covered, I just can't see it happening.  It isn't profitable.

Janet

Hell I've been waiting since Reagan took office to get to use that line.

And Democrats have been working on health care since the late 1940s when Harry Truman tried to do something, then again in the sixties when Lyndon actually did something, then we had two Southern Democrats as a democratic President and the agenda just isn't the same, and Clinton tried, but he made such a hash of it - like so many other things - so we're back, and so is health care. Other than the gun trade, no other industry has the lack of oversight the health industry does.

People whine and cry about the cost of health care and drugs, but someone has to pay for the advances in both areas, and that is the beneificeries of those procedures and drugs.  The general public.  And they would not be in business if they didn't make a profit for the investors and themselves.

In fact, if you'd check it out, that at least 1/2 the cost for most drugs is put up by the NIH, the trials are publicly financed, often in public universities and public hospitals - and only after they suck it down at the trough for a huge part of the development to they start to claim private enterprise.

Ask a studio CFO how much his studio's last film, ummm, say, Titanic, netted. My guess would be you'd discover that Titanic on the studio books netted negative money. Even though it's the largest grossing film ever made to-date. So it grossed $600,788,000 and every last bit of that a

There is no greater fiction in Hollywood then the bookkeeping and accounting.  Only the record industry was as bad, until MP3s left them with not much to count anymore.  That's why outsiders, Gulf+Western, Coca Cola, and Transamerica have gone in, bought studios thinking "Hey, we're going to cash in" and find out they might lose their entire multinational corporation over one movie.  Transamerica almost went belly up from Heaven's Gate alone.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJmsMurGONui7KL3DlV8sfjG7sQQD9A0PBCG0

A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday denied additional hair-removal treatments for a murderer who is seeking a taxpayer-funded sex-change operation, saying the inmate has failed to prove she will suffer "serious harm" without further electrolysis.