Wtf

[jebus]

I have my own children that are of the age where they bait and try their hand at sarcasm and put-downs. They are already learning that subtlety is an art that wields the sharpest knife. There's a lot we can learn from children.

well played.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hardy]

People voted Bush, and now they get Bush. I think it's great!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/02/budget.emergencyspend.ap/index.html

 

[Dr.Pdizzle]

oh my god, the sky is falling! Bush is president and at this rate the world will come to an end soon. We need to get someone in there with more intelligence than a monkey and then world will be a better place. George Bush doesn't care about poor old people.

 

[registered user]

oh my god, the sky is falling! Bush is president and at this rate the world will come to an end soon. We need to get someone in there with more intelligence than a monkey and then world will be a better place. George Bush doesn't care about poor old people.

An excellent summary of the preceding two and a half pages of posts . If you haven't already, don't bother reading the rest of the thread. Unless, of course, you could use a good laugh.

 

[KAI1927]

I am by no means well versed in politics, but i think the problem is more complex than big vs. little gov't. The issue lies in which areas our goverment is "big, and which areas it is "small". Bush's plan has the U.S. being small in areas of wellfare, healthcare and other public services (student loan subidies, etc.), yet he is all for the U.S. being Gigantic in defense and "national security". So while part of the U.S. budget shrinks, the other will grow like a tumor.

 

[NapeSpikes]

So while part of the U.S. budget shrinks, the other will grow like a tumor.

Good thing he and supporters have got their priorities straight. Money for war has to come from somewhere, so why not from the poor who are used to getting shafted.

 

[wildcatbio06]

I love it. Leave it to the Berkeley student to start a political thread that gets everyone and their mother on SDN to argue. This is some truly funny material. I do agree with the OP though.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I can't even listen to Bush's speeches, if I even hear a tiny sound bite I can't help but yell "OMIGOD SHUT THE F*** UP!" at the radio. Every single thing he says pisses me off! aaaargh!!

I can't believe so many people voted for him and his "christian" values.. such as cutting benefits from the poor to fund tax cuts for his wealthy buddies.. I must have missed that sermon..

I feel the same. Life's too short to listen to that guy -- I even muted the summary of the SotU on the morning news show. I also agree that his view of Christianity doesn't stack up well against the Christian values I was raised with. You know, care for the poor and sick, peace, etc.

 

[drmota]

I love it. Leave it to the Berkeley student to start a political thread that gets everyone and their mother on SDN to argue. This is some truly funny material. I do agree with the OP though.

ya that OP's one smart dude. he was also a political science major, from what i hear. hot stuff.
-mota

 

[drmota]

shifting gears a little, what do you guys think of :

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/opinion/02thu3.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

my dad kind of pimps around pharm reps himself and he's a very upstanding doctor. he only accepts offers for expensive dinners, bball tickets etc from pharm reps representing drugs that he has already chose on his own accord to prescribe to patients. they took us out to dinner last night. a different group took us out last week. we're also going out again next week. and each time we (the pharm company, rather) drop about a grand. i don't see much harm in that, do you? we're just use the endless bank account of pharmaceutical companies, and they're more than happy to spend it on us. its the more shady docs like the ones addressed in the article that need to be watched.
-mota

 

[CaveatLector]

i want visionaries, not cashiers.

 

[angietron3000]

shifting gears a little, what do you guys think of :

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/opinion/02thu3.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

my dad kind of pimps around pharm reps himself and he's a very upstanding doctor. he only accepts offers for expensive dinners, bball tickets etc from pharm reps representing drugs that he has already chose on his own accord to prescribe to patients. they took us out to dinner last night. a different group took us out last week. we're also going out again next week. and each time we (the pharm company, rather) drop about a grand. i don't see much harm in that, do you? we're just use the endless bank account of pharmaceutical companies, and they're more than happy to spend it on us. its the more shady docs like the ones addressed in the article that need to be watched.
-mota

ah, but who pays for that grand in the long run? the pharm company or little old ladies with medical problems? or maybe medicare? or maybe the rest of us whose insurance premiums are through the f'ing roof even tho we don't ever see a doctor? the sooner they stop blowing money like this and calling it "marketing" or "research and development" the sooner the huge mess of a system we call healthcare will start to get better..

 

[drmota]

the sooner they stop blowing money like this and calling it "marketing" the sooner the huge mess of a system we call healthcare will start to get better..

what are the chances of that? you see that happening in a place like America?
-mota

 

[angietron3000]

what are the chances of that? you see that happening in a place like America?
-mota

no, but I don't see myself taking advantage of it either

 

[drmota]

no, but I don't see myself taking advantage of it either

i agree and i don't think my dad ever anticipated on taking advantage of it. but he's kind of rationalized the whole thing for himself. he realizes that if he didn't take these people up on their free dinners, that money would just be pocketed by the company's CEO. he might as well take a dip in that sea of cash. i don't think something that trivial makes the problem any worse. but, true, at the same time its not making things any better. nonetheless, the problem is much larger than one person. these are huge multi-national corporations we're talking about.
-mota

 

[TSisk23]

i agree and i don't think my dad ever anticipated on taking advantage of it. but he's kind of rationalized the whole thing for himself. he realizes that if he didn't take these people up on their free dinners, that money would just be pocketed by the company's CEO. he might as well take a dip in that sea of cash. i don't think something that trivial makes the problem any worse. but, true, at the same time its not making things any better. nonetheless, the problem is much larger than one person. these are huge multi-national corporations we're talking about.
-mota

I think you are right...as long as one doesnt let the money of these companies dictate the way a doctor runs his/her practice...which it doesnt sound like your father does. As you mentioned its the ones that allow their judgement to be controlled by these corporations that are the concern in my opinion.

 

[jebus]

I think you are right...as long as one doesnt let the money of these companies dictate the way a doctor runs his/her practice...which it doesnt sound like your father does. As you mentioned its the ones that allow their judgement to be controlled by these corporations that are the concern in my opinion.

Yeah, but isn't that the point? Sure, you're not going to let these companies dictate what you do but it's pretty much impossible not to be swayed at some level. Where do you draw the line?
I remember watching on Frontline (yes, I watch PBS, I'll admit it) that drug companies spend 14% of their operating budget on advertising. This is the same amount they spend on R&D. (Ok, to be fair, there is a lot of debate about the actual numbers because these companies are not compelled to break down advertising costs.)

 

[TSisk23]

Yeah, but isn't that the point? Sure, you're not going to let these companies dictate what you do but it's pretty much impossible not to be swayed at some level. Where do you draw the line?
I remember watching on Frontline (yes, I watch PBS, I'll admit it) that drug companies spend 14% of their operating budget on advertising. This is the same amount they spend on R&D. (Ok, to be fair, there is a lot of debate about the actual numbers because these companies are not compelled to break down advertising costs.)

I agree you have to draw a line somewhere. I am by no means an expert but its like any business, these companies must advertise to those who will use their product, and this happens to be doctors. This is going to happen...I just hope doctors arent persuaded by the money to prescribe their (the drug company's) more expensive drug if the outcome is less or at best equal to the quality of a cheaper drug. This one of the problems commonly mentioned and to me its a big one. Making something thats expensive even more so. Having been to several doctors offices though much of what they use is a result of advertising on part of the manufacturer. Its how they find out about much of the "new technology" in medicine. Advertising will continue to happen because of this. So as I said in agreeing with you a line must be drawn and for me that is not letting salesmen persuade you to change your practice of medicine by making medical care more expensive for patients than it already is. If they want to take some doctor like mota's father to lunch to listen then so be it...him not going to lunch is not going to change these guys spending a lot of money to market their products. I could be wrong so if I am please correct me. I am interested in the other viewpoints.

 

[jebus]

I just hope doctors arent persuaded by the money to ....
Having been to several doctors offices though much of what they use is a result of advertising on part of the manufacturer.....
not letting salesmen persuade you to change your practice of medicine by making medical care more expensive for patients than it already is.

I see what you're saying, I'm glad you're sensitive to this stuff, and I realize that advertisers serve an important purpose to teach physicians about products. When I worked in a lab I saw the same thing - and listening to one of them helped get me a freakin publication. But keep in mind that these marketers are experts in psychology. What seem like small worthless trinkets and lunches are, I'm sure, incremental investments to win the hearts and minds of the physician. Just like marketers group people by demographic, I would not be surprised if they group physicians into categories too: complicit, noncommittal, hardened opposition, etc., and I'm sure they've thought of ways to appeal to each kind, especially those who say they will not be persuaded. It's almost a certainty that their methods are effective, otherwise wouldn't they just stop doing them? You can guarantee they've done the analysis on the numbers and they know their methods work.
Advertisers and salesmen are successful at selling things to people who don't really need or want them. It is girl scout cookie season after all, and how can you say no to that adorable little 6-year old brownie (isn't that what they're called? That was not a knock against mexicans or blacks or anyone else, ok.) who just wants to help her troop out. At $3.00 a box why not get 5? It's only $15, mister.

 

[tigress]

There was a study not long ago that showed that residents with access to samples of a certain drug were much more likely to prescribe it even when there was no medical indication for that over another drug than residents who didn't have the samples. Of course, everybody who read it said, "well, duh."

In the clinic where I work I see residents jumping at the chance to go to fancy dinners, sucking up to reps to get the best lunches, etc. Of course, to a large degree it's because they'd rather get good food without paying for it! The attendings as a rule hate pharm reps and their food and get mad when they're allowed in. I definitely think it does affect prescribing practices.

I do think the companies have the right to advertise however they want. But I also think the money is coming from jacked up drug prices, which end up burning us in the end. Overall I'm pretty uncomfortable when they're around.

desiredusername, around here Girl Scout cookies are $3.50 a box. I bought 2

 

[cfdavid]

i don't get why people would want to vote for smaller government. it's like saying, ok, i'll vote for whoever's lazy and doesn't want to exercise much effort into whatever we want the government to provide just so they can give us our money back.

seriously, if they don't want to start and fund programs that benefit the majority of this country and help us progress, i say they resign cuz they have no business running for office. i want visionaries, not cashiers.

Many Republicans believe in a culture of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and smaller federal government in favor of greater state and local government (not that democrats necessarily don't for the former two). That way, if conservatives in Wyoming want to run their state one way (based on the desire of that state's constituency), then they can. If democrats in Massachusettes want certain programs pertaining to K-12 education, then by all means. Just don't dictate that to people in other states that may disagree for any variety of valid reasons.

Theoretically, this system is more democratic in that it protects people from a large central government located in a concentrated geographic and perhaps cultural region of the country. In other words, elitists in Washington DC and New York won't dictate what people do in Salt Lake City.

Another premise is that people should have the right to spend their money as they see fit. It's a philosophical difference. Large beauracracies don't do too well when it comes to efficiency. Things don't get done as nimbly, and history has shown that there can be a lot of waste in large, government run programs.

It's a very fine line, in my opinion. Sometimes, these theories may not be good for the people. Other times, they very well may. But, big governmental programs are not necessarily the answer to urgent problems in our society.

 

[cfdavid]

ShyREm,
How do you suggest they get rid of illegal immigrants? I suppose they should just load them unto a truck and drop them off at the border. Isn't that right?

No, but enforcing our border and taking seriously our legal process of naturalization would be a good start. We're the most generous nation by a very, very, long shot when it somes to welcoming people into this country that go through the legal channels.

Blame the illegals? No. But, something needs to be done, because guess who pays the bills when illegal immigrants get sick, or hurt on the job? Where do they go? The ER, and the hospitals pick up the tab.

Didn't this thread just start out with the fact that our healthcare system needs reform, and isn't exactly doing a great job at serving legal citizens of this country?? Aw shucks, what's a few million more illegals weighing down our healthcare system gonna matter.... At what point would YOU decide to draw the line?

(Oh, and no, my name's not ShyRem. lol)

 

[cfdavid]

people vote for smaller government because it's an absurd notion to elect a large government by choice that will take money out of your pocket and try to control you. that said, voting for small government would be a far more libertarian concept than republican. republicans are just fine with big government as long as it's their big government (same goes for democrats). libertarians on the other hand would say the government's purpose is to make sure we don't all kill each other and to maintain some order, but for the most part to stay out of citizen's personal affairs, because it's not the government's place or right to be involved in that portion of our lives.

True indeed, about the republicans. But, that's also why I don't think libertarianism is a practical means of running a country. After all, it takes big money to build and maintain infrastructure such as interstate highways, bridges etc. Government DOES do some things better than private industry. I can't see people all getting together and saying, "yeah, let's all pitch in $100 bucks and we'll build that new overpass. damn traffic sure is gettin bad". lol

 

[kovalchuk]

I love it. Leave it to the Berkeley student to start a political thread that gets everyone and their mother on SDN to argue. This is some truly funny material. I do agree with the OP though.

Oh come on, Berkeley isn't that bad.

 

[jbone]

Oh come on, Berkeley isn't that bad.

Classic.