THE GEOERGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY

[Harlan Huckleby]

This poll is a stitch.

To express disapproval of Bush, you have to be self-identified as miserable.
Those who are happy are associated with the Republican party.




Time for a new poll......

[Tyrone Bigguns]

bobblehead, you're bringing up the points that the libs fail to acknowledge time and time again

Perhaps they arent' addressed because the ridiculous hypocrisy that weaves itself thru his posts.

Such as?

Gladly.

"I feel for your mother and father in law, honestly I do, this is why its unfair to bring personal examples into an arguement."

Yet, on the previous page he brings in HIS OWN PERSONAL EXAMPLE...his wife's lymphoma cancer. That is pretty much being a hypocrite.

Secondly, he makes an argument that the person should have saved, planned, etc..for the problem that happened..loss of job. Yet, he bemoans the fact that a drug is costly in Canada and England...why can't we just apply his own logic that people should save for medical costs? Again, hypocritical.

Factually, he makes a statement that the drug is not prescribed in England. No proof, yet he is wrong. THat cancer drug is the WORLD'S best selling cancer drug. It has been approved for use in england. Now, might his wife's situation not been approved? I don't know...neither does he. And, to use the source..a physician..well, that is just poor. The physician has a vested interest in the status quo..and maintaining it.

Any reasonable and honest physician will tell you the current system we have here is broke. They may not advocate Obama/Hilary/Canada/whatever, but they do know what we have itsn't working.

Finally, to let the free market determine course of action..especially in the area of drugs is just plain dumb and wrong. Big Pharm are companies that should be looking to make as much money as possible...and, there is nothing wrong with that. BUt, that doesn't dovetail with what is actually best for our country.

I know you will want an example..so here we go. Currently, you can find many products for male erectile dysfuntion. Is this really the best use of research for the country? No. However, it is the best thing for the Pharm companies. Now, if equal development was spent on other less profitibable drugs..then it would be, but it doesn't happen.

Take TB. The world still suffers from it. There are more virulent strains right now..even in this country...250K reported cases. However for the past 20 or so years...no work being done..till recently. Why? Because the people that get TB arent' the type of people who have money.

Ultimately, it is best of the U.S. not to have this problem....affects us in many ways...your tax dollars support those poor people who need care, they are a drain on us, they can't buy goods, they can't work, etc.

ANd, worldwide it is bad...less people to buy our products, etc.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Have you ever heard of rituxan? Its a lymphoma drug that very well may have saved my wifes life. Now go to the canadian NHA or the England NHA and see if they will prescribe rituxan (they won't, its too expensive). I asked my oncologist about not giving rituxan to a lymphoma patient and she said one word "unconscionable" (forgive my spelling).

National Health Care is nothing more than a socialist model which fails over and over again. It halts research and medical advancements in its steps, causes access problems, and ultimately will bankrupt this country more than they are doing already.

Where on earth are you pulling this stuff from??? Rituxan is part of the standard treatment for B-cell lymphomas all around the world. There is no protocol in England or Canada for refusing it to patients who need it. According to Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence:

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Rituximab is recommended for use in combination with a regimen of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone (CHOP) for the first-line treatment of people with CD20-positive diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma at clinical stage II, III or IV (see Section 2.3 of the original guideline document).

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

Hoosier..posted pretty much the same, minus the verication.

Sorry, didn't see your post.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ok after doing as much research as I can, it does appear that in late 2003, about 6 years after america was using rituxan it became availabe in england. More than likely the people from england that I got my information from were in america before 2003.

Now I'm not sure that tyrones well thought out response of:
'
Perhaps they arent' addressed because the ridiculous hypocrisy that weaves itself thru his posts.


is fair, i would like to think I am consistent and am willing to stand behind my arguements if you just point out WHERE i am being ridiculous instead of simply declaring me to be so and feeling proud of yourself. Tyrone is using the time tried liberal tactic of make fun of the person and you will discredit his arguement. Hoosier actually did a little legwork and showed me something new...thank you.

I still stand by my point that national health care is a terrible thing. Remember it is free market capitalism that created rituxan and people suffering in england before 2003 couldn't get it. Furthermore if not for free market capitalism, it never would have even been discovered/created.

I'm still open to any dissent/debate from y'all, but lets try to keep the personal attack crap to a minimum ok tyrone....after all, if you say I'm ridiculous, there is no need to back it up.

And, bobblehead is using the time honored Lee Atwater tactic of going slimy.

Instead of waiting for my response he goes on the attack. Did i "make fun" of Bobblehead? No! I merely pointed out that he was being hypocritical.

Let's review.

YOu posted factually incorrect information. Is there any sort of mea culpa. No. The old time honored conservative tactic of repeating misinformation until it sticks.

If the "liberals" didn't do the research, your bs woulda been allowed to stand and woulda remained for you..a fact. Must have been too hard to actually think and do some legwork before making an asinine statement.

Then, after being proven wrong..you attack and make judgements.."proud." How he derives this...who knows. Then, you attempt to smear me. Nice.

I"ve addressed your hypocrisy in my previous post.

Lastly, to say that the drug was a result of the free market capitalism is hilarious. Drug companies get gov't money/tax breaks/subsidies. That ain't free market, my friend.

Finally, calling something you do as hypocrisy isn't a personal attack..no different than your cheap shots at liberals. Funny, how you can do that and it is ok..make generalizations...guess that again makes you a hypocrite.

You want civility...then lead by example.

[bobblehead]

I've only got a second tyrone, so I'll try to be succint here. First I didn't think using my wifes cancer was hypocritical cuz I wasn't using it as an example, merely a perspective for why I even heard of the drug. I didn't use her situation to back up my arguement, and I could have as easily left it out (and probably should have), rituxan was my point. I in no way made her part of the arguement. ie....my wife is from england and couldn't get the drug therefore the system sucks. If you took it that way you read too much into it.

As far as my meaculpa I thought I did do that in my next post when I said I was wrong and thanked hoosier for pointing it out...if more is necessary here goes.

I fully apologize for using an outdated arguement, after concurring with the person I got my information from he moved to america in June of 2001 to be treated for his lymphoma when the NHA in england wouldn't pay for rituxan with CHOP.

While I take full responsibility for having my facts wrong, I don't think it makes my arguement invalid, merely outdated. I actually am glad my error was pointed out because I am not proud or in the habit of making bad arguements. Again, I apologize to everyone.

PS...I NEVER ONCE repeated this after I realized I was wrong, don't lie about me to back up your arguement please.

I hope that is better. As far as my tactics, I was merely responding to you posting that I was a hypocrit and not worth responding to, then complaining that I didn't give you a chance to respond.

You said : Instead of waiting for my response he goes on the attack. Did i "make fun" of Bobblehead? No! I merely pointed out that he was being hypocritical. (and ridiculous....don't forget the ridiculous since that was the offensive part)

this was after your post of: Perhaps they arent' addressed because the ridiculous hypocrisy that weaves itself thru his posts.

This implication wasn't that a response was coming, it was that i was ridiculous and not worth responding too. I'm sorry if you feel that me being offended by that was out of line. I am always glad to debate, be it me that is learning or someone else, I do try to keep it civil. Again, I apologize and actually want to keep the debate rolling.

Just to quickly address a couple other points, saying someone should save for medical costs here is in no way applicable to the situation in england or canada where you can't even go "outside" the network for care, you can only go outside the country. I was saying the drug wasn't approved by the gov't because of cost, and that is why nationalizing healthcare bothers me. (again, my example was outdated, true).

I will quickly with the time I have point out that I agree our medical situation is a mess. I have said so many times, but I blame the Kennedy HMO bill that took healthcare out of our hands and put it into big providers who no longer have to compete on the open market for my business. I think we can do a lot better for everyone, I just don't think the guys who bankrupted SS are the guys to handle it.

PS.....Before I run off I would like to point out that Viagra was a failed heart medication, it wasn't researched/designed to treat ED, it was discovered by accident when the test subjects in the heart study didn't want to return the last of the medication when the study was halted (you can research that one, I'm positive and have done my own homework on it). I'll be waiting for your mea culpa on your error, but don't repeat that lie please.

I will post more later, I will be civil and I DO look forward to continuing the discussion in a civil way. Peace.

[Zool]

Good thing you didnt have a long time.

[bobblehead]

Good thing you didnt have a long time.

I type wicked fast (well for an amateur, about 55wpm is considered fast)

[retailguy]

You want civility...then lead by example.

He did. Your turn. Have you got it in you? We'll see, won't we? :P

[Freak Out]

No talk of the traitor McCellan in here?

[hoosier]

No talk of the traitor McCellan in here?

It sounds like he's now trying to soften the blow by saying that instead of transforming DC political culture, Dubya's administration got caught up in Washington politics as usual. So the book isn't really a critique of Dubya but of Wash DC.

[Freak Out]

No talk of the traitor McCellan in here?

It sounds like he's now trying to soften the blow by saying that instead of transforming DC political culture, Dubya's administration got caught up in Washington politics as usual. So the book isn't really a critique of Dubya but of Wash DC.

Sure Scott.

[bobblehead]

I rarely bother to listen to anything anyone says when trying to sell a book. I wouldn't read monica lewinsky's book if it came out anymore than I would read McClellans.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I've only got a second tyrone, so I'll try to be succint here. First I didn't think using my wifes cancer was hypocritical cuz I wasn't using it as an example, merely a perspective for why I even heard of the drug. I didn't use her situation to back up my arguement, and I could have as easily left it out (and probably should have), rituxan was my point. I in no way made her part of the arguement. ie....my wife is from england and couldn't get the drug therefore the system sucks. If you took it that way you read too much into it.

As far as my meaculpa I thought I did do that in my next post when I said I was wrong and thanked hoosier for pointing it out...if more is necessary here goes.

I fully apologize for using an outdated arguement, after concurring with the person I got my information from he moved to america in June of 2001 to be treated for his lymphoma when the NHA in england wouldn't pay for rituxan with CHOP.

While I take full responsibility for having my facts wrong, I don't think it makes my arguement invalid, merely outdated. I actually am glad my error was pointed out because I am not proud or in the habit of making bad arguements. Again, I apologize to everyone.

PS...I NEVER ONCE repeated this after I realized I was wrong, don't lie about me to back up your arguement please.

I hope that is better. As far as my tactics, I was merely responding to you posting that I was a hypocrit and not worth responding to, then complaining that I didn't give you a chance to respond.

You said : Instead of waiting for my response he goes on the attack. Did i "make fun" of Bobblehead? No! I merely pointed out that he was being hypocritical. (and ridiculous....don't forget the ridiculous since that was the offensive part)

this was after your post of: Perhaps they arent' addressed because the ridiculous hypocrisy that weaves itself thru his posts.

This implication wasn't that a response was coming, it was that i was ridiculous and not worth responding too. I'm sorry if you feel that me being offended by that was out of line. I am always glad to debate, be it me that is learning or someone else, I do try to keep it civil. Again, I apologize and actually want to keep the debate rolling.

Just to quickly address a couple other points, saying someone should save for medical costs here is in no way applicable to the situation in england or canada where you can't even go "outside" the network for care, you can only go outside the country. I was saying the drug wasn't approved by the gov't because of cost, and that is why nationalizing healthcare bothers me. (again, my example was outdated, true).

I will quickly with the time I have point out that I agree our medical situation is a mess. I have said so many times, but I blame the Kennedy HMO bill that took healthcare out of our hands and put it into big providers who no longer have to compete on the open market for my business. I think we can do a lot better for everyone, I just don't think the guys who bankrupted SS are the guys to handle it.

PS.....Before I run off I would like to point out that Viagra was a failed heart medication, it wasn't researched/designed to treat ED, it was discovered by accident when the test subjects in the heart study didn't want to return the last of the medication when the study was halted (you can research that one, I'm positive and have done my own homework on it). I'll be waiting for your mea culpa on your error, but don't repeat that lie please.

I will post more later, I will be civil and I DO look forward to continuing the discussion in a civil way. Peace.

1. Use of personal anecdotes is hypocritical..especially when you say that to another poster. And, said poster was using his family in the exact same context as you were...to illustrate a point.

You can claim your intentions, but the point is that you used it to buttress your reasoning as why our system is better. And, you were wrong.

I would happy if you could find ONE example of a drug that is used in this country that "they" don't use based on cost. More likely to find drugs used there earlier than here..as to our FDA regulations. ANd, you would be more liekly to find HMO's/PPO's denying use of "experimental" drugs or procedures. That is the name of the game when you are trying to defray costs.

Trust me, Bobble...i know far more about the state of medicine and it's practice than you. Unless you grew up discussing it at the dinner table for 10 plus years, discussing it with numerous physicians at dinner parties, and count a number of physician's in your IMMEDIATE family...i think i've been exposed to the problems far longer and more in depth than you.

2. Lie...i don't know what you are referring to. I never said you repeated a lie. What i said was that if it wasn't for vigilant "liberals" your lie woulda stood..and that is as bad as an intentional lie. Propaganda.

3. Ridiculous. The point is you did use a personal example. You did state wrong facts. That is ridiculous.

Partial noted that "liberals" weren't responding. I noted why. I was completely right about why we weren't...including myself in the liberal camp.

4. I apologize if you took my comment about ridiculous and hypocrisy. Perhaps a bit strong. But, in your previous posts you have generalized and derided liberals. Uncivil behavior started with your posts.

5. viagra. I wasn't being drug specific. THAT IS WHY I SPECIFICALLY DIDN"T MENTION ONE DRUG BY NAME. But, dont' be foolish. ED has long been a grail for Big Pharm. You quickly saw many others jump in...cialis, wellbutrin (developed for depression). Yes, many drugs have alternative usage...Rituxan is now being used for rhematoid arthritis I believe. The point wasn't that..it was that Drug companies develop drugs, not based on need, but on profit. As well they should. THat is what companies do. And, have a responsibility to shareholders. And, they developed it for hearts..which is a huge profit area.

But, there are plenty of maladies that NEED to be treated and that benefit society far more..yet aren't addressed. Do some research on TB-XDR (believe that is the correct name).

2 billion people died of TB in the past 2 centuries.

Perhaps you are unaware that TB's hiding away in the meat of two billion of us, a third of all humans.

Ask yourself why we now have a problem with this? Ask yourself why academia (researchers) and drug companies are only now working in conjunction.

Because as smart as these academic guys are, they don't make drugs. Drug companies make drugs. The drug companies have the money, the people, and, honestly, the kick-ass robots -- robots capable of screening and tweaking and testing millions of chemical compounds at a time. Brute force. What academics offer are new ways of finding drugs -- the more fundamental and creative end of what's called the drug pipeline.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the pipeline was broken. Snapped in two. Academics had ideas but no money. Drug companies had money but no will. They didn't see a market. Ah, the key point..MARKET...big market...but, not enough REVENUE. For the most part, people rich enough to pay for drugs don't get TB -- it's mostly the homeless, the global destitute, and prisoners.

And, why would Drug companies want to help them? Kinda like AIDS drugs in Africa...remember that. Remember how many people in Africa and THE UNITED STATES couldn't afford those expensive drugs?

So, to let the "Free market" decide (which you never really addressed...as the gov't made a clear decision on how it was going to spend it's money back in the 20/30's) is foolish.

The market doesn't have empathy, the market doesn't understand that those people dying could buy our products, the market never learns from it's past mistakes. The market is like a crack addict...it needs to get it's fix...and it doesnt' think.

[bobblehead]

You said:

YOu posted factually incorrect information. Is there any sort of mea culpa. No. The old time honored conservative tactic of repeating misinformation until it sticks.

now you say:

2. Lie...i don't know what you are referring to. I never said you repeated a lie. What i said was that if it wasn't for vigilant "liberals" your lie woulda stood..and that is as bad as an intentional lie. Propaganda.

Again, I never repeated it once I realized the situation had changed. I apologized, thanked hoosier for pointing it out and moved on.

I still don't think me referencing my wife was in any way used as part of my arguement, nor to butress my arguement. I never said anything about her illness proving a need for anything, quite the opposite. Its hardly the same as saying we need national health care cuz I can't afford medicine for my wife in which case the only way to counter my arguement would be to tell me tough luck and look like an ass. I understand your point, but I honestly think my referance was very different than the one I called unfair.

I will have to do some research to find a new example of a drug they don't use that we do, but your own admission here is that they exist (or in the case of rituxan, did exist for 6 years)....(you claim it happens more the other way...maybe, I can't think of an example though, and you didn't offer one). And my point about the innovation that created the drug happened here, is even stronger. thus strengthening other countries national health care down the road,

I actually didn't think I derided liberals in previous posts, other than my original post where I stated you can't very often convince liberals cuz they go by what they "feel" is right and don't look deeply into the issues...I didn't mean that to be deriding, but I see how it could be taken. I really can't think of being uncivil or deriding.....perhaps you were mad at tex and lumped me into the same camp. (perhaps there are examples, but I generally argue my point in a civil way, and respect your opinion to do so as well) Perhaps you took Partials post as ME being deriding, but even when I read what he said, my thought was....well, I WANT them to respond, not I'm trying to put them in their place.

Not sure entirely how to respond to your entire medical industry spiel. I'm not questioning your knowledge, I'm questioning what you think is a better solution than free market capitalism. I have said in an ealrier post that I am all for govn't grants/awards for benchmark accomplishments in alternative energy, and I am all for the same for say TB drugs or anything else that helps mankind....but that is far different than allowing govn't to take over the health industry.

As far as you knowing more about medical industry than I do, maybe...maybe not, you can't know that for certain, and niether can I. I did go to a nursing college, so many of my female friends are nurses. I do discuss things with them, whether or not that makes me as knowledgeable as you I have no idea. But again, I don't think we are so far off in our thinking, I'm just wondering about solutions. I DO respect your opinions and input on this, please don't feel the need to prove to me you know your stuff, I never questioned it.

Being that we are moving toward a more civil tone and a more logic based debate (both of us) I am interested in what you think is a good solution. I have stated my position and that is gov't grants and awards for benchmark accomplishments in dang near anything the free market won't address. (even things like a concrete/blacktop mix that won't break down as easily). If you have other or better ideas I'm all for hearing them, again, no need to be confrontational on either of our parts.

[bobblehead]

Ok, I actually went thru and read EVERY post I have made on these two threads and I never derided liberals. the closest I came was when i said a conservative couldn't get their vote because of their faith on certain things...evidence to the contrary (tax cuts specifically) and I followed it by saying tex does the same thing with the GOP. This ONE instance I found where it could be interpreted as deriding was more a comment on republicans trying to convince liberals when it isn't necessary to win elections.

I think in reading along, you assosciated me with all conservative posters and attached me to certain deriding comments made. Quite the opposite of being uncivil, I really try to engage Liberals in honest debate....1) I might learn something new. 2) I might teach them something new. 3) We might combine for a good idea.

So, that being said, I hope you can admit you made a mistake when you said:

4. I apologize if you took my comment about ridiculous and hypocrisy. Perhaps a bit strong. But, in your previous posts you have generalized and derided liberals. Uncivil behavior started with your posts.

and we can move onward in good discussion. If you can point out me being deriding other than responding to the 'ridiculous hypocrasy' thing I will apologize. I actually have spent most of my time debating tex anyway.

I'm not saying I'm perfect in my posts, I do the best I can and am civil. I'm doing my best to carry this debate on and not have hard feelings...they won't accomplish anything anyway.