THE GEOERGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY

[Partial]

Thinking that a free market is going to have drug companies only focus on the most expensive drugs is foolish. If anything, it would promote those companies spending the money researching curing smaller things, as the patent would be longer, and there wouldn't be 10-20 other companies trying to solve the same problem..

I would think that a company would be pretty happy if they can get a patent for 10 years on a drug that treats something fewer people have.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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.

1. mea culpa...you are reading that wrong. I am making the same type of general statement that you made about liberals and how they attack.

2. Anecdotes. Sorry, but i dont' see any difference. the liberal says we need it cause my folks don't have health insurance. The conservative posts that his wife woulda died if we didn't have our system. That is what it boils down to...same type of argument.

3. Drugs. I can't recall either, but i've seen it many times that the FDA doesn't approve things as quickly as Europe. THat is both good and bad.

4. Innovation. I don't see it. Sorry.

5. Insults. If you don't see it or think that you have, then you aren't self aware. Yes, your comments are insulting. To generalize that liberals "feel" is insulting.

And, when you didn't like my post..you didn't just ask why i said it was hypocritical or ridiculous...you went on the offensive about how liberals operate. THat is the most base and worst type of debate.

Let's take a look at one of your other posts.

he's not my favorite president, but your post pretty much sums up liberals I can't debate on an intellectual level, so I'll resort to name calling.

You don't find that insulting?

6. Health Industry. Impossible to present. I can point out the good things in a socialize situation, you can point out the negative. I can point out the flaws in the current, you can point out the good.

Most certainly the best/efficient/less costly is socialized. Will there be problems yes. Will we lose innovation..probably. Will we save money because we won't have uninsured showing up at ER's..yes.

7. As you want tex to trust you on finance..trust me on medical. I"m the son of two physicians. I had 10 years of listening to medical issues and the econ behind it...and i hear it today from my physician brother.

[bobblehead]

I asked tex to trust me on the definition of a financial term. If you tell me to trust you about a medical procedure I probably will, but for you to generalize with this:

Most certainly the best/efficient/less costly is socialized. Will there be problems yes. Will we lose innovation..probably. Will we save money because we won't have uninsured showing up at ER's..yes.

I will respectfully disagree. Again, they bankrupted social security, a very simple program to run, I reject your premise that they can run medicine "best/efficient/less costly" As a matter of fact, I couldn't think of anything further from the truth.

I did admit that my comment on "feel" could be read as deriding, but again, I was defining why we shouldn't bother trying to get votes from them, and i said it was on SOME issues. And I backed it up with evidence....Libs tend tend to think tax increases will somehow increase revenues to the gov't even though indisputable evidence shows that the treasury recieves 19.5% of GDP regardless of tax rates.

Point taken on my wifes condition and how it read. I don't need to personalize the arguement, the facts should speak for themselves. I still don't think it was the same, but i can see how you do.

I didn't ask why you thought I was ridiculous/hypocritical because you implied right there that I wasn't worth responding too, so yes, I took a shot back at you. (but a provoked shot)

And again...on the post you point out about me summing up liberals...I was directly responding to a liberal provacation, hardly me taking random shots at libs.

Now, because I respect your knowledge and opinion, I actually want to know why you think gov't can run healthcare despite all evidence of them bankrupting us with every social program they start (see links in my other post for evidence.) And although you have a family of physicians, this is a far cry from saying I should trust you that politicians can run it better.

[Freak Out]

Former prosecutors challenge White House immunity claim

Marisa Taylor | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: May 29, 2008 08:43:06 PM

WASHINGTON — Twenty former U.S. attorneys, both Republicans and Democrats, urged a federal judge Thursday to intervene in a constitutional battle over whether two White House officials should be forced to testify before Congress about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The former top prosecutors, including two who served under President Bush, argue in court papers that the judge should reject the Bush administration's assertion of blanket immunity for presidential chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in the congressional investigation.

Democrats in the House of Representatives say they were forced to sue in March, more than a year after they launched the probe, because the administration has refused to allow Miers and Bolten to provide crucial information about the reasons the prosecutors were fired. The case also could determine how former presidential adviser Karl Rove responds to a subpoena in a related congressional investigation.

The lawsuit accuses administration officials of injecting partisan considerations into the firing decisions and making "questionable or outright false statements" in subsequent explanations to Congress.

The prosecutors acknowledged that the administration could have legitimate legal reasons for not allowing Bolten and Miers to testify. However, they called on U.S. District Judge John D. Bates to weigh Congress' arguments carefully because of the serious nature of the allegations.

"This congressional inquiry involves the possible subversion of principles at the core of Constitutional government," they wrote. "It is a matter of the utmost importance for Congress to conduct a complete investigation to determine whether White House officials have injected, or attempted to inject, partisan considerations into a process that must be rigorously insulated from such considerations."

The administration has denied any wrongdoing and maintains that Congress has no compelling interest to review White House deliberations on the matter.

The prosecutors who voiced support for Congress' position include officials who served under presidents Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and both President Bush and his father, former president George H.W. Bush.

Alan Bersin, a former U.S. attorney under Clinton, and William Braniff, a former U.S. attorney under George H.W. Bush, both served as the top federal prosecutor in San Diego, where the Bush administration later fired then-U.S. attorney Carol Lam. Former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who was among the ousted prosecutors, and Matthew Orwig, a former U.S. attorney under Bush in Beaumont, Texas, also signed the brief.

"This brief is apolitical and legally sound," said Orwig, who was described in internal Justice Department documents that came out during the controversy as a "loyal Bushie." "It was clear as this controversy unfolded that the reasons given for the firings were fabricated. It also became clear that the congressional investigation was being impeded."

Four legal and watchdog organizations also filed briefs in support of Congress: the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, the Rutherford Institute, Judicial Watch, and Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington.

The congressional investigation into the firings of the U.S. attorneys produced suspicions but no proof that the prosecutors were targeted because they'd rebuffed Republican demands that they bring weak voter-fraud cases against Democrats or because they'd mounted corruption investigations of Republicans.

Although White House and Justice Department officials have acknowledged the firings were handled badly, they've insisted the ousters weren't orchestrated to hinder or encourage certain prosecutions. A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment on the latest developments in the lawsuit.

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I asked tex to trust me on the definition of a financial term. If you tell me to trust you about a medical procedure I probably will, but for you to generalize with this:

Most certainly the best/efficient/less costly is socialized. Will there be problems yes. Will we lose innovation..probably. Will we save money because we won't have uninsured showing up at ER's..yes.

I will respectfully disagree. Again, they bankrupted social security, a very simple program to run, I reject your premise that they can run medicine "best/efficient/less costly" As a matter of fact, I couldn't think of anything further from the truth.

I did admit that my comment on "feel" could be read as deriding, but again, I was defining why we shouldn't bother trying to get votes from them, and i said it was on SOME issues. And I backed it up with evidence....Libs tend tend to think tax increases will somehow increase revenues to the gov't even though indisputable evidence shows that the treasury recieves 19.5% of GDP regardless of tax rates.

Point taken on my wifes condition and how it read. I don't need to personalize the arguement, the facts should speak for themselves. I still don't think it was the same, but i can see how you do.

I didn't ask why you thought I was ridiculous/hypocritical because you implied right there that I wasn't worth responding too, so yes, I took a shot back at you. (but a provoked shot)

And again...on the post you point out about me summing up liberals...I was directly responding to a liberal provacation, hardly me taking random shots at libs.

Now, because I respect your knowledge and opinion, I actually want to know why you think gov't can run healthcare despite all evidence of them bankrupting us with every social program they start (see links in my other post for evidence.) And although you have a family of physicians, this is a far cry from saying I should trust you that politicians can run it better.

I don't think the gov't does a terrible job in everything they do. But, what you have ingeniously done is label certain ones social programs.

THe question i would pose to you is why the gov't can run certain things well...military, etc., but fails in other areas. OR would you suggest as many conservs do that we should privatize everthing...which, i think, even you..would be a disaster.

It isnt' that i think the gov't is so great, i think the current situation is horrible. Look, you and the rest of the country can think America is smarter than the rest of the world, but you have to admit that it does seem odd that the western world is going the opposite of us.

I think that there needs to be a radical shift in healthcare..prevention, etc...that just won't be accomplished with the current system...it is too entrenched and nothing will change.

The current system is like the old song...the noble duke of york..."cause when you are only halfway up..you are neither up or down." We cannot continue down this road.

If you want to go down the opposite road of socialized medicine...then i'm all for it...but, then we go down the road of pay for service...and you and I both know that ain't happening.

I believe that is far better to have more people getting routine care then it is to have cutting edge technology.

[bobblehead]

I don't disagree with most of what you say, some, but most I agree, the current medical system is a mess. The computer systems and record keeping in most medical offices is not even up to par with my home office.

I would quickly point out that there is a MOUNTAIN of waste in the military, but it is a system that requires the gov't to run it, much like police, firestations, ect. Same goes for certain other things the gov't must do or it won't get done, like roads, ect....but they usually contract out where possible. This is how I feel about researching drugs that pharma doesn't want to, I've explained that.

I only label social programs as such....any program that tries to pool resources to spread risk equally. They generally turn into "take from the haves give to the have nots" real quick, and in PRINCIPLE I think it would be great if it worked, but as I have pointed out and cited articles, such programs as SS and medicare are bankrupting this country, but we aren't even fully aware of it because the gov't doesn't use standard accounting processes.

We simply flat out disagree on the routine care vs. cutting edge technology issue. I believe that in the long run its better for EVERYONE if we continue to improve technology, then things you call routine care become DIRT cheap. Just as one simple example, allergy medications. They used to be script only, cutting edge stuff, now you can buy a month of claritin for under $5 a month. I believe routine care is already VERY affordable, but you can't MAKE people get it. I get it, thru a physical with lifesigns every september. there is a website: isyourhealthatrisk.com that you can visit and if you live in the area you can get a multitude of risk factor tests done for $200. They don't treat, they simply tell you "this flagged, see your doctor." See, I'm all for programs like this to help you manage your health in a cost effective way, while utilizing a disastor policy and health savings acct. Problem is the HMO's have gotten so powerful that they lobby congress and get silly restrictions put in to stop people from opening practices, red tape to make it expensive and confusing. I understand the need for regulations, but its ludicrous. Ask your parents if they would even consider opening their own practice nowdays...(maybe they have, I don't know, but I'm guessing....)

Ok, off topic a bit, I have a serious question for you since you have contacts and you said I can trust you. Why has the FDA cracked down so hard on HgH use?? Doctors are afraid to prescribe it, when a year ago, not so much. Certain companies from china that were selling it cheap can't even fill a script for you anymore. (I mean 1/4 the price of the name brands). From everything I have been able to find/read/discuss HgH in doses of 1-2IU a day do nothing but benefit. Even eliminating arthritis in most people. Literally NO downside. The only adverse effect linked to it in the slightest is an increase in Carpal Tunnel syndrome.

I understand the sports angle, MLB cracking down, but that doesn't explain why doctors are now afraid to prescribe it for my mother when 18 months ago they weren't.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I don't disagree with most of what you say, some, but most I agree, the current medical system is a mess. The computer systems and record keeping in most medical offices is not even up to par with my home office.

I would quickly point out that there is a MOUNTAIN of waste in the military, but it is a system that requires the gov't to run it, much like police, firestations, ect. Same goes for certain other things the gov't must do or it won't get done, like roads, ect....but they usually contract out where possible. This is how I feel about researching drugs that pharma doesn't want to, I've explained that.

I only label social programs as such....any program that tries to pool resources to spread risk equally. They generally turn into "take from the haves give to the have nots" real quick, and in PRINCIPLE I think it would be great if it worked, but as I have pointed out and cited articles, such programs as SS and medicare are bankrupting this country, but we aren't even fully aware of it because the gov't doesn't use standard accounting processes.

We simply flat out disagree on the routine care vs. cutting edge technology issue. I believe that in the long run its better for EVERYONE if we continue to improve technology, then things you call routine care become DIRT cheap. Just as one simple example, allergy medications. They used to be script only, cutting edge stuff, now you can buy a month of claritin for under $5 a month. I believe routine care is already VERY affordable, but you can't MAKE people get it. I get it, thru a physical with lifesigns every september. there is a website: isyourhealthatrisk.com that you can visit and if you live in the area you can get a multitude of risk factor tests done for $200. They don't treat, they simply tell you "this flagged, see your doctor." See, I'm all for programs like this to help you manage your health in a cost effective way, while utilizing a disastor policy and health savings acct. Problem is the HMO's have gotten so powerful that they lobby congress and get silly restrictions put in to stop people from opening practices, red tape to make it expensive and confusing. I understand the need for regulations, but its ludicrous. Ask your parents if they would even consider opening their own practice nowdays...(maybe they have, I don't know, but I'm guessing....)

Ok, off topic a bit, I have a serious question for you since you have contacts and you said I can trust you. Why has the FDA cracked down so hard on HgH use?? Doctors are afraid to prescribe it, when a year ago, not so much. Certain companies from china that were selling it cheap can't even fill a script for you anymore. (I mean 1/4 the price of the name brands). From everything I have been able to find/read/discuss HgH in doses of 1-2IU a day do nothing but benefit. Even eliminating arthritis in most people. Literally NO downside. The only adverse effect linked to it in the slightest is an increase in Carpal Tunnel syndrome.

I understand the sports angle, MLB cracking down, but that doesn't explain why doctors are now afraid to prescribe it for my mother when 18 months ago they weren't.

1. You don't or can't answer why the gov't is poor (or poorer) at running one type of program vs. another.

2. YOu don't answer why we are going down a trail that other smart countries aren't. I don't know about you, but that is troubling. And, you say our system of medicine is bankrupting us..c'mon...that is hilarious. We spend more money here as a percent than the socialized do.

3. Costs. I understand your point..my point is that it literally costs an arm and a leg to treat a simple thing like a broken arm. Those type of costs are ridiculous. I"m sorry, but this country needs to get basic coverage under control....not to sound callous, but the last thing we need is new and improved heart procedures and radical surgeries. If we are looking at the greatest good, then those people will have to suffer. I'm sorry for their demise, but the ininsured and others who pay out the nose for the basics are being killed...5 bucks for aspirin? LOL

4. Innovation. I don't agree. Here is why. I worked early in my career in the defense industry. It is quite robust, yet they can only make a profit of around 5%...or they do cost plus contracts. Yet, you dont' see Lockheed, Saic, etc. leaving because they can't make money. You dont' see software engineers, engineers, etc. not entering the field because they won't make a livng. They continue to field thousands of resumes because of STEADY EMPLOYMENT. ANd, people continue to get better educated because they can bill to the gov't at a higher rate if they have a masters/phd.

The same thing can be done in the Pharm industry.

Lastly, it is time to take the insurance industry outta the picture. They are at odds with the nature of healthcare. they make money denying people coverage or claims. I can't as a capitalist get angry at that, but as a human being i can.

I know this will seem like "liberal" propaganda, but just yesterday we have an article in the AZ Republic about this..and NO ONE WILL CLAIM THAT PAPER IS LIBERAL OR AZ A LIBERAL STATE.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/30/20080530biz-insurance0529.html

5. Own practice. My dad had his own practice. Most physicians I know are part of groups. BUt, they wouldn't agree about opening a practice, though they are no fans of HMOs...but, my dad wasn't in a field that was dominated by that..he was in a field that people decided to pay for and received no money for insurance..but, he did do surgery on those who were covered by insurance.

My folks were long preaching that socialized was coming...from the late 70s/early 80s.

YOu should face the inevitable.

BTW, get ready to have procedures done outta the country as well...that is on its way. If you don't want that...or at least keep it to a minimum..then socialized is the way.

Just wait till you get an offer to split the cost savings with you...you'll pocket let's say 8K because you have a procedure done in a hospital in Thailand. And, that hospital will be better than a U.S. and have better nurse to patient ratio..and soon enough will be part of your healthcare network. It's on its way.

6. HGH. I will ask, but i doubt they will have an answer for you. The physicians in intimately know aren't involved in daily type care, geriatric care, or involved in writing scripts. 2 are involved in diagnosing and one was involved in surgery.

Unfortunately, this is akin to asking a family law practitioner about tax law.

Did you ask the doctor who woudn't prescribe? If not, why not?

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that the physicians don't want the hassle that comes with the gov't looking at them. THey prolly see it as a red flag to be avoided. Plus, many docs prescribe it to much younger patients..i know that it is a staple in hollywood.

Prolly just wanna avoid any semblance of impropriety...docs are pretty conservative and don't want the fda/irs looking at them.

Though, i see Cenegenics advertisements all the time...they are still doing it.

As for my personal knowledge of HgH (from the lifting community)..i'm inclined to agree with you. But, alternatively, i don't know what else a physician can prescribe instead of it.

[bobblehead]

I don't disagree with most of what you say, some, but most I agree, the current medical system is a mess. The computer systems and record keeping in most medical offices is not even up to par with my home office.

I would quickly point out that there is a MOUNTAIN of waste in the military, but it is a system that requires the gov't to run it, much like police, firestations, ect. Same goes for certain other things the gov't must do or it won't get done, like roads, ect....but they usually contract out where possible. This is how I feel about researching drugs that pharma doesn't want to, I've explained that.

I only label social programs as such....any program that tries to pool resources to spread risk equally. They generally turn into "take from the haves give to the have nots" real quick, and in PRINCIPLE I think it would be great if it worked, but as I have pointed out and cited articles, such programs as SS and medicare are bankrupting this country, but we aren't even fully aware of it because the gov't doesn't use standard accounting processes.

We simply flat out disagree on the routine care vs. cutting edge technology issue. I believe that in the long run its better for EVERYONE if we continue to improve technology, then things you call routine care become DIRT cheap. Just as one simple example, allergy medications. They used to be script only, cutting edge stuff, now you can buy a month of claritin for under $5 a month. I believe routine care is already VERY affordable, but you can't MAKE people get it. I get it, thru a physical with lifesigns every september. there is a website: isyourhealthatrisk.com that you can visit and if you live in the area you can get a multitude of risk factor tests done for $200. They don't treat, they simply tell you "this flagged, see your doctor." See, I'm all for programs like this to help you manage your health in a cost effective way, while utilizing a disastor policy and health savings acct. Problem is the HMO's have gotten so powerful that they lobby congress and get silly restrictions put in to stop people from opening practices, red tape to make it expensive and confusing. I understand the need for regulations, but its ludicrous. Ask your parents if they would even consider opening their own practice nowdays...(maybe they have, I don't know, but I'm guessing....)

Ok, off topic a bit, I have a serious question for you since you have contacts and you said I can trust you. Why has the FDA cracked down so hard on HgH use?? Doctors are afraid to prescribe it, when a year ago, not so much. Certain companies from china that were selling it cheap can't even fill a script for you anymore. (I mean 1/4 the price of the name brands). From everything I have been able to find/read/discuss HgH in doses of 1-2IU a day do nothing but benefit. Even eliminating arthritis in most people. Literally NO downside. The only adverse effect linked to it in the slightest is an increase in Carpal Tunnel syndrome.

I understand the sports angle, MLB cracking down, but that doesn't explain why doctors are now afraid to prescribe it for my mother when 18 months ago they weren't.

1. You don't or can't answer why the gov't is poor (or poorer) at running one type of program vs. another.

2. YOu don't answer why we are going down a trail that other smart countries aren't. I don't know about you, but that is troubling. And, you say our system of medicine is bankrupting us..c'mon...that is hilarious. We spend more money here as a percent than the socialized do.

3. Costs. I understand your point..my point is that it literally costs an arm and a leg to treat a simple thing like a broken arm. Those type of costs are ridiculous. I"m sorry, but this country needs to get basic coverage under control....not to sound callous, but the last thing we need is new and improved heart procedures and radical surgeries. If we are looking at the greatest good, then those people will have to suffer. I'm sorry for their demise, but the ininsured and others who pay out the nose for the basics are being killed...5 bucks for aspirin? LOL

4. Innovation. I don't agree. Here is why. I worked early in my career in the defense industry. It is quite robust, yet they can only make a profit of around 5%...or they do cost plus contracts. Yet, you dont' see Lockheed, Saic, etc. leaving because they can't make money. You dont' see software engineers, engineers, etc. not entering the field because they won't make a livng. They continue to field thousands of resumes because of STEADY EMPLOYMENT. ANd, people continue to get better educated because they can bill to the gov't at a higher rate if they have a masters/phd.

The same thing can be done in the Pharm industry.

Lastly, it is time to take the insurance industry outta the picture. They are at odds with the nature of healthcare. they make money denying people coverage or claims. I can't as a capitalist get angry at that, but as a human being i can.

I know this will seem like "liberal" propaganda, but just yesterday we have an article in the AZ Republic about this..and NO ONE WILL CLAIM THAT PAPER IS LIBERAL OR AZ A LIBERAL STATE.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/30/20080530biz-insurance0529.html

5. Own practice. My dad had his own practice. Most physicians I know are part of groups. BUt, they wouldn't agree about opening a practice, though they are no fans of HMOs...but, my dad wasn't in a field that was dominated by that..he was in a field that people decided to pay for and received no money for insurance..but, he did do surgery on those who were covered by insurance.

My folks were long preaching that socialized was coming...from the late 70s/early 80s.

YOu should face the inevitable.

BTW, get ready to have procedures done outta the country as well...that is on its way. If you don't want that...or at least keep it to a minimum..then socialized is the way.

Just wait till you get an offer to split the cost savings with you...you'll pocket let's say 8K because you have a procedure done in a hospital in Thailand. And, that hospital will be better than a U.S. and have better nurse to patient ratio..and soon enough will be part of your healthcare network. It's on its way.

6. HGH. I will ask, but i doubt they will have an answer for you. The physicians in intimately know aren't involved in daily type care, geriatric care, or involved in writing scripts. 2 are involved in diagnosing and one was involved in surgery.

Unfortunately, this is akin to asking a family law practitioner about tax law.

Did you ask the doctor who woudn't prescribe? If not, why not?

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that the physicians don't want the hassle that comes with the gov't looking at them. THey prolly see it as a red flag to be avoided. Plus, many docs prescribe it to much younger patients..i know that it is a staple in hollywood.

Prolly just wanna avoid any semblance of impropriety...docs are pretty conservative and don't want the fda/irs looking at them.

Though, i see Cenegenics advertisements all the time...they are still doing it.

As for my personal knowledge of HgH (from the lifting community)..i'm inclined to agree with you. But, alternatively, i don't know what else a physician can prescribe instead of it.

1) by pointing out the military issue I thought I was being clear that I think they run ALL programs very inefficiently, but some they by necessity have to run.

2) I disagree that other "smart" countries are heading opposite of us, unless you mean that most of europe is moving back towards reeling in the social dole and we are moving towards expanding it. I also reject that other countries are "smarter" than us...unless you mean ireland or khazakstan(forgive my spelling). Europe is ahead of us as far as getting bankrupted by gov't spending, that is why they are fighting the unions ect to curve back.

2b) I should be clearer, our socialized medicine programs are bankrupting our govn't, and it is this very thing that has driven costs beyond recognition. That and outrageously silly regulations. You may have a point on the spending more as a percent, but i would want to know how much we spend per capita, and then as a percent.

3) This is probably the heart of our disagreement. I believe we are headed for a society where illness and/or aging become a thing of the past. Noted inventor/prognosticator/otherwise genius Ray Kurzweil who has predicted many things VERY accurately is predicting an end to aging, basically being able to repair our bodies on the fly indefinately. he uses models like advances in genome/machine/discoveries to predict this will be within 25 years. I am looking for the greatest long term good, you are looking at the now, and in the NOW you are right, but remember, we got to the now thru innovation, we could have stopped in the 70's, but think of where we would be if we had. Your entitled to your opinion on this one, and I will respect it, but I couldn't disagree more.

4) I am missing something, will have to go figure out the heart of this point so I can agree/disagree, or something.

The point about insurance denying coverage that rightly they should pay...that isn't capitalist, that is criminal, problem is they own the legislature. A nebraska state legislature in ?? '03 tried to pass a state law where if an insurance company frivilously denied a claim they were liable for they pay triple....one part pay the bill, one part for the patient having to be hassled, one part fine. It almost passed and at the last hour several people changed their vote and he was heartily defeated in a huge smear campaign when his re-election came up.

The link you posted, I agree, it happens and such practice should meet MONSTER fines. You have to keep the integrity of the capitalist model if it is to suceed, that is why we have anti-trust laws...I'm not against reasonable regulation.

I don't have to face the inevitable, I'll fight it tooth and nail cuz I don't believe its in anyones best interest. England has to import doctors cuz the market is shot, its more profitable to do damn near anything else. You are right about the offer to have something done in another country. I have already researched it well, bumrungrat hospital in thailand is fantastic and cheap, I plan on having a monster thourough physical done in october when I'm there for around 400 US. But mind you the Thai who are in the socialized medicine network don't have access to that hospital.

Cenegenics does still prescribe, but they make you go thru all their programs including purchase and it generally runs about a grand a month. The doctor I had with my mother said something like "I can't point to a specific ailment to prescribe it for, feeling better and being healthier isn't an ailment recognized by the FDA." So basically you are right, its that they don't want the red flag, I guess my question was why is the FDA so up in doctors shit. (other than it might put orthopedic surgeons outta business)

[bobblehead]

I want to add one more thing as long as I brought up ray kurzweil, he also has predicted that solar will surpass every other energy source (except nuclear) on a cost/productivity basis within 5 years, and within 7 america will get all its enegy needs from solar.....this should make the greens ecstatic. Since I have followed the guy for 9 years now, and I have great faith in him, I hope he is right, even though this one made my eyes pop open.

edit...it will be better in cost in 5 years, and all the EARTHS energy needs will be met by solar in 20 years.

He just did an interview last night that I would like to link, but it hasn't hit youtube yet.

You also brought up aids drugs or something earlier and he makes a point about those drugs costing something like 1/20th of what they did when they came out. This is my vision for the world, the few people in the world who are truly gifted making it better for everyone....but they can't do it if we stand in their way.

[Freak Out]

Dubya is a failure and if Congress wasn't such a pathetic group and the American people weren't so complacent he would have been thrown out of office long ago.

[Partial]

I think its funny how everyone blames Congress for sucking and claims that the president is pretty much just a title yet they consistently claim how much Bush sucks.

If he sucks so much, take some accountability and do something about it. Unless you're proactive, I think you suck.

[bobblehead]

Dubya is a failure and if Congress wasn't such a pathetic group and the American people weren't so complacent he would have been thrown out of office long ago.

I'm not a GW fan, but he is only a failure depending on what topic we are talking about, and your political ideology.

War... Rid the taliban, doing ok in iraq, has put some serious pressure on Iran. But...botched the midgame in iraq, you might argue we shouldn't have gone in (I don't), and we spent way too much money nation building without requiring iraq to pay for it.

Economy...Created a new entitlement program, expanded gov't spending and increased debt and deficit. but, unprecedented growth, stock market had a record run, 7 of 8 years all economic indicators were good despite taking over a recession and 9/11 hit to the economy.

Judges....Harriet Myers mess, but if you are a conservative you gotta like the rest, if your not, you hate it.

Immigration...did nothing to stop the flow, actually did things to increase it and his only answer was an amnesty bill, but...ok, no but here, either your an open border proponent or your not.

[hoosier]

I'm not a GW fan, but he is only a failure depending on what topic we are talking about, and your political ideology.

War... Rid the taliban,

For a little while, maybe, but you're not seriously trying to argue that Dubya's Afghanistan policy could be called a success, are you??

doing ok in iraq, has put some serious pressure on Iran. But...botched the midgame in iraq, you might argue we shouldn't have gone in (I don't), and we spent way too much money nation building without requiring iraq to pay for it..

Oh yeah, that little detail you call the "midgame." What about the abject failure to think realistically, from the very beginning planning stages, what it would take to rebuild Iraqui infrastructure and help ensure social stability? That was a complete failure.

Economy...Created a new entitlement program, expanded gov't spending and increased debt and deficit. but, unprecedented growth, stock market had a record run, 7 of 8 years all economic indicators were good despite taking over a recession and 9/11 hit to the economy.

Unprecedented economic growth? What figures have you found to support that notion? Real GDP growth rates under Dubya have been very mediocre compared with JFK, LBJ, Reagan, Clinton and Carter administrations. On a par with Nixon. Only Bush I is worse. So at least he beat his Daddy in something. If you're going to talk about economic growth, I think you also have to talk about income distribution. What has happened to the gap between very rich and poor in the US under Dubya?

[texaspackerbacker]

Do you see the same old pattern developing here--forum leftists whining about "Bush sucks", but failing to give any specifics.

An then when Bobblehead counters with some reasons why Bush indeed doesn't suck, the pathetic leftist just comes back with crap like "you can't really believe that ........" like people could actually NOT go along with the sick Bush-hate mantra we are fed every damn day in the media.

So I ask, if Bush sucks, HOW--WHY DO YOU THINK SO? A FEW SPECIFICS PLEASE. But you won't--because you can't.

One specific item: growth during the Bush years includes that massive hit the economy took from 9/11. Hell yeah, figuring that in, net growth has been mediocre compared to whoever. The Bush tax cuts, however, are primarily responsible for the amazing comeback the economy made and the boom which has only let up this past year.

You KNOW what Gore or Kerry or Obama or Hillary would have done in the face of a 9/11 type disaster, right? RAISE taxes. That would have absolutely KILLED the economy and any hope of growth. And THAT is what we would have to look forward to with a damn Obama or whatever administration--not to mention a helluva lot greater chance of a disaster like repeats of 9/11 actually happening.

[hoosier]

Do you see the same old pattern developing here--forum leftists whining about "Bush sucks", but failing to give any specifics.

An then when Bobblehead counters with some reasons why Bush indeed doesn't suck, the pathetic leftist just comes back with crap like "you can't really believe that ........" like people could actually NOT go along with the sick Bush-hate mantra we are fed every damn day in the media.

So I ask, if Bush sucks, HOW--WHY DO YOU THINK SO? A FEW SPECIFICS PLEASE. But you won't--because you can't.

One specific item: growth during the Bush years includes that massive hit the economy took from 9/11. Hell yeah, figuring that in, net growth has been mediocre compared to whoever. The Bush tax cuts, however, are primarily responsible for the amazing comeback the economy made and the boom which has only let up this past year.

You KNOW what Gore or Kerry or Obama or Hillary would have done in the face of a 9/11 type disaster, right? RAISE taxes. That would have absolutely KILLED the economy and any hope of growth. And THAT is what we would have to look forward to with a damn Obama or whatever administration--not to mention a helluva lot greater chance of a disaster like repeats of 9/11 actually happening.

Your "where are the specifics" shtick has gotten very very old. I already offered a few specifics on why Dubya's Presidency blows--extremely mediocre GDP growth, poor planning in Iraq, failure to complete tasks in Afghanistan--and you either ignore them or find some way to dismiss them. That's how you operate, and it leaves your "opponents" with very little incentive to continue "debating" you.