Healthcare reform

[Balta1701]

Believing that the system we have set up is no where near as effective as it could be does not equal believing that the system we have set up hasn't done any good. Kap's avatar.

[kapkomet]

Believing that the system we have set up is no where near as effective as it could be does not equal believing that the system we have set up hasn't done any good. Kap's avatar.

However, you all pick your strawmans to demonize the current system so that we get the government to run a new one. It will make what we have now look like the best system in the world, which, OMG, it is. Go figure. Is parts of it messed up? Damn skippee it is. But you don't trash the whole damn thing to fix what's wrong, unless you're the government trying to take over the whole damn thing. But whatever, no one on here is going to change their minds on anything anyway.

[EvilMonkey]

Kap, there's now prescription medication to grow thicker eyelashes. They invent diseases like Restless Leg Syndrome and then sell you the cure. You cannot argue that the profits incentivize the wrong things some times.

FYI, the stuff now marketed for the eyelashes is just a glaucoma medice that has been repackaged since the eyelash thing was discovered to have been a side efeect of the glaucoma fighting abilities of that medicine. So no, they didn't invent that just for eyelashes. And restless leg syndrome is real. I often have trouble sleeping because of it. Hard to describe, but it is just that I can 'feel' my leg and have to move it. Not realy pain, more like an itch that gets worse and worse until I move the leg, however comes back as soon as I stop moving the leg. Sometimes both legs.

[Y2HH]

Believing that the system we have set up is no where near as effective as it could be does not equal believing that the system we have set up hasn't done any good. Kap's avatar.

 

What is Kap's avatar?

[lostfan]

What is Kap's avatar?

"strawman" in other words he's saying he never said/doesn't believe that.

[Y2HH]

"strawman" in other words he's saying he never said/doesn't believe that.

 

The term strawman is overused on Soxtalk and has become a crutch.

 

That is all.

[lostfan]

The term strawman is overused on Soxtalk and has become a crutch.

 

That is all.

You're just mad cuz 80% of the time it's being applied to you

[Y2HH]

You're just mad cuz 80% of the time it's being applied to you

 

No, I'm mad because I like building towering strawmen and you've all made them taboo. I plan on opening a strawman farm someday, where people from all over the world can come show off their strawmen, big or small -- and you won't be admitted.

[NorthSideSox72]

FYI, the stuff now marketed for the eyelashes is just a glaucoma medice that has been repackaged since the eyelash thing was discovered to have been a side efeect of the glaucoma fighting abilities of that medicine. So no, they didn't invent that just for eyelashes.

Its amazing how often that happens - invent a drug for one purpose, find it works as well or even better for some other purpose.

 

[kapkomet]

Its amazing how often that happens - invent a drug for one purpose, find it works as well or even better for some other purpose.

Oh yea. The place I worked at has the molecule for the paste stuff horses were given for deworming. A little dripped down the side of the horse one time and it cleared up a skin condition. So, the company bought it, and now they're releasing a psoriasis/rosacea drug next year and the clinicals are pretty good on it (as of last year anyway). There are some other molecules that were for eye drops and it also cured skin conditions around the eyes that they are looking at as well.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh yea. The place I worked at has the molecule for the paste stuff horses were given for deworming. A little dripped down the side of the horse one time and it cleared up a skin condition. So, the company bought it, and now they're releasing a psoriasis/rosacea drug next year and the clinicals are pretty good on it (as of last year anyway). There are some other molecules that were for eye drops and it also cured skin conditions around the eyes that they are looking at as well.

The primary medication to address altitude illness, Diamox, was originally created to treat cataracts. I once went to a doctor to ask for a prescription for it (spending 2 weeks at high altitude), and she looked at me like I was nuts, before asking if I have eye problems. Fortunately, I brought with me some write-ups from NOLS and the Wilderness Medical Institute, then she grabbed another doc and did some interwebbing, and then came back to OK it. I actually taught the docs something that day (admittedly, these were doctors in Memphis, TN, so I doubt they got many patients who were concerned about altitude illness).

 

[Y2HH]

The primary medication to address altitude illness, Diamox, was originally created to treat cataracts. I once went to a doctor to ask for a prescription for it (spending 2 weeks at high altitude), and she looked at me like I was nuts, before asking if I have eye problems. Fortunately, I brought with me some write-ups from NOLS and the Wilderness Medical Institute, then she grabbed another doc and did some interwebbing, and then came back to OK it. I actually taught the docs something that day (admittedly, these were doctors in Memphis, TN, so I doubt they got many patients who were concerned about altitude illness).

 

I brought my friends out to Colorado for a trip a few years ago and some got sick because of this altitude myth you speak of -- I call it a myth, because I did not experience it. I'm a seasoned hiker/camper/fisherman, however, and when we arrived in Colorado and drove up into the mountains, we parked and proceeded to walk a switchback 2 miles deep/up the mountain, which ended up being 2100 feet of climb. I was careless and I'm glad nothing bad happened, because I forgot those unaccustomed to it are not supposed to ascend more than 500 feet PER DAY on foot. Here I am having them go 2200. :/

[NorthSideSox72]

I brought my friends out to Colorado for a trip a few years ago and some got sick because of this altitude myth you speak of -- I call it a myth, because I did not experience it. I'm a seasoned hiker/camper/fisherman, however, and when we arrived in Colorado and drove up into the mountains, we parked and proceeded to walk a switchback 2 miles deep/up the mountain, which ended up being 2100 feet of climb. I was careless and I'm glad nothing bad happened, because I forgot those unaccustomed to it are not supposed to ascend more than 500 feet PER DAY on foot. Here I am having them go 2200. :/

The key to acclimating to altitude is sleep. I've seen different numbers, but what I go with is, do not sleep more than 1500 feet higher than the night before. And, make sure before going on a serious hike, that people sleep at some degree of altitude beforehand - in other words, don't fly from Chicago, get off the plane, drive to the trail, and hike up to 12k. Probably not a good idea.

 

Sleep is when the body acclimates. If you ever wake up in the middle of the night in a tent with other hikers, especially the first few nights at high altitude, you may hear them going through periods of apnea, and Cheynes-Stokes (sp?) respirations. That is the body adjusting.

 

And altitude illness is an odd bird, in that it doesn't effect people more or less often based on anything you'd think, like physical conditioning. Its seemingly random (as far as we can tell without chemical study). Its also made more complex because it dovetails in far too well with other common conditions you'd suffer in that environment, like hypothermia, hyperthermia, exhaustion, dehydration, etc. Its almost never one of those things, its some combination, which makes it harder to work with.

 

[BigSqwert]

Maddow: Sen. Lieberman has made it very clear that he plans to oppose health reform that includes a public option. He’ll filibuster it in fact which would be historic. What do you think is motivating him?

 

Greenwald: Well I think you have to look first of all at a Research 2000 Daily KOS poll that was taken last month that shows that a margin of 68 to 21% of Connecticut voters, the people who he’s essentially representing, favor a public option. That’s a 47 point margin which is almost impossible to find on almost any other issue. So when you ask why he’s doing this, it’s clearly not because the people he’s supposed to be representing favor it.

 

I think clearly what it’s about is primarily that fact that the industry that he’s serving by doing this—by preventing competition with the public option—is an industry from which he receives very substantial benefits. He’s drowning in campaign contributions from the insurance industry, the health care industry, the pharmaceutical industry—more than $2.5 million.

 

In early 2005 his wife was hired by a large P.R. firm, Hill & Knowlton, in the pharmaceutical division, which at the time was representing the health care giant Glaxo in major legislation before the Senate. And several months later Joe Lieberman was on the floor of the Senate offering legislation that would directly steer huge amounts of incentives to that company in order to develop vaccines.

 

So I think what you’re seeing here is the kind of legalized corruption, legalized bribery that runs the United States Senate; only in this case it’s particularly sleazy and transparent because Lieberman is ready to gut the major initiative of the Democratic Party.

 

Maddow: In doing so, using a procedural tactic that he’s in part made his name by opposing is the thing that’s so dramatic. Sen. Lieberman of course—he made this big announcement yesterday—today Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana followed suit saying that he reserves the right now not only to filibuster the final vote, but even to filibuster earlier than that any debate on a bill that he’s not happy with. Sen. Bayh—we had thought that other conservative Democrats might follow Lieberman’s lead here, he sort of threw the door open and now presumably Bayh and maybe even others will follow. Can you say anything about what may be motivating Bayh.

 

Greenwald: Well, let’s look at Sen. Bayh. His wife sits on the Board of Directors of WellPoint, one of the largest health insurance companies in the nation. They own by their own disclosures between $500,000 and a million dollars just of WellPoint stock alone. And as I think you reported yesterday when Sen. Lieberman threatened to filibuster to the public option as one would expect the value of the stock of the health care industries and the health care companies skyrocketed—which directly benefited, personally benefited the finances of the Bayh family.

 

Let me just quickly reference this column two weeks ago by Dan Carpenter, a columnist for the Indianapolis Sun, who knows Sen. Bayh the best. He talks about how his wife is benefiting directly from the very actions Sen. Bayh is taking in the Senate to block health care reform—financially benefiting his family. And he wrote “after it became clear he was going to be a Senator, Susan Bayh started stacking up memberships on the board of health care corporations. Susan Bayh got paid a little over $2 million for her service between 2006 and 2008. Her husband had a good 2008 also, collecting more than $500,000 in campaign donations from the health care industry.

 

And now these very same people who receive enormous amounts of benefits, in Lieberman’s case from camp contributions and through his wife and also in Bayh’s case are not ignoring their constituents and the interest of their country to serve the very industries that enrich them. It’s really clear corruption.

 

LINK

[Texsox]

LINK

 

The issue I always have with this is it presumes that elected officials should only take money from causes and groups they oppose and that these same groups should only donate to candidates that disagree with them. That seems like an even worse message. Put another way, if NSS was our Senator, I know he would support alternative energy plans. His family may also share his outlook on alternative energy and want to be on those boards. Also, I would expect those companies to donate to his campaign. Later, when he votes in favor of legislation that helps the alternative energy companies, is he doing it because he will benefit, or because that is what he believes is correct?

 

I have read and heard some excellent, well reasoned, opinions on both sides of this debate and prefer to think the best if our elected officials.

[BigSqwert]

The issue I always have with this is it presumes that elected officials should only take money from causes and groups they oppose and that these same groups should only donate to candidates that disagree with them. That seems like an even worse message. Put another way, if NSS was our Senator, I know he would support alternative energy plans. His family may also share his outlook on alternative energy and want to be on those boards. Also, I would expect those companies to donate to his campaign. Later, when he votes in favor of legislation that helps the alternative energy companies, is he doing it because he will benefit, or because that is what he believes is correct?

 

I have read and heard some excellent, well reasoned, opinions on both sides of this debate and prefer to think the best if our elected officials.

 

But if a majority of your constituents are for something and you're against it because you or your spouse will benefit from the status quo then I have a problem with that.

[Texsox]

But if a majority of your constituents are for something and you're against it because you or your spouse will benefit from the status quo then I have a problem with that.

 

That is a classic debate. Do we elect someone so they can follow their conscious and vote what they believe is right, or do we elect someone to do what is popular?

 

IMNSHO we elect someone to represent us. You elect the person based on their positions that they express during the campaign. I rarely hear a candidate claim that their position doesn't matter, that they will just poll the voters and do what they want.

 

And again, they will benefit, but if it is what they believe is right, that would be a natural outgrowth.

 

Put another way, what would you say if he took all those contributions, his wife was on those boards, and they thought those companies were bad for America?

[BigSqwert]

That is a classic debate. Do we elect someone so they can follow their conscious and vote what they believe is right, or do we elect someone to do what is popular?

 

IMNSHO we elect someone to represent us. You elect the person based on their positions that they express during the campaign. I rarely hear a candidate claim that their position doesn't matter, that they will just poll the voters and do what they want.

 

And again, they will benefit, but if it is what they believe is right, that would be a natural outgrowth.

In these specific examples there seems to be a major conflict of interest. They shouldn't be able to vote on a bill that will help their personal pocketbooks by opposing the proposed reform.

[bmags]

also, curious as to why lieberman was on record as something different some few years ago...before his wife's position.

[Texsox]

In these specific examples there seems to be a major conflict of interest. They shouldn't be able to vote on a bill that will help their personal pocketbooks by opposing the proposed reform.

 

Everything they do should affect them. I do not want them isolated from what they vote on. Hell, I'd favor a draft of all their kids if they vote for war.

 

Imagine this. Senator XYZ "I think guns have become too easy to get, we need more regulation and higher taxes on guns. Get me the NRA on the phone, I need some campaign money to get re-elected"

 

NRA. "Well we can't give money to Senators who support our positions, we need to donate to Senators who oppose us!"

 

Again, wouldn't you look to companies you agree with for campaign financing? Isn't that far better than going to companies you disagree with? That looks a hell of a lot dirtier to me. If a Senator ever said "I invested in these companies that I believe are harming Americans and will support legislation that will hurt that industry". Why the hell did they invest in those companies in the first place?

[bmags]

In other words, tex would have no problems funneling government money into a private business you own through gov't contracts...k.

[mr_genius]

In other words, tex would have no problems funneling government money into a private business you own through gov't contracts...k.

 

i heard Tex is running for congress and starting a business. now we know why.

[Texsox]

In other words, tex would have no problems funneling government money into a private business you own through gov't contracts...k.

 

You are missing the point.

 

If you were Senator, who will you get campaign money from, people you agree with, or people you disagree with? To turn around later and say they are voting a certain way because of the contribution is unfair.

[lostfan]

You are missing the point.

 

If you were Senator, who will you get campaign money from, people you agree with, or people you disagree with? To turn around later and say they are voting a certain way because of the contribution is unfair.

You'll get money from people who try to influence you.

[Rex Kickass]

You are missing the point.

 

If you were Senator, who will you get campaign money from, people you agree with, or people you disagree with? To turn around later and say they are voting a certain way because of the contribution is unfair.

 

Exactly, but on the other side of the same coin - you can also look at how a Senator's positions change based on special interest money or the thought of special interest.

 

Chris Dodd has been a strong supporter of a public option health insurance reform bill. He received a huge amount of money from insurance companies over his career.

 

Fellow CT Senator Joe Lieberman argued for a public option and universal health care in his reelection campaign of 2006. Now that he's reelected, but no longer affiliated with the Democratic party, he has to find new ways to raise money to protect his seat in 2012. You can, at this point, be pretty sure that the Democrats aren't going to funnel money into his campaign like they did before - as they'll be able to bring in their own candidate who'd be less of a headache.

 

So with Dodd supporting a public option, this gives Lieberman ample opportunity to "take a stand" for the sake of a secure line of corporate fundraising. By threatening to Filibuster, when fundraising comes around, it becomes logical that Joementum becomes Sen Lieberman (I-Aetna)