Go Edwards!

[lmurden]

What did you think of the VP debates last night?

I think that Edwards slightly won! VP Cheney could not defend his voting record in Congress, Halliburton , Gay Marriage and tying Saddam to 9/11! Go Kerry/Edwards!

 

[KSparkles]

I agree that Edwards did a very good job - Cheney reminds me of Mr. Burns on the Simpsons (smarmy, smug and arrogant!!). I never realized how impersonable Cheney is until last night - maybe some people view arrogance as confidence, but am totally put off by it. I really was pleased with Edwards - I didn't really know him until last night either. Both guys had good points, but I think Cheney and Bush need to stop accusing Kerry/Edwards of "flip flopping" and "wrong war, wrong time, etc etc etc" since they've already explained over and over and over again that this is not the case. However, I did cringe when Edwards kept saying Kerry's name after the moderator told him not to - yikes! It was a great debate though - much better matched than the Bush/Kerry one (where Kerry clearly had the upper hand)...

 

[lmurden]

Here here!

The President and the VP are just repeating the same old republican rhetoric of "Flip Flopping" because they have nothing substantial to say about Kerry and they are scared! Kerry is force to be reckoned with and this is why they have tried to turn him from a war hero to a treasonist war criminal!

Where are the WMDs? No answer! Is the Middle East more secure today or before we went into Iraq? NO! The republicans are running a campaign based on FEAR!

 

[fire&ice]

Personally, I think Edwards came across exactly as what he is - a trial lawyer which I don't view as a compliment. He has little to no experience in politics. He was elected by NC & never served his state - too busy policticing. Sorry, for want of a better word - towards the end of the debate - one word came to mind - Idiot. He said the same thing over & over & over again with different words like he was trying a case.

I am still undecided. But, this one for sure, Edwards is a liability in my decision. Had Kerry chosen a Gephart - I wouldn't be leaning towards a Bush ticket.

And, Kerry's tax increase on the 200K is truly counterproductive. People just don't understand *that* ramification. Also, I'm a little confused. If Edwards is so on top of outsourcing jobs, why is he pushing people to buy Canadian drugs? What is he doing?

 

[lmurden]

I don't agree with you, but thanks for your opinion.

 

[jenwill]

----------------
Also, I'm a little confused. If Edwards is so on top of outsourcing jobs, why is he pushing people to buy Canadian drugs? What is he doing?----------------

Many of the large drug manufacturers and developers are not based in the US- and even with those that are, buying the drugs from Canada will not result in a reduction in the number of American employees in those companies. The drugs will still be made and used- just from a different region. All that buying the drugs from Canadian Suppliers will result in in reduced cost of medication for mostly seniors living on fixed income. The majority of prescriptions in this country are for people who are either retired or permanently disabled- and therefor on fixed incomes.

Many seniors face drug costs not covered by Medicare of $800-2000 a month. This in effect impoverishes them. I have worked in healthcare for 15 years, and have seen many of the patients I deal with (cardiac patients) not take their meds due to the fact that they have a choice of paying for basic daily living costs or being properly medicated.

I attend between 4-8 major healthcare tradeshows a year. The running joke at these shows is how obscene the giveaways' and corporate sponsored events are from the Pharmaceutical companies. They have the largest booths (which costs upwards of $100-200k just to rent the floor space, then the booth structures themselves can run in the millions. They do not have a physical product to show...why all the floor space? They giveaway items that run in the $10-25 to all attendees, which are usually in the 1000's. They host evening events that run upwards of 200k. Multiply this byt the number of tradeshows there are globally- approx 60-70 major shows a years. 100-150 mid-level shows.

The pharmaceutical reps visit doctors offices every week- bringing elaborate lunchs for the whole office- EVERY WEEK. They drop off boxes of free samples. They offer 'bonuses' to physicians to prescribe their meds. They send gifts at least monthly to managers of certain hospital departments- my old boss finally called the reps who were sending him these things and told them to stop- it made him so mad to see this 'courting' of word of mouth advertising, when the costs were so out of control.

If the US had the same rules as Canada- no free lunches- no free samples- no giveaways over $5, the costs for meds in this country might be reduced.

Until then- I am all for going to an outside source to buy a product that is exorbitantly marked up due to waste.

The meds will still be produced by the drug companies, they already sell to the ROW (rest of world)at the lower prices, so obviously they are able to sustain on those profit margins- pharmacies will be able to buy the meds at reduced prices, so will still be able to supply their patients and keep their employees.

Sorry so long, but this is definitely one of my pet peeves.

 

[hoorray]

I went into the VP debate preferring Edwards to Cheney, in general. By the end, I was clear that I would not be confortable with Edwards in charge of the country. He rarely answered the question -- especially on foreign policy. He was better on domestic, but did not come across as reasoned and rational. I agree that he came off as a trial lawyer, trying to win the argument rather than making sound arguments for decisions that would have to be made. I thought the Cheny voting record remark was tacky. It was sound bites of politically correct issues with no details or substance. It may or may not be true that Cheny's voting record has some things I wouldn't agree with, but taking that remark as "truth" is way too much or a stretch for me.

Although I wouldn't call Cheney "Mr Personality", he came across reasoned, experienced and mature to me. I think that is critical for a commander in chief.

I'm still undecided, but this debate pushed me back towards the republicans only because Edwards really gave me no confidence in his ability to run the nation.

 

[lmurden]

Jenwill,

Here in Montgomery County, Maryland there is a local bill to import prescription drugs from Canada and I think it will pass because the senior health issue is huge here.

 

[Jennifer5973]

A good friend of mine has a daughter who is a young, up & coming star at one of the biggest Pharmaceutical companies in the US (in accounting-not even R&D)--I guarantee you have at least one of their OTC products in your house, if not 5 or 10. She tells me how they pay for everything--when she had to move to Texas for a job rotation, they had $200 an hour movers come and wrap everything in 600 layers of gauze. When she does a good job (gee, I thought that was what you were paid to do), she gets a $300-$400 gift from Tiffany. Eveything is expensed--everything.

I am happy for my friend and her daughter but I get sick when I hear about the myriad perks and bonuses this kid gets--and my grandparents barely can afford their medications. Don't even get me started on the other benefits these people get.

I'd give an organ away to work at one of these pharmacautical companies. It is very difficult to break in, however, unless you start with them from the ground up or know someone. All my experience is in financial services...I have never gotten pick up from them on a resume.

It must be nice to be in the "in crowd."

 

[chris-uk04]

I agree Edwards' trial lawyer attitude shined through. I don't think he really has any experience. He was only elected in 1998 but has been campaigning since 2001. Gephardt would have been a better choice. Another thing I don’t like about the Kerry ticket is that they will raise taxes for EVERYONE. Raising them on “people making over 200,000” is just a euphemism for raising it on everyone. No one in their right mind would campaign for raising everyone’s taxes. Clinton campaigned for a middle class tax cut, but instead raised immediately after getting in office. The higher taxes are, say, the smaller diamond I can afford, which means Jonathan can’t buy a new CD player…and down the line.

Edwards ducked some questions namely regarding 'no French and German troops if Kerry is elected' and and "What is a global test if it's not a global veto?" Cheney's best line of the night was when he said if Edwards can't stand up to the pressures of Howard Dean, how will he handle Al Qaeda. He also was quite clever giving up his reply to shut down John Edwards’ cheap attempt to drag Cheney’s daughter into the debate. Cheney certainly comes across very business-like, but I’m not really considering personally as a key trait the Vice Prez must have.
At the end of the day though, this debate matters a lot less than the Presidential debates so Bush will have to step it up a notch.

Jennifer... all companies pay for people's moves when it is the company doing it. Otherwise people wouldn't move. Would any company say "Jen, we want you to move to Dallas, and we want you to pay for it"

Jenwill, The good side of the US pharmaceutical companies having a free market and a lack of price controls, is that it allows them to have a healthy R&D budget. US companies are the only ones coming up with new drugs. Price controls in Europe have caused it so that no European companies have really come out with any new drugs. The bad side, and what I don’t like the most, is when doctors get kickbacks for prescribing their products. I’ve especially seen anti-depressant medication heavily over prescribed. I bet anyone could walk into most doctor’s office or any psychiatrists’ office, and say whatever, but walk out with an prescription for an anti-depressant like Paxil. So many college age girls are on anti-depressants, who shouldn’t be. The mentality seems like “oh I didn’t get into the coolest sorority, I’m depressed…so I’ll take these pills and make myself feel better.”

 

[AGBF]

Well...I am coming at this from a slightly different point of view because the programs of President Bush are almost entirely antithetical to my beliefs. I don't watch the debates to be convinced; I *know* where I stand and it isn't going to be changed by anything said on television.

I had read that Vice President Cheney had a wealth of experience and would probably do well in the debates and I think he did. This did not surprise me; I have always felt that Mr. Cheney was a bright man. I felt he came across as calm and competent. (The question I had is: do I WANT a man in office who is very competent at doing the worst things possible?)

You see, I firmly believe that his beliefs are actually evil and harmful to working people and disenfranchised people who live outside of the US. (I *do*, honestly, believe that President Bush is a stupid man as *WELL* as a man in thrall to the wealthy and conservative interests in this country. My fear has never been that Mr. Bush might die and leave the country in the hands of Mr. Cheney, but that Mr. Cheney might die and leave us alone with President Bush. I would then have to thank God for Karl Rove who, although part of what I consider the Axis of Evil, could at least tell Mr. Bush what to do every day.)

I am not interested in whether Mr. Cheney appears calm and able or whether Mr. Edwards seems like an eager puppy. I know that Mr. Cheney plotted with Mr. Bush to find an excuse to invade Iraq as soon as Osama bin Laden attacked the United States. I know that Mr. Cheney's company, Halliburton, was given an enormous contract to rebuild Iraq before it was destroyed...and that no one else was allowed to bid for the contract. I know that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthy, who do not need it while more and more WORKING Americans are doing with less and less health care.

I say: take that tax cut and fix the health care system! There are things worse than being rich enough to pay taxes! More employers of the lowest wage earners (like Safeway, a grocery chain) are now giving only their employees, not the employees' dependents, healthcare benefits. Children who need operations are not having them because, although their fathers are employed full-time and their mothers are cleaning houses to make ends meet, there is no insurance and no money for health care. There is no "safety net".

I know that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards are not going to perform miracles for the poor. The wealthy classes and corporate interests have too much power. On the other hand, if they are elected the country will not be led by the most self-absorbed men running for the office. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney never met a big corporation they didn't like. They feel that guys like them can do better with tax cuts, so they go for 'em!

Not good for the two year-old girl who needs a hernia operation and whose parents, legal immigrants, are both working full-time but have no health benefits for her and cannot save enough money out of their salaries for the surgery.

 

[Jennifer5973]

I don't want to divert this thread, as AGBF very eloquently just put it back on track. But I want to point out that as an employee of a Fortune 25 company, I am well aware of relocation services. The point isn't that they paid for it but that the services they retained were of the most expensive and excessive nature. Even my friend, the girl's mother, commented that it was overkill. She has 3 suitcases and a team of 6 men showed up and literally encased the dwelling in bubble wrap. It's all about corporate excess, which brings us back to the point--if this type of behavior contributes to why people can't get/afford the medications they need, then someone needs to try to remedy it.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 10/8/2004 7:58:18 AM Jennifer5973 wrote:

I don't want to divert this thread, as AGBF very eloquently just put it back on track. But I want to point out that as an employee of a Fortune 25 company, I am well aware of relocation services. The point isn't that they paid for it but that the services they retained were of the most expensive and excessive nature. Even my friend, the girl's mother, commented that it was overkill. She has 3 suitcases and a team of 6 men showed up and literally encased the dwelling in bubble wrap. It's all about corporate excess, which brings us back to the point--if this type of behavior contributes to why people can't get/afford the medications they need, then someone needs to try to remedy it.----------------

Thanks for the compliment, Jennifer. However, I feel you are right on track with your comments on the elderly and their need for medication they cannot afford. It is isues like these, issues about how far we will let people drop-people who work and care for their families and sick or elderly people who cannot work-that define the election for me. I do not want to go back to pre-1933 and the New Deal. FDR hit on some truths during the Great Depression. One was that the elderly are disproportinately poor. That is why he started the Social Security system. I am disturbed when helpless people-especially children, the elderly, and the chronically ill-cannot be warm in winter, cannot get surgery they need, cannot get medicines to help ease their illnesses, and go hungry.

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 10/8/2004 7:42:16 AM AGBF wrote:

....I say: take that tax cut and fix the health care system! There are things worse than being rich enough to pay taxes! More employers of the lowest wage earners (like Safeway, a grocery chain) are now giving only their employees, not the employees' dependents, healthcare benefits. Children who need operations are not having them because, although their fathers are employed full-time and their mothers are cleaning houses to make ends meet, there is no insurance and no money for health care. There is no 'safety net'.
....Not good for the two year-old girl who needs a hernia operation and whose parents, legal immigrants, are both working full-time but have no health benefits for her and cannot save enough money out of their salaries for the surgery.


----------------

If there’s one thing I’ve learned politically from my time in Britain is that a national healthcare system is horrible and dangerous. Although we are not without our problems, a national healthcare system (similar to proposals by Hillary and now Kerry) is the worst thing you can image. Britian’s national healthcare, the NHS, has innumerable problems.

People normally have to wait 10 - 16 months to have surgery. This is a routine problem and although the politicians make promises, but fail to see that the root of the problem is the government monopoly itself. On any given day, type “NHS wait” into google news and you can see the stories for yourself. If I don’t like my doctor, I can go elsewhere. With the NHS you are stuck with the doctor that is given to you by the government. There’s no choice and it’s filled with bureaucracy.

Pretend like going to the doctor is like going to the DMV (DPS) or the Post Office. Recently a government judge also decided, against parent’s wishes, to cut off care for a premature baby whose “quality of life” was too low.

Don’t even think about dentists! Although in Britian “you can be a sex symbol and still have bad teeth,” people rountinely have to drive 50+ miles to see a dentist after waiting months for an appointment. Only the very rich have private healthcare and they normally fly to the States for surgery.

It’s “free,” but the style of government monopoly has caused the quality to be incredibly poor. I just hope we Americans, never go down this road.

If there is no 'safety net' for our poor, please explain our 1.45% tax for Medicare? Now that we are incredibly off topic, we'll have to start a new one for tonight's debate.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 10/8/2004 9:16:49 AM chris-uk04 wrote:

----------------


If there is no 'safety net' for our poor, please explain our 1.45% tax for Medicare? Now that we are incredibly off topic, we'll have to start a new one for tonight's debate.

----------------

I do not have to explain anything, Chris, certainly not a Medicare tax. If it exists it is totally irrelevant to this subject . I don't care whether there is a tax on toads and lizards. There *is* no safety net.

Not every American citizen, let alone resident, is eligible for Medicare.

Lets look at the disabled. One has to have worked a certain number of quarters in a job from which social security was deducted within the past ten years before becoming disabled to be eligible if he is not 65.

Lets look at the elderly. One has to have worked in a job from which FICA was deducted to be eligible AT 65. Many poor Americans have worked all their lives and yet never had FICA deducted.

That brings us to MedicAID, the program for the poor. It doesn't cover most of the poor. The people we supposedly honor-the people who WORK for a living-are the ones with incomes too low to pay for health insurance and too high for Medicaid. The threshold for Medicaid eligibility is FAR too low! People can work long hours and still be unable to go to doctors. That's wrong.

That the UK has a bad system is no excuse for us to allow the poor to be sick and unaided in the United States. I would prefer to let the UK solve the problems with its healthcare system and let us work on ours!

 

[AGBF]

I just read this in the on-line version of "The New York Times". It seems, to me, to speak to the issue under discussion in this thread: poverty in America. I was amazed it happened to appear today, just after I wrote about what *I* saw in the United States! As always, I say, God bless Bob Herbert! He is the conscience of "The New York Times"!!!

Deborah

October 8, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Working for a Pittance
By BOB HERBERT

Reality keeps rearing its ugly head. The Bush administration's case for the war in Iraq has completely fallen apart, as evidenced by the report this week from the president's handpicked inspector that Iraq had destroyed its illicit weapons stockpiles in the early 1990's.

Coming next week are the results of a new study that shows - here at home - how tough a time American families are having in their never-ending struggle to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. The White House, as deep in denial about the economy as it is about Iraq, insists that things are fine - despite the embarrassing fact that President Bush is on track to become the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs during his four years in office.

The study, jointly sponsored by the Annie E. Casey, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, will show that 9.2 million working families in the United States - one out of every four - earn wages that are so low they are barely able to survive financially.

"Our data is very solid and shows that this is a much bigger problem than most people imagine," said Brandon Roberts, one of the authors of the report, which is to be formally released on Tuesday. The report found that there are 20 million children in these low-income working families.

For the purposes of the study, any family in which at least one person was employed was considered a working family. Very wealthy families were included.

The median income for a family of four in the U.S. is $62,732. According to the study, a family of four earning less than $36,784 is considered low-income. A family of four earning less than $18,392 is considered poor. The 9.2 million struggling families cited by the report fell into one of the latter two categories. And those families have one-third of all the children in American working families.

Not surprisingly, the problem for millions of families is that they have jobs that pay very low wages and provide no benefits. "Consider the motel housekeeper, the retail clerk at the hardware store or the coffee shop cook," the report said. "If they have children, chances are good that their families are living on an income too low to provide for their basic needs."

Neither politicians nor the media put much of a spotlight on families that are struggling economically. According to the study, one in five workers are in occupations where the median wage is less than $8.84 an hour, which is a poverty-level wage for a family of four. A full-time job at the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour is not even sufficient to keep a family of three out of poverty.

Families with that kind of income are teetering on the edge of an economic abyss. Any misfortune might push them over the edge - an illness, an automobile breakdown, even something as seemingly minor as a flooded basement.

For the families in these lower-income brackets, life is often a harrowing day-to-day struggle to pay for the bare necessities. According to federal government statistics, the median annual rent for a two-bedroom apartment in major metropolitan markets is more than $8,000. The annual cost of food for a low-income family of four is nearly $4,000. Utility bills are nearly $2,000. Transportation costs are about $1,500. And then there are costs for child care, health care and clothing.

You do the math. How are these millions of poor and low-income families making it?

(A lot of those families are going to get a shock this winter as price increases for crude oil get translated into big jumps in home heating bills.)

The economy relies heavily on the services provided by low-wage workers but, as the report notes, "our society has not taken adequate steps to ensure that these workers can make ends meet and build a future for their families, no matter how determined they are to be self-sufficient."

Mr. Roberts said he hoped the study, titled "Working Hard, Falling Short," would help initiate a national discussion of the plight of families who are doing the right thing but not earning enough to get ahead. "Seventy-one percent of low-income families work," he said. More than half are headed by married couples. But economic self-sufficiency remains maddeningly out of reach.

Even in a presidential election year, these matters have not been explored in any sustained way. We're quick to give lip service to the need to work hard, but very slow to properly reward hard work.

E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 10/7/2004 2:41:27 PM jenwill wrote:

----------------
Many of the large drug manufacturers and developers are not based in the US- and even with those that are, buying the drugs from Canada will not result in a reduction in the number of American employees in those companies.


The pharmaceutical reps visit doctors offices every week- bringing elaborate lunchs for the whole office- EVERY WEEK. They drop off boxes of free samples. They offer 'bonuses' to physicians to prescribe their meds. They send gifts at least monthly to managers of certain hospital departments- my old boss finally called the reps who were sending him these things and told them to stop- it made him so mad to see this 'courting' of word of mouth advertising, when the costs were so out of control.

If the US had the same rules as Canada- no free lunches- no free samples- no giveaways over $5, the costs for meds in this country might be reduced.

---

I don't agree on your first point. I do think we will be directly affected if a VP encourages people to purchase from another country.

But, I completely agree w/ your second & third paragraph. I've seen it first hand. Blec. It makes me feel dirty with all the give-a-ways & free stuff (including expensive trips) that doctors receive from the drug companies.

But, But, a good deal of the mark-up is in R&D. And, getting said drug approved by the FDA.

No easy answers. I really am not on top of the issue w/ people not being able to afford drugs first hand. Neither hubby or I have any precriptions. Even my elderly parents take one fairly inexpensive drug a piece. Being tried & true Republicans, my parents have no issues w/ the current plan. I have to remind them that they don't have financial issues *NOR* do they have,save one, any precriptions. Sigh.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 10/8/2004 7:42:16 AM AGBF wrote:

More employers of the lowest wage earners (like Safeway, a grocery chain) are now giving only their employees, not the employees' dependents, healthcare benefits. Children who need operations are not having them because, although their fathers are employed full-time and their mothers are cleaning houses to make ends meet, there is no insurance and no money for health care. There is no 'safety net'.

---------------

And, this will only become the norm if gay marriage (i.e. same benefits)is implemented.

Seriously, Healthcare is so expensive to employers that is why they are limiting limits.

Chris is correct about the sorry state of Gov. sponsered health care. My mother still tells of how bad the healthcare was in England when we lived there. She would fly home to avoid a dentist pull her teeth out instead of fix it.

That said, doesn't anyone remember the free clinics of the late 70's early 80's. I always thought it was a huge mistake to do away with them. Our little community has a free clinic. They mostly rely on donations which is one of our year end checks. I can't help but think Malpractice is part of the problem.

Personally, I don't think Kerry or Edwards gives a rat's butt ultimately.

 

[Todd07]

The stats don't support you F&I. Marketing, Advertising, Admin and profit consume most of their revenue, not R&D

source http://www.actupny.org/reports/drugcosts.html

 

[Todd07]

Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against The Drug Industry’s R&D “Scare Card”

http://www.citizen.org/documents/rdmyths.pdf




"The drug industry’s top priority increasingly is advertising and marketing, more than R&D. Increases in drug industry advertising budgets have averaged almost 40 percent a year since the government relaxed rules on direct-to-consumer advertising in 1997. Moreover, the Fortune 500 drug companies dedicated 30 percent of their revenues to marketing and administration in the year 2000, and just 12 percent to R&D."

 

[hoorray]

----------------
On 10/8/2004 5:48:06 PM fire&ice wrote:

----------------
On 10/8/2004 7:42:16 AM AGBF wrote:

More employers of the lowest wage earners (like Safeway, a grocery chain) are now giving only their employees, not the employees' dependents, healthcare benefits. Children who need operations are not having them because, although their fathers are employed full-time and their mothers are cleaning houses to make ends meet, there is no insurance and no money for health care. There is no 'safety net'.

---------------

And, this will only become the norm if gay marriage (i.e. same benefits)is implemented.

Seriously, Healthcare is so expensive to employers that is why they are limiting limits.
----------------

I disagree on this. I think some if not many of the large employers are providing benefits for non-married couples, often including gay couples, these days. I think the gay marriage issue is more one of legal rights than benefits, althougth I'm sure that benefits are sometimes still an issue. There are tax benefits, such as the inheritance tax relief that spouses receive that gay partners would like to receive, and it is about who has legal rights. Who has the right to make medical decisions for a disabled person -- the life partner or a blood related family member? Who has the right to visit in the hospital -- only "blood related family" members? I don't care if you call it something other than "marriage", but I think "life partners" should have some of these basic legal rights. I also don't believe that this is a constitutional issue, as Bush is trying to make it. I think he is doing that to keep his right wing supporters happy, and possibly to push his own personal beliefs.

I agree that healthcare is one of the top, if not the top, problem this nation has to solve. It is only going to get worse as the babyboomers need to be subsidized by a much smaller generation. Getting rid of the medical overhead and insurance beaurocracy would be a start. And, the marketing stats posted about the drug companies are appalling! I think we should import drugs form other countries until the drug companies figure out how to be competitive in this country without that.

At the end of the day, I think the platforms are key in picking a presidential team, but leadership and judgement are also important. How many times have we seen the elected party's actions have nothing to do with the platform they ran on. We didn't elect Bush on how he would react to a 911 type attack, since no one was thinking about that at the time. The platform, as well as their leadership and judgement abilities have to be considered when selecting the people who will have the power to make decisions on the issues as they come up in the next 4 years.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 10/8/2004 5:52:34 PM Todd07 wrote:


The stats don't support you F&I. Marketing, Advertising, Admin and profit consume most of their revenue, not R&D

source http://www.actupny.org/reports/drugcosts.html

----------------

Depends on *whose* stats you listen to. Act up - come on - you can do better than that.

Granted, drug companies get quite a bit of grants - but pure economics drive R&D. If you re-read my read (geez am I the queen of the double word usage today), I do think drug companies have some splanin to do.

You can't pin it on one person. Malpractice (attorney's), drug pushing drug companies, doctors, hospital bottom lines, the guy next door who doesn't take care of themselves.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 10/8/2004 7:07:56 PM lop wrote:

----------------
On 10/8/2004 5:48:06 PM fire&ice wrote:

----------------
On 10/8/2004 7:42:16 AM AGBF wrote:

More employers of the lowest wage earners (like Safeway, a grocery chain) are now giving only their employees, not the employees' dependents, healthcare benefits. Children who need operations are not having them because, although their fathers are employed full-time and their mothers are cleaning houses to make ends meet, there is no insurance and no money for health care. There is no 'safety net'.

---------------

And, this will only become the norm if gay marriage (i.e. same benefits)is implemented.

Seriously, Healthcare is so expensive to employers that is why they are limiting limits.
----------------

I disagree on this. I think some if not many of the large employers are providing benefits for non-married couples, often including gay couples, these days. I think the gay marriage issue is more one of legal rights than benefits, ------

Lop, you take my stance on face value. It goes to a libertarian point. I feel that ultimately to be fair *all* of the benefits of marriage will fall by the wayside. I truly believe this. I'm not being chicken little. And, yes, a very selfish stance. I like the status quo. And, I believe legal rights & benefits to be much of the same. The inheritance exception to spouse, though a legal right, *is* a benefit.

Honestly, I'm not arguing any moral issue. I'm simply a pragmatist on this issue. But, I do think it to be ridiculous to make,yet another, constitutional amendment about nothing.

F&I shaking her head asking "Where is my constitutional right to shop?" VA passed a constitutional amendment which gives an individual the right to hunt.

One can really sense my frustration at the current situation be it whoever is running. I'm beginning to wonder if I am a Libertarian.

 

[Todd07]

----------------
On 10/9/2004 11:01:06 AM fire&ice wrote:





Depends on *whose* stats you listen to. Act up - come on - you can do better than that.

Granted, drug companies get quite a bit of grants - but pure economics drive R&D. If you re-read my read (geez am I the queen of the double word usage today), I do think drug companies have some splanin to do.

You can't pin it on one person. Malpractice (attorney's), drug pushing drug companies, doctors, hospital bottom lines, the guy next door who doesn't take care of themselves.

----------------

Dang, I thought I did pretty good for just 5 min of googling for stats

I'm mad at the drug companies for lying about their R&D, not for maximizing their profits (that's what they are expected to do within govt. regulations).