< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2901 OF 5561 ·
|Mar-06-12|| ||Shams: <But that's what the USA does for an incredibly ungrateful world.>|
Perhaps we should do what our God would do, and reign hellfire on those who worship us insufficiently. I'm just thinking out loud.
|Mar-06-12|| ||kb2ct: |
Who are you voting for in the primary tommorrow??
|Mar-06-12|| ||chancho: Stockholm, as in Sweden...|
|Mar-06-12|| ||PinnedPiece: <Bdellovibrio: <PinnedPiece> The Nobel Prize in Medicine is awarded in Stockholm, not Oslo.>|
Very good point. (Why do they have Norwegians on the panel????)
<Per Alfred Nobel's will, the recipient is selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee,>
|Mar-06-12|| ||Bdellovibrio: <PinnedPiece> I can't tell if you're being sarcastic ("Very good point."), but FYI the Peace Prize is the only Nobel Prize that is overseen by a Norwegian organization, and <al wazir> was referring to the Nobel Prize in Medicine, which is certainly more relevant to the discussion about whether the US contributes in greater proportion to the body of medicinal knowledge than Switzerland. The Peace Prize seems to have lost credibility, whereas the awards in the sciences have not.|
|Mar-06-12|| ||FSR: I have a question for you conservatives (<OCF>, <Pinned Piece>, and <I play the Fred>, for starters) who think that Sandra Fluke is worthy of your contempt if, as you suppose, she is sexually active. As far as I can tell, conservative commentators Laura Ingraham, 47; Ann Coulter, 50; and Meghan McCain, 27 have never married. Ingraham and Coulter, according to their Wikipedia articles, have both been engaged more than once. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_...;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Co... McCain has said that premarital sexual abstinence is not realistic and that the Republican Party "can be a party for a 24-year-old pro-sex woman" - presumably referring to herself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan... I'm going to go out on a <huge> limb and surmise that (1) all of these women are non-virgins, (2) have probably had sex with more than one man, and (3) very likely used contraception. (If not, they've probably had abortions, since it appears that none of them have given birth to children.) If my suppositions are correct, does that make them equally worthy of your contempt?|
|Mar-06-12|| ||al wazir: Credibility? You want to talk about credibility? What about the Nobel prize in literature? I look forward to the day when it goes to someone who writes poetry in Esperanto.|
|Mar-06-12|| ||Bdellovibrio: <al wazir> I think there's something wrong about attempting to award a prize in literature that transcends linguistic and cultural divides.|
|Mar-06-12|| ||WannaBe: "You have not truly appreciated Shakespear, until you have read it in its original Klingon."|
|Mar-06-12|| ||I play the Fred: FSR, I will be happy to answer you when I am on a proper keyboard. This touch screen aint cutting it.|
|Mar-06-12|| ||Softpaw: <PinnedPiece: ...The United States produces advances in every form of health care service, pharmaceutical, surgical proceudre, equipment, etc. etc.>|
And that is not <necessarily> such a good thing.
E.g., firms seeking super-profits are competing like crazy trying to outdo each other in producing marginally better $100,000 plus-per-year cancer drugs that just may extend life for only a few weeks --at best.
Big Pharma's quest for big profits has radically distorted health care so that pharmaceutical-based treatments often replace simpler and more effective options. Obese Americans are prescribed new cholesterol-lowering and diabetes-checking drugs rather rather than comprehensive programs that get at the roots of their problems. Big Pharma is racing to produce what promises to be the next big super-profit-drug--a "female Viagra". Great! When that comes out and the prescriptions soar, we can add it to the list of wonderful, new, very costly medical "advances".
"Is Newer Better? Not Always"
<But an expensive new drug is not always better than an older, cheaper drug, and sometimes a new technology or treatment that is highly effective for some patients is unnecessary or even dangerous for others.
[...] without curtailing the use of unnecessary, overly costly and even dangerous new technologies and surgical procedures, there is little hope of restraining the relentless rise in health care costs.
Consider the prostate-specific antigen test, which is widely used to screen men for possible prostate cancer. In an Op-Ed piece in The Times in March, Richard J. Ablin, the doctor who discovered prostate-specific antigen, described the test as “hardly more effective than a coin toss” at distinguishing who is at risk, and lamented that the test’s popularity has led to “a hugely expensive public health disaster.”
Each year some 30 million American men undergo the test at a cost of at least $3 billion, and many go on to have surgery, intensive radiation or other damaging treatments that may not have been necessary.
Or consider complex fusion surgery to relieve lower back pain. An article and an editorial in the April 7 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association deplored the rapidly rising use of this surgery, which fuses multiple disks in the spine, in patients who would have done better, and faced fewer risks, with simpler surgery that eases pressure on the nerves without fusion.
The explanation for the boom was likely economic. Surgeons were paid 10 times as much for the complex surgery, hospitals were paid three and a half times as much, and manufacturers reaped a bonanza selling $50,000 worth of implants for the complex surgery, compared with little or no profit from the simpler surgery. >
|Mar-06-12|| ||whiteshark: That was just waaaaaay to much information.................lol|
|Mar-06-12|| ||RookFile: <Jim Bartle: All true. However this time Obama will have to defend his record as president, not just say what he would do if he wins. >|
The best post of the night.
|Mar-06-12|| ||FSR: <Anyone who wants to run for office as a Republican in one South Carolina county must pledge to live - and promise to have always lived -- a pretty tame life.|
According to new rules just adopted by the Laurens County GOP, no candidate will wind up on the primary ballot who hasn't passed a purity test.
Among the new requirements to run as a Republican in this county in the June 12 legislative primary, according to The Clinton Chronicle, are that aspiring candidates must have abstained from sex before marriage.
And once they ace THAT test, they must take a pledge that "You cannot now, from the moment you sign this pledge, look at pornography."
Other required Republican pledges include:
"You must oppose abortion, in any circumstances.
"You must uphold the right to have guns, all kinds of guns.
"You must endorse the idea of a balanced state and federal budget, whatever it takes, even if your primary responsibility is to be sure the county budget is balanced.
"You must be faithful to your spouse. Your spouse cannot be a person of the same gender, and you are not allowed to favor any government action that would allow for civil unions of people of the same sex.
And those oaths above, The Chronicle reported, are just a <few> of 28 different pledges candidates must swear to uphold if they want to hold office under the banner of the Republican Party in Laurens County - a town famous for its Ku Klux Klan museum, which served as the headquarters of the American Nazi Party's nominee for president in 2008.> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/corey...
|Mar-06-12|| ||FSR: It turns out that there <is> a moral difference between the rich and everyone else. But don't get excited, <diceman>.|
<The publication last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of “Higher Social Class Predicts Increased Unethical Behavior” provided fresh fodder for the liberal critique of the Republican Party and the corporate ethic.
The paper, by Paul K. Piff of the University of California, Berkeley, and four colleagues, reports that members of the upper class are more likely than others to behave unethically, to lie during negotiations, to drive illegally and to cheat when competing for a prize.
“Greed is a robust determinant of unethical behavior,” the authors conclude. “Relative to lower-class individuals, individuals from upper-class backgrounds behaved more unethically in both naturalistic and laboratory settings.”> http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes....
|Mar-06-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <kb2: Who are you voting for in the primary tommorrow?? >|
I'm leaning toward "None of the Above"
|Mar-06-12|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|Mar-06-12|| ||PinnedPiece: <FSR> I could care less about the woman's secual activity. You are missing the point i make every time I discuss it.|
About the U of Cal Berkeley college professor finding a way to smear conservatism...wow, how out of character of him. You can bet his research methods are iron-tight.
|Mar-06-12|| ||johnlspouge: < <PinnedPiece> wrote: <jls:johnlspouge: < <RookFile> wrote: Oh, I agree completely. The first health care cost to go is the repeal of Obama care. >|
Health Care Expenditure as % GDP
[ http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/h... ]
#1. US 13.9%
#2. Switzerland 10.9% >
The United States produces advances in every form of health care service, pharmaceutical, surgical proceudre, equipment, etc. etc. Please compare the results from switzerland or any other country you like.
There is a return on expenditure that you are ignoring. >
Much of what I say stems from an overriding concern about the US deficit. The US cannot afford to continue business as usual. Medicine is a large proportion of the US expenditures, much more than anywhere else in the world. We should look for savings, and medicine is an obvious candidate.
I am not ignoring the US expenditure on medical research. In the US, the excess of technologically advanced tests and treatments, many of which do not benefit patients, must provide some incentive for private medical research. I simply posit that the money can be better spent.
Moreover, medical discoveries might not be as uniquely American as you believe. Here, e.g., is a long list of Canadian medical discoveries [ http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com... ]. Not bad for a country with 10% of the population of the US.
< You should be smarter than to take some opaque (in the sense that the truths are obscured) figures and think they mean anything rational. Consider <the big picture>. >
I welcome a judicious examination of the numbers, rather than rhetoric. By such means do we arrive at truths.
Let us examine the numbers more closely, then, according to the big picture. Even the difference between the US and Switzerland, 13.9%- 10.9% = 3% of the US GDP of $14.59 trillion is <$438 billion>, <10> times the 2013 budget request for the entire National Institutes of Health ($30.860 billion [ http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/br... : top link, Overview of FY 2013 Presidents Budget]. Just imagine what we could accomplish if that money were spent efficiently.
< who are you to criticize what we spend our money on. >
I am a US citizen and taxpayer, and I do medical research for my livelihood.
As long as you have asked, what makes you an expert on medical research, theater rat? ;>)
|Mar-06-12|| ||kb2ct: |
Thanks. It was a trick question.
|Mar-06-12|| ||timhortons: <Much of what I say stems from an overriding concern about the US deficit. The US cannot afford to continue business as usual. Medicine is a large proportion of the US expenditures>|
i observe that in canadian hospitals, antibiotics used are generic.
<A generic drug (generic drugs, short: generics) is a drug defined as "a drug product that is comparable to brand/reference listed drug product in dosage form, strength, route of administration, quality and performance characteristics, and intended use." It has also been defined as a term referring to any drug marketed under its chemical name without advertising.[2>
ill site an example.
Why is this medication prescribed?
Cefuroxime is used to treat certain infections caused by bacteria, such as bronchitis; gonorrhea; Lyme disease; and infections of the ears, throat, sinuses, urinary tract, and skin. Cefuroxime is in a class of medications called cephalosporin antibiotics. It works by stopping the growth of bacteria. Antibiotics will not work for colds, flu, or other viral infections.
<brand names of cefuroxime which are expensive Ceftin, Zinacef, Kefurox>
why used a high priced brand drug?
these are the type of drugs getting needled to the american consumers.
|Mar-06-12|| ||RookFile: Romney's gonna win...
NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH
|Mar-06-12|| ||timhortons: devils laugh!
abama is the anointed one!
|Mar-06-12|| ||johnlspouge: < <timhortons> wrote: [snip] i observe that in canadian hospitals, antibiotics used are generic. >|
Thanks, <tim>. Jog my memory and I can state the specifics of my case.
In my Canadian medical training, we were taught <never> to use expensive brand names for drugs, unless there was an overriding reason, like a special time-release formulation.
Meanwhile, here in the good ol' US of A, no matter how hard my dentist tries, he can never remember the generic name for the antiseptic Chlorhexidine [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorh... ]. I provide it whenever he writes my prescription, while his other patients pay a useless and expensive premium for a brand name that some drug company has drilled into his head.
Brand names are not Big Macs and diseased hookers, but as the tip of the iceberg, they indicate one substantial inefficiency of the US medical system. US consumers really need a medical degree to defend themselves against the system.
|Mar-06-12|| ||Softpaw: My mother died stuffed full of useless drugs, prescribed by a slew of useless specialists, one for her heart, one for her blood, one for her bones--none for her health, none for her soul.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2901 OF 5561 ·