Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - BuddhasWench

Pages: [1]
1
Debate / Re: Arlen Specter gives Democrats 60 votes in the Senate
« on: April 28, 2009, 10:34:14 pm »
Quote
I'd like to trust his promise that he won't be a given vote for the democrats and thus won't signify a filibuster proof majority whether he is a republican or a democrat. But considering the nature of the issue on which he broke ranks, I have my doubts.

I'm pretty sure he is going to be a party line voter on many issues, mainly because he is going to need to prove himself to the democratic party so he can get re-elected to the senate, which I'm pretty sure why this is the biggest reason he is breaking with the republican party, although he says it's about the party going to far right.  I just don't see his reason for switching as genuine, maybe it is, but it just seems like it's all about holding a seat in the senate and nothing more.

I think one party rule is what a lot of people want, not to mention having only two options is ridiculous anyway.  I understand the difference in ideology of the parties but the people that are actually representing the parties all seem the same (unless of course when they are up for re-election).

A majority of Americans may not have had a 3 trillion dollar deficit in mind, but that's what they wanted, a bigger government that can solve and deal with problems in the so called "free market".  If you want the government to solve your problems it comes at a terrible price, and once it gets that power it's probably never going to give it up.

Also, yeah Al Franken getting a seat in the senate is rather sad, but it happens I guess, especially when people don't understand issues other than polarizing social ones (which I don't think the government has any business regulating ever).

2
Debate / Arlen Specter gives Democrats 60 votes in the Senate
« on: April 28, 2009, 02:53:36 pm »
Quote
Specter would give Democrats at least 59 Senate seats. There is one vacancy from Minnesota, where Democrat Al Franken holds a narrow lead in a race still being disputed in the courts.

Under Senate rules, a single senator can object to consideration of a bill, in which case it takes that 60-vote majority to bring a bill to the floor or to end debate so a final vote can be taken.

Ref: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30456741/

Of course when Al Franken wins they will have 60 seats.


Quote
When asked how and when he made the decision, Specter said, "the decision has been reached as I have traveled the state [Pennsylvania] in the last several months. Specifically, I got my home poll results last Friday ... and consulted with my campaign managers and had a long discussion. ... I came to a decision over this past weekend."

Ref: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/specter.party.switch/index.html


I don't care all that much, but I am actually watching the news conference right now so I thought this would be a good thing to post here.  Personally, aside from social issues (which I don't believe the government should be involved in anyway) the parties don't really seem that different to me (especially in the last few years) as they are just full of corrupt politicians that are pretty much only interested in holding their seat from year to year, and only stage outrage when they are up for re-election.

From the conference what I got was he's switching parties (after being a proponent of a two party system the main difference being the name) because he doesn't think the Republican party has a future (and doesn't feel he could get re-elected as a republican) so he wants to stick with the sure thing, despite being elected as a republican.

Edit: I think this is the right place to post this anyway.

3
The Mud pile / Re: Psychiatry Pushes Drugs, Kills Boy
« on: April 27, 2009, 11:09:06 pm »
Interesting to say the least.  I assume you've never been vaccinated for anything, ever been to a dentist or ever taken aspirin, ibprofen or other common medications like the pill or something.  I mean the only reason to go to med school and become a doctor is because you want to make money and have no real interest in helping people.  I'm skeptical of pretty much everyone but I've always felt I could trust doctors because I've never been put on anything long term, maybe I'm crazy.

It's good to be skeptical of drugs that you need to take everyday for a long duration (or many medications at once) because they only reduce the pain, change your mood etc. because that isn't a fix it's just patching something up temporarily.  I just think you are oversimplifying this, but maybe you have good reason to do so, in my experience I've never had a problem with my doctor, but of course it's different for everyone.

4
The Mud pile / Re: Psychiatry Pushes Drugs, Kills Boy
« on: April 26, 2009, 03:26:26 pm »
That's rather silly, where then would you get your information?  Books?  Because those were written by experts "supposedly" more educated than yourself.  I'm sure you aren't going to do experiments or even have the know how to perform them.  Because that's really the only way to truly be as skeptical as you are proposing especially when it comes to matter of health and science, which aren't things that can be understood by reading a few pages of text, as individual cases vary and solutions aren't so simple as to say there is a generic fix.  Even Hobbes wouldn't advocate that amount of mistrust for people who are "ignorant" in the ways of science (in this case the human body).

When it comes to doctors it's about trust (psychiatry is another matter, as most of the drugs don't really fix anything and most of the time don't work properly anyway because again there needs to be tailored solutions for each person, and I believe the practice has gotten lazy with over prescribing drugs like these), that's why the bond between the doctor and patient is so important (when the kid was getting put on that many medications of course it would be a good idea to get a second opinion, but psychiatry has become a broken practice).  When it comes to politicians and the like of course it's wise to be skeptical.

5
Cetrists / Re: Where have all the centrists gone?
« on: April 26, 2009, 01:35:40 am »
There's a very large difference, whether it's recognised here or not, between having watered-down ideals and having a strong, mixed set of ideals.

Just because someone is socially Liberal and fiscally Conservative doesn't make them Lord Neutral of the Neutral Planet.


Well by centrist I don't mean neutral, that implies lack of resolve or opinion.  I usually just think of beliefs that don't land them firmly on one side of the political spectrum or the other, which overall could land them close to the middle (of course leaning one way or the other). 

To find a true centrist would be hard to do, you can really only get close.

6
Cetrists / Re: Where have all the centrists gone?
« on: April 25, 2009, 10:15:16 pm »
A lot of the people you hear from (The people who make the news that is) are generally from one end of the other, there aren't really any centrist.  A lot of people I just think are idiots in the house and wonder how on earth they got into the house or senate.

Personally I would say I like Brad Sherman from California, I actually don't know to terribly much about him but when I was watching CSPAN during the first bail-out he made a real impression on me as a democrat that was against it, and not in a Kucinich sort of way either.

I don't believe in that many politicians but he seems pretty consistent from what I've read about him and seen on the senate floor.  I've not much more to add he seems socially liberal and fiscally conservative to me, so possibly he could count, but as he doesn't seem to have that much pull in the house, as I think people tend to go with one side or the other and just vote for a (D) or an (R) and not really on issues.

Anyway this is just the first time I saw him and was impressed.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8902076

7
Meet the staff / Re: I'm Giuliano, your lovable dictator!
« on: April 25, 2009, 09:52:48 pm »
Your dog is so adorable I just want to pet him.

8
The Mud pile / Re: Psychiatry Pushes Drugs, Kills Boy
« on: April 25, 2009, 09:46:48 pm »
As far as I'm concerned it's the individual's responsibility to check the credentials of the doctor they are visiting and to research the treatment methods they recommend or provide for.

I feel the same way towards idiots that visit MDs without checking their credentials and then feel cheated later on when the doctor misdiagnoses them due to lack of experience.

"Trust me I'm a doctor" right?

Usually the credentials are fine, that's not always the problem.  You act as if these parents have some kind of formal medical training, you go to a doctor because they are suppose to know what they are talking about, and most of the time they do, it's just some get corrupted by the pay-offs they are getting from the pharmaceutical companies, so they get caught up more in pushing drugs rather than actual treatment. 

Plus when it comes to psychiatric drugs, which don't actually do that much (mood elevators) they are just a temporary fix you need to be on long term or don't work at all (anti-depression drugs causing suicidal tendencies).

I agree the parents are at some fault but they are probably just worried for their child and as they aren't doctors will take the word of one who they believe has the best intentions at heart.

If it was up to me I would trust to word of someone talking to me face to face who had a PhD, who I could ask questions rather than a web article I've read online. But the more and more I hear about the corruption of the health care system from stories like this I fear that trust between the doctor and patient will wear thin because of these pharmaceutical companies, who don't seem to ever want to fix the problem, just permanently treat it, because there is no money to be had for a cure.

9
The Mud pile / Re: Psychiatry Pushes Drugs, Kills Boy
« on: April 24, 2009, 11:00:11 pm »
This seemed relevant.

Quote
MONTPELIER – There's a psychiatrist out there somewhere in Vermont – only a handful of people know this person's identity — who walked away with $112,000 in gifts and payments last year from the pharmaceutical industry.

The payments, usually for speaking engagements or other services, came almost entirely from a single pharmaceutical company, whose identity also is unknown.

There's also a geriatric medical doctor who received more $50,000 in payments last year. A dermatologist got $15,000 in gifts from the industry while another Vermont doctor received nearly $16,000 worth of meals on the industry's dime.

All their identities – along with the dozens and dozens of other Vermont doctors, pediatricians and nurses who accepted payments from the pharmaceutical industry last year totaling $2.9 million – are secret.

From: http://www.timesargus.com/article/20090419/NEWS01/904190370/1002/NEWS01

Just the same thing but I like using different articles:


Quote
The nation's pharmaceutical makers spent more than $2.9 million on Vermont's doctors, hospitals and universities to market their products in the last fiscal year, according to a report issued Wednesday by the state attorney general's office.

That's down slightly from the previous year, but Attorney General William Sorrell says he's not sure if the drug companies are tightening their belts or if they want to avoid public scrutiny for the payments, whose recipients aren't identified.

The report shows 78 companies spent the money in the year ending July 1, 2008. By law, the companies have to report their spending on consulting and speakers' fees, travel expenses, gifts and other payments to or for physicians, hospitals, universities and others authorized to prescribe drugs.

From: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/04/16/ap6296844.html

Marketing drugs on TV is one thing but getting doctors to market them to their patients because of pay-off and not because they think it's the best option for the patient is a huge violation of trust, and destroys the very important bond between a patient and the doctor and begins to not be about the patients well being and starts to be about how many drugs you can get them to pay for.

Much as the over prescription of drugs for ADD/ADHD in this country which is just another way to get money and avoid actual patient health, because there is no generic treatment for something like depression and the success rate for medicated patients is rather low anyway because the "chemical imbalance" is unique to each person.  I shouldn't go into this any further.

Anyway, that boy is another casualty of the ever growing  corruption in the pharmaceutical/health care industries.  It probably also says something about parenting to allow their child to be prescribed that many medications as possibly a quick fix to their problems.  But then again I'm sure they have some sort of trust in their doctor and believe that to be the best path...but maybe not.  I should stop here.

Pages: [1]