Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Recliner Pilot

Is this guy serious?

Recommended Posts

I'm not 'mad' at you, Jerry. I find you to be a condescending ###### at times. When you're not wearing your 'holier-than-thou' cape, you're actually a poster I like.

 

How do I communicate to you that your posting has become insufferable without sounding like a doosh? :dunno:

 

 

:bench:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry, you're successful. People like newbie and Obama supporters in general are envious of that.....how dare you succeed while they fail miserably.

It's sad what our country has become and newbie is a glaring testiment to that fact.

You can leave, fatso. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I communicate to you that your posting has become insufferable without sounding like a doosh? :dunno:

Well, since I don't remember anyone asking your opinion on it, you can start by worrying about yourself. When in doubt, that's always a wise choice. itsatip ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really mind Newbs. Yes, almost everything he posts here, at least when it concerns politics, is pure trolling without even an attempt to discuss. And I see how that could be annoying if you disagree with him. On the other hand, I can think of at least three rightie posters (RP, drobeski, Phurfur) who do the exact same thing so Newbs is sort of the antidote and the poster they deserve. Plus he's orange and ripped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our White-African-American President exposes even more ignorance of Constitutional Law in explaining his earlier statements on the Supreme Court. I thought he was suppose to be some sort of expert on the Constitution. :dunno:

 

 

 

 

The Man Who Knew Too Little

 

President Obama's stunning ignorance of constitutional law.

 

By JAMES TARANTO

 

We were half-joking yesterday when we asked if Barack Obama slept through his Harvard Law class on Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first asserted its power to strike down unconstitutional laws. It turns out it's no joke: The president is stunningly ignorant about constitutional law.

 

At an appearance this afternoon, a reporter asked Obama a question following up on yesterday's comments: "Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be 'unprecedented' for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the court's done during its entire existence. If the court were to overturn the individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn't have health care after that ruling?"

 

 

Obama's answer to the question was that he expects to win in court, and "as a consequence, we're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies." He went on to talk at some length about the "human element"--that is, people who would supposedly suffer in the absence of ObamaCare. Message: Obama cares, though not enough to spend "a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies."

 

But the most interesting part of his answer was the beginning, in which he tried to walk back, or at least clarify, his statement from yesterday. He spoke slowly, with long pauses, giving the sense that he was speaking with great thought and precision: "Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um [pause], we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner, right? So we're going back to the '30s, pre-New Deal."

 

In fact, Lochner--about which more in a moment--was decided in 1905. Thirty years later, after the New Deal had begun, the high court unanimously struck down one of its main components, the National Industrial Recovery Act, as exceeding Congress's authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The case was A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S. (1935).

 

It is true that in subsequent New Deal cases, the court vastly expanded Congress's power to regulate "interstate commerce," although it has never done what the administration asks it to do now, namely authorize Congress to force individuals to engage in commerce. Obama seems to have been trying to make the accurate observation that since the '30s the court has not struck down a federal law that applies to economic activity on the ground that it exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause authority.

 

But in citing Lochner, the president showed himself to be in over his head.

 

The full name of the case, Lochner v. New York, should be a sufficient tip-off. In Lochner the court invalidated a state labor regulation on the ground that it violated the "liberty of contract," which the court held was an aspect of liberty protected by the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. (The legal doctrine at issue, "substantive due process," refers to the meaning of "life, liberty and property" under the Due Process Clause.)

 

Lochner, which was effectively reversed in a series of post-New Deal decisions, did not involve a federal law--contrary to the president's claim--and thus had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause, which concerns only the powers of Congress.

 

It's appalling that any president would have the effrontery to lecture the Supreme Court about a pending case. It's astounding that this president, who was once a professor of constitutional law at an elite university, would do so in such an ignorant fashion.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577321844137787970.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constitutional law professor my ass. :lol:

 

The only president in history where his base doesn't even care that he made everything up about himself.

That's white guilt in a nut shell, how dare we question his word ....that would be racist :lol:

 

Libtards are really bunch of panzy limpwristed cluesless scaredy cat bozos :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really mind Newbs. Yes, almost everything he posts here, at least when it concerns politics, is pure trolling without even an attempt to discuss. And I see how that could be annoying if you disagree with him. On the other hand, I can think of at least three rightie posters (RP, drobeski, Phurfur) who do the exact same thing so Newbs is sort of the antidote and the poster they deserve. Plus he's orange and ripped.

Anyone here with half a brain knows that I am only in the political threads for one reason...to anti-troll the trolls. It's funny how it's always conservatives like Jerryskids who have a problem with me focking with RP and the others. lol It's been a four year whinefest for those clowns and I have fun poking them and making fun. It's what I do. As for the flame wars, I guarantee I get flamed first in more threads than the other way around. If I own RP in a thread, Drobeski has to jump in with a personal insult. And Phurfer never offers any thoughts except quotes and lyrics, so he gets the same in return.

 

Maybe when the Demopcrats lose the Presidency. the crybabies will settle down and get back to living an actual life. Then my job here as the anti-troll brigade will be over. Until then, I have a job to do. :music_guitarred: cc :overhead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Libtards are really bunch of panzy limpwristed cluesless scaredy cat bozos :lol:

How much you wanna bet we kick your ass again in the election? :first:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much you wanna bet we kick your ass again in the election? :first:

It's possible, dumbness on your level appears to be contagious. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible, dumbness on your level appears to be contagious. :(

Well, the so-called geniuses of teh country voted George Bush for two terms, so you don't have much of a leg to stand on if you want to boil it down to an intelligence contest. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the so-called geniuses of teh country voted George Bush for two terms, so you don't have much of a leg to stand on if you want to boil it down to an intelligence contest. :thumbsup:

You claimed you voted for Bush. Was that another "Perfect Life" moment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You claimed you voted for Bush. Was that another "Perfect Life" moment?

Only once. Yes, I was stupid in 2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy fukk!!

 

Nah, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too easy. :lol:

Hey, you and I voted for the same idiot in 2000. I can admit my mistakes. At least I wised up four years later. :music_guitarred:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, you and I voted for the same idiot in 2000. I can admit my mistakes. At least I wised up four years later. :music_guitarred:

It was a smart move to vote for Bush over both Gore and Kerry.

 

You admit you were stupid in 2000, yet voted for Kerry in 2004, and the White-African-American in 2008. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a smart move to vote for Bush over both Gore and Kerry.

 

You admit you were stupid in 2000, yet voted for Kerry in 2004, and the White-African-American in 2008. :doh:

X

 

Wrong again, slick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait. Not just a drive by? If you weren't such a d*ck around here I'd answer but that's what you've become. A d*ck who ruins threads. NJIAFP.

 

ROFL.

 

:overhead:

 

Wow, what a prediction I made......

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, what a prediction I made......

 

:lol:

It's an RP thread. Not exactly a Jimmy The Greek prediction, jackoff. That's my intention. hth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an RP thread. Not exactly a Jimmy The Greek prediction, jackoff. That's my intention. hth

 

Didn't you vow to stop doing this sh*t a few months ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you vow to stop doing this sh*t a few months ago?

Yes he did. I for forgot about that.

 

Yet another welch by Bubbles. :doh:

 

Of course, he also promised to not post in any political threads. Man, the amount of welching this clown does is astounding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you vow to stop doing this sh*t a few months ago?

If the other political hacks stop, I'll stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, there appears to have been a leak amongst the scotus justices that this was going to be overturned. hence, the tantrums from our esteemed cartoon president this week.

 

so, how do we go about getting rid of judges? do they have to be impeached by the congress? does anyone know the process?

 

kagan was in on the drafting of the legislation, which should have disqualified her from hearing it, so she would be the obvious one to point the finger at for leaking the preliminary vote to zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's entirely plausible there was a leak, and the news wasn't good, which caused our White-African-American POTUS to make the rookie mistake of calling out the Supreme Court.

 

No way anything will be done about the leak. Move on and enjoy the sh1tstorm Zero has stirred up for himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the other political hacks stop, I'll stop.

 

That wasn't a qualifier at the time. I think at the time you acknowledged that it just added to the mess and you were going to take the high road. But all you've shown is that you're just as much of a hack as they are. Good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't a qualifier at the time. I think at the time you acknowledged that it just added to the mess and you were going to take the high road. But all you've shown is that you're just as much of a hack as they are. Good job.

If you lose 100 pounds, I'll stop beating up RP every day. Final offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the idea was to control the spiraling costs?

That was helpful - you asked for people to give their suggestions, and this is your constructive feedback? Tort reform, lower doctor salaries, increasing personal responsibility for non-urgent care, creating a basis for more reasonable end-of-life care (advance directives), limiting unnecessary middlemen (billers/coders/medical transcriptions/pharm reps) would increase healthcare costs? Over half my suggestions would reduce costs.

 

The idea is to reform the system, a large part of which is cost, but access is an issue, too. Obviously more non-paying customers increases the burden on the system, but I don't think we can ignore their care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

90% of the military ? That's a typo right ?

Not a typo. We'd still spend more than everyone except China. Maybe a more reasonable goal would be to reduce spending to ~2% GDP, in line with most other industrialized countries. That would mean cutting our current spending only 50%.

 

How much of our current military spending do you think is necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We won't need healthcare if he gets that one. We will all be speaking Chinese. :P

 

His plan also relies on:

 

Raising taxes on the poor and middle class. Non-starter.

Making the poor pay a co-pay. They won't go for that.

Letting the rich purchase healthcare the poor can't get = Riots in the streets (see the Fleabagger Occutards)

Taking away people's Viagra. Jimmy Johnson's Johnson will be sad. Plus, there is a basic human right to a boner.

Eliminate drug reps? How do you propose DRs become educated on the new drugs developed? They won't do it on their own.

Revisit patent laws? I assume you mean eliminate patents on new drugs because it drives up the price. No new drugs would be developed if this is what you mean.

Pay all Drs the same? How Stalin-esque of you.

And finally: Death Panels.

 

So basically, your plan will end up putting the Govt in control of what you get, when you get it, how long you get it, and how much Drs get for providing it to you. Well, the Govt is so greta at running stuff I see no problem with this plan. :lol:

Ignoring your skewed/inaccurate interpretation of most of what I wrote, I found this statement particularly ludicrous. How do you think Drs. learn about all the currently available medications before exposure to the pharmaceutical industry post-training? Ever heard of CME? Or just keeping up with the medical literature?

 

I haven't interacted with a drug rep for years RP, and I'd be willing to bet I have just as good an understanding of newer drugs in my field as the docs your wife serves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was helpful - you asked for people to give their suggestions, and this is your constructive feedback? Tort reform, lower doctor salaries, increasing personal responsibility for non-urgent care, creating a basis for more reasonable end-of-life care (advance directives), limiting unnecessary middlemen (billers/coders/medical transcriptions/pharm reps) would increase healthcare costs?

 

The idea is to reform the system, a large part of which is cost, but access is an issue, too. Obviously more non-paying customers increases the burden on the system, but I don't think we can ignore their care.

could it be possible to reform the system just 1 step at a time? instead of 3000 pages of nonsense that includes a phrase that says it can never be overturned.

 

removing or limiting the ability to sue everybody and their neighbor is the first and essential step toward any cost control. the entire medical field has become CYA. too many tests to rule out every single option.

 

most doctors are independent contractors, so they make their own wages. if they lose business to more price competitive doctors, they will adjust down or retire. and, if the malpractice insurance dropped from the law reform, they would have room to drop prices.

 

what's the first thing that could be done? just 1, that would get the ball rolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I haven't interacted with a drug rep for years RP, and I'd be willing to bet I have just as good an understanding of newer drugs in my field as the docs your wife serves.

 

My wife has physicians with that attitude. They "read up and know all they need to know". She loves it when they finally cave and say, 'Ok, tell me something I don't know", and she proceeds to b!tchslap them on their ignorance. It is her favorite kind of call.

 

But hey, you keep thinking you know it all. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you lose 100 pounds, I'll stop beating up RP every day. Final offer.

 

Too fukking funny.

 

Let's just recap your day of admitted trolling political threads.

 

You have been exposed as a welcher in two different threads on two different subjects.

 

And I schooled your ass on the ONE subject you claim to know something about, music.

 

Not a good day for you, Bubbles. But it's cute how you still think you somehow came out on top. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Oh, and please don't insult the bored with a "final offer". You have no credibility when it comes to saying you will, or will not, do something here. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could it be possible to reform the system just 1 step at a time? instead of 3000 pages of nonsense that includes a phrase that says it can never be overturned.

 

removing or limiting the ability to sue everybody and their neighbor is the first and essential step toward any cost control. the entire medical field has become CYA. too many tests to rule out every single option.

 

most doctors are independent contractors, so they make their own wages. if they lose business to more price competitive doctors, they will adjust down or retire. and, if the malpractice insurance dropped from the law reform, they would have room to drop prices.

 

what's the first thing that could be done? just 1, that would get the ball rolling.

Biggest bang for the buck? Encourage meaningful end-of-life care, but then you immediately hear 'death panel' cries - right, RP?

 

Tort reform is an early step, too, but medical spending hasn't changed much in places where it has been embraced.

 

BTW the insurance companies, including Medicare, determine doctors' wages, and it is not really based on supply and demand/competition like other industries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest bang for the buck? Encourage meaningful end-of-life care, but then you immediately hear 'death panel' cries - right, RP?

 

Tort reform is an early step, too, but medical spending hasn't changed much in places where it has been embraced.

 

BTW the insurance companies, including Medicare, determine doctors' wages, and it is not really based on supply and demand/competition like other industries.

i would guess most politicians put as much effort into solving this problem as you and i just did. gwb pushed for tort reform and had genuine concern to help with healthcare. i see it has essentially gone nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife has physicians with that attitude. They "read up and know all they need to know". She loves it when they finally cave and say, 'Ok, tell me something I don't know", and she proceeds to b!tchslap them on their ignorance. It is her favorite kind of call.

 

But hey, you keep thinking you know it all. :thumbsup:

I have no doubt your wife knows more about her five drugs than the hundreds with which I am familiar. That doesn't mean her knowledge translates into clinically meaningful outcomes. Also her data is inherently biased.

 

Its not just my 'attitude' BTW - drug reps are not allowed in our office as part of hospital policy. I wonder why they chose to do that? Also wonder why there have been crackdowns on junkets and gifts to physicians from the pharmaceutical industry?

 

Drug reps are sales people; some are good, some are sleazy. But none are necessary for doctors to deliver effective medicine, including new drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt your wife knows more about her five drugs than the hundreds with which I am familiar. That doesn't mean her knowledge translate into clinically meaningful outcomes. Also her data is inherently biased.

 

So, you couldn't benefit from her superior knowledge on her drugs? Awefully closed minded for someone who could have people's lives in his hands. Admitting you have to keep up with hundreds of drugs that you are "familiar with", while ignoring the fact her superior knowledge could benefit you is short sighted. How is clinical trial that the FDA conducts and regulates "inherently biased"?

 

Its not just my 'attitude' BTW - drug reps are not allowed in our office as part of hospital policy. I wonder why they chose to do that? Also wonder why there have been crackdowns on junkets and gifts to physicians from the pharmaceutical industry?

 

Maybe the facility you work for is more concerned with the almighty dollar, and they don't want you spending time getting educated to better treat your patients when you could churn out a few more appointments and earn a few more $$$$. Seems counter to your long-standing position of not being concerned with the almighty dollar, and only concerned with the care of those you serve. Most of the restrictions on gifts came from the industry, not the govt.

 

Drug reps are sales people; some are good, some are sleazy. But none are necessary for doctors to deliver effective medicine, including new drugs.

 

There is that arrogance so many in your profession are known for. Congrats! :thumbsup:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was helpful - you asked for people to give their suggestions, and this is your constructive feedback? Tort reform, lower doctor salaries, increasing personal responsibility for non-urgent care, creating a basis for more reasonable end-of-life care (advance directives), limiting unnecessary middlemen (billers/coders/medical transcriptions/pharm reps) would increase healthcare costs? Over half my suggestions would reduce costs.

 

The idea is to reform the system, a large part of which is cost, but access is an issue, too. Obviously more non-paying customers increases the burden on the system, but I don't think we can ignore their care.

 

1) You want single payer. That's a non starter for me. You basically want to hand the government everyone's health records as well. I'm not comfortable with that. The less they know about me the better. Not to mention that they have an abysmal record of protecting privacy.

 

2) I'm good with Tort reform. However, if you look at places where it's been implemented (Texas is one IIRC) it hasn't been the cost reducer many would have you believe.

 

3) Lower doctor salaries? Are you F'ing kidding me? We've already got a shortage which is only going to get worse with more people being covered. And you want to tell prospective doctors they're going to make less? Do you know how long and how much it costs to become a doctor?

 

4) You want to cut the military by 90%. Yeah, that's reasonable.

 

5) Your self admitted biggest recommendation is to promote a healthy lifestyle. Yeah, because people don't know that if they're fat it's bad for them now. IOW, this isn't going to help. People live the way they want to live. The evolution of this would be that if people don't meet certain lifestyle/fitness criteria they pay more for health care, as many private companies require now. I'm not on board with that.

 

6) I don't believe in sin taxes. Taxes were implemented to pay for our government, which is already many times larger than our forefathers ever envisioned. They shouldn't be used to adjust behavior.

 

In any case I don't think your plan would be effective. Certain aspects of it have use, such as tort reform, and certain other concepts may have some value if modified somewhat. Bot as an overall plan I don't think it would be effective.

 

That better constructive criticism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you couldn't benefit from her superior knowledge on her drugs? Awefully closed minded for someone who could have people's lives in his hands. Admitting you have to keep up with hundreds of drugs that you are "familiar with", while ignoring the fact her superior knowledge could benefit you is short sighted. How is clinical trial that the FDA conducts and regulates "inherently biased"?

 

Maybe the facility you work for is more concerned with the almighty dollar, and they don't want you spending time getting educated to better treat your patients when you could churn out a few more appointments and earn a few more $$$$. Seems counter to your long-standing position of not being concerned with the almighty dollar, and only concerned with the care of those you serve. Most of the restrictions on gifts came from the industry, not the govt.

 

There is that arrogance so many in your profession are known for. Congrats!

Didn't say her knowledge is 'superior'. She knows more about the pharma company's data, some of which may be useful, but a lot of which is meaningless propaganda. The bias comes from her impetus to sell the drugs she markets. When one has only a limited time to educate oneself, reading the trial data is more effective than chatting with a hot chick with free pens, or attending a presentation at a nice restaurant.

 

Two other things: 1. New meds tend to be more expensive, with trials typically conducted to show non-inferiority (not superiority) to older, cheaper meds.

2. Post-marketing surveillance often discovers problems with new meds not anticipated by trials performed before they hit the market.

 

For those two reasons, many docs take a wait-and-see approach with the newest wonder drugs. Some pan out, others do not. This is true of your wife's company's formulary just as with others. The new COPD drug is interesting, though personally I'd wait a while before prescribing it, for the reasons I mentioned. Also I'm glad her company makes a couple antibiotics, as these are often ignored for more profitable 'me-too' drugs like antihypertensives, antidepressants and cholesterol lowering meds. Of course, her companies make many of those as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×