I "googled" "Breast Cancer Awareness" and got 91,000,000!!! I "googled" "Lung Cancer Awareness" and got 1,150,000. If you're gonna do "research", you gotta do it right! What's your... complaint?
See the New Yorker article on the creation of a market for fosomax and other bone density remedies for the classic story on this. I take some exception to inclusion of gastric reflux in this list. It's a real and painful condition that can lead to much more serious disease. It's a problem for many people and proton pump inhibitors such as omeprazole make a huge difference.
Most Disease Awareness Campaigns are Promoted by the Medical Profession and the Pharmaceutical industry to promote an "epidemic" where there may not be one, to sell an idea in order to raise money.
I have no objection to people giving to charity, as long as the dollars are not extracted by taxation. It is, in fact, in poor taste as well as with lack of common sense that anyone would suggest in a liberal outlet like this one or any decent site that breast cancer awareness is being promoted because breasts are sexy and a charity can raise money for protection of female breasts.
How cynical can anyone get?
What people do with their own money voluntarily is their own business.
When what they do is memorialized in law as the standard for everyone else to follow and as a donation required to support what is being done in the form of mandatory taxation, what I am getting at here is the so called "best practices" that the Obama administration is going to enforce with the power of enacting those standards into law, that is when people are going to question the “wisdom of the legislature” as the old legal term goes.
The back room deals Obama has been making through Rahm Emanuel with the healthcare industry which has been donating $4 million a year in campaign funds to Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, may indeed influence where we spend tax dollars on healthcare. Examine what is happening in the back room of the White House behind closed doors before casting aspersions at the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Awareness campaigns. After all, this was a charity started by a woman in memory of her sister who died of cancer.
What healthcare reform is going to do is to make you, not charities, pay for where we put our money towards a cure. Don't like the breast cancer campaigns? You can literally beat your breasts and scream and holler but you can't make anybody stop them if they get the government to enact legislation that breast cancer is a national priority and that government research should be devoted to it as a priority and that even with flawed radiology, we should make or influence every doctor heavily to get women to get a mammogram every year even if the radiation itself might expose them to cancer and the mammograms are not being read accurately by radiologists, thus promoting unnecessary surgery.
For the record, I just want to say that my cousin in California who is 67 years old tells me that there are no Cost of Living Increases and lots of cuts in Social Security. She is just a housewife, not a political person. Apparently, older people on Social Security are being hurt in order to prepare for financing healthcare "reform." I do not see "reform" here. I see a bill that is greatly flawed.
The economy has not improved and the money is going to have to come from somewhere if you are going to tax people. One can tax a thriving populace but one cannot get the proverbial blood out of a turnip if the economy continues to be stagnant due to the tin ear of the political leadership of the nation. Thus far, ignoring the old has not helped much. Sure, the young support the current administration but only up to a point. Eventually they are going to emerge from graduate school and reach 30 years of age and demand more. That’s when Lyndon Johnson lost them. They all went to grad school on Student Loans and when they grew up and were 30 they wanted to enter the economy but there was no economy to enter. A war was raging and they were angry. Thus, the Chicago 7 and the police riot.
Catering to the young but doing nothing but making deals with the healthcare industry that are going to cost the taxpayer lots of money not only in taxes but in higher premiums for their health insurance is not something everyone in the public sees right now about the Democratic party but they do know something is up. One day they will figure it out that our leadership is more concerned about campaign contributions than us and they will demand a change. I think this time the change will lead to a growth in Green Party votes and in a third party movement.
I am the daughter of New Dealers and I would say about healthcare “reform” that this is not the way they would have done it. Medicare or Medical Care for the Aged was a plan that was proposed by the Kennedy Administration and carried out by the Johnson Administration. The legislative history suggests that the Congress determined that the elderly were more likely to suffer illness in old age with higher expenses than the young. Thus, it was determined that legislation providing health insurance for the elderly, yet to be patronizingly called "senior citizens" by PC politicians who did not like to use the term "old," should be enacted to protect them. Now everybody is going to be protected, or so they say. I suppose everyone can be protected, badly.
In the attempt to mobilize voters in colleges and universities by sending them emails to make small donations online, and to get them to canvass and phone bank, which means going from door to door begging for money for the Democratic National Committee and to make telephone solicitations to people to beg them for money for the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic National Committee has forgotten that appealing to kids means that you are cutting out older people.
The only thing I can say about older people is that those who work for the Democratic National Committee are all going to be old some day. If they are lucky. If they don’t plan to get old, I suppose that would explain the haste to ignore the needs of the old.
It was Lester C. Thurow who wrote a book in the seventies called “The Zero Sum Society.” He said that politicians wanted to promise the world to get people to vote for them but it was the task of economists to point out that there are finite resources and in any economy some will win and some will lose. Those who promise ”healthcare for all” are ignoring this premise. Some will lose. That is why economics is called “the dismal science.” Every politician wants every voter to think they are getting their very own ice cream and cake, or rather, piece of the pie, as Thurow used in his illustrations.
This situation also reminds me of Aesop's Tale about the donkey.
A man and his son were crossing a bridge leading a donkey. A passerby comes by and says that the boy should be considerate of his father and that the man should ride the donkey. Another passerby a few minutes later says that the man is cruel and should also let the boy sit on the donkey's back. So he does. A little later another man comes by and says that the two are being cruel to the donkey and should carry the animal on their backs. The father and son cannot find a way to carry the donkey so they get a long plank of wood and put the donkey on a sling and try to carry the wooden plank with the donkey on a sling together over the bridge, The bridge cannot bear the weight of the donkey and the two in this fashion so the bridge collapses and all three fall into the raging river beneath.
I recommend to my foreign colleagues to start with a conservative approach and then, if you want to spend more high-frequency trading thay can do that later, once they acquire a little more experience.
See the New Yorker article on the creation of a market for fosomax and other bone density remedies for the classic story on this. I take some exception to inclusion of gastric reflux in this list. It's a real and painful condition that can lead to much more serious disease. It's a problem for many people and proton pump inhibitors such as omeprazole make a huge difference.
For the record, I just want to say that my cousin in California who is 67 years old tells me that there are no Cost of Living Increases and lots of cuts in Social Security. She is just a housewife, not a political person. Apparently, older people on Social Security are being hurt in order to prepare for financing healthcare "reform." I do not see "reform" here. I see a bill that is greatly flawed.
The economy has not improved and the money is going to have to come from somewhere if you are going to tax people. One can tax a thriving populace but one cannot get the proverbial blood out of a turnip if the economy continues to be stagnant due to the tin ear of the political leadership of the nation. Thus far, ignoring the old has not helped much. Sure, the young support the current administration but only up to a point. Eventually they are going to emerge from graduate school and reach 30 years of age and demand more. That’s when Lyndon Johnson lost them. They all went to grad school on Student Loans and when they grew up and were 30 they wanted to enter the economy but there was no economy to enter. A war was raging and they were angry. Thus, the Chicago 7 and the police riot.
Catering to the young but doing nothing but making deals with the healthcare industry that are going to cost the taxpayer lots of money not only in taxes but in higher premiums for their health insurance is not something everyone in the public sees right now about the Democratic party but they do know something is up. One day they will figure it out that our leadership is more concerned about campaign contributions than us and they will demand a change. I think this time the change will lead to a growth in Green Party votes and in a third party movement.
I am the daughter of New Dealers and I would say about healthcare “reform” that this is not the way they would have done it. Medicare or Medical Care for the Aged was a plan that was proposed by the Kennedy Administration and carried out by the Johnson Administration. The legislative history suggests that the Congress determined that the elderly were more likely to suffer illness in old age with higher expenses than the young. Thus, it was determined that legislation providing health insurance for the elderly, yet to be patronizingly called "senior citizens" by PC politicians who did not like to use the term "old," should be enacted to protect them. Now everybody is going to be protected, or so they say. I suppose everyone can be protected, badly.
In the attempt to mobilize voters in colleges and universities by sending them emails to make small donations online, and to get them to canvass and phone bank, which means going from door to door begging for money for the Democratic National Committee and to make telephone solicitations to people to beg them for money for the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic National Committee has forgotten that appealing to kids means that you are cutting out older people.
The only thing I can say about older people is that those who work for the Democratic National Committee are all going to be old some day. If they are lucky. If they don’t plan to get old, I suppose that would explain the haste to ignore the needs of the old.
It was Lester C. Thurow who wrote a book in the seventies called “The Zero Sum Society.” He said that politicians wanted to promise the world to get people to vote for them but it was the task of economists to point out that there are finite resources and in any economy some will win and some will lose. Those who promise ”healthcare for all” are ignoring this premise. Some will lose. That is why economics is called “the dismal science.” Every politician wants every voter to think they are getting their very own ice cream and cake, or rather, piece of the pie, as Thurow used in his illustrations.
This situation also reminds me of Aesop's Tale about the donkey.
A man and his son were crossing a bridge leading a donkey. A passerby comes by and says that the boy should be considerate of his father and that the man should ride the donkey. Another passerby a few minutes later says that the man is cruel and should also let the boy sit on the donkey's back. So he does. A little later another man comes by and says that the two are being cruel to the donkey and should carry the animal on their backs. The father and son cannot find a way to carry the donkey so they get a long plank of wood and put the donkey on a sling and try to carry the wooden plank with the donkey on a sling together over the bridge, The bridge cannot bear the weight of the donkey and the two in this fashion so the bridge collapses and all three fall into the raging river beneath.
I recommend to my foreign colleagues to start with a conservative approach and then, if you want to spend more high-frequency trading thay can do that later, once they acquire a little more experience.
Pages