Good luck with your new president and the inauguration

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

Yes, SJfromNJ, if you can convince enough people to make it into a law, it will be a law. That's called democracy.

[flip-flop]

Cypress I absolutely respect your right to believe in God and that you will be judged. I happen to believe that our actions in the world do matter and that the universe has a way of setting things right. A cosmic karma so to speak. Payback can be a bi$#%.

I just do NOT subscribe to the notion, considering all of the beautiful and wonderful religions and spiritual practices in the world, that any ONE is the ONE. People who try to put forth that there is only one way to know God or know your spiritual self are the ones who are missing out.

Religion and spirituality is not that simple. To presume someone is missing out because they don't worship your God is sad, and honestly, a bit self-righteous.

I am fortunate to have true, dear, lifelong friends who happen to be of all religious backgrounds, the majority believe in God and would self-identify as Christians, but I feel lucky to have friends who are also Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, my inlaws are Buddhist, some agnostics, even one atheist. I feel even luckier that not a single one of those in my circle of friends would ever judge another based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

[cypressgirl]

From Cypressgirl: "But we will all be judged. Take your chances if you wish. It's your loss."

This has been debated by over the ages by people much wiser than you and me. Yet, you just assume it to be so.

Keep in mind that you run the risk of insulting many who do not believe as you do. For example, for Jews there is no judgment day. So, when you continue to exist that there is, you come across as imposing your religion on others.

I have no intentions of imposing my religion on others. I'm a Methodist, not a Baptist. lol! (That's a joke.) I know I believe the truth. If anyone is insulted, well there is plenty on this board that could insult me, but I would never let that happen. We have all expressed our beliefs with strong conviction, it's only when it takes on a religious tone that it becomes "insulting". I wish all of you, and this entire country, only the best possible outcome from this dire situation we are all in. I have only the best wishes for all of you.

[XOXO]

You know, we don't make very good dinner guests. Politics, abortion, religion, and name calling.

SJ; suit yourself but the look is in and it will attract the ladies.

Gina

[cypressgirl]

Cypress I absolutely respect your right to believe in God and that you will be judged. I happen to believe that our actions in the world do matter and that the universe has a way of setting things right. A cosmic karma so to speak. Payback can be a bi$#%.

I just do NOT subscribe to the notion, considering all of the beautiful and wonderful religions and spiritual practices in the world, that any ONE is the ONE. People who try to put forth that there is only one way to know God or know your spiritual self are the ones who are missing out.

Religion and spirituality is not that simple. To presume someone is missing out because they don't worship your God is sad, and honestly, a bit self-righteous.

I am fortunate to have true, dear, lifelong friends who happen to be of all religious backgrounds, the majority believe in God and would self-identify as Christians, but I feel lucky to have friends who are also Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, my inlaws are Buddhist, some agnostics, even one atheist. I feel even luckier that not a single one of those in my circle of friends would ever judge another based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Well, God Bless You, Flip!!!

[loria]

Cypress girl "you will be judged'?????????


WTF ?

wow.

[cypressgirl]

Cypress girl "you will be judged'?????????


WTF ?

wow.

Yeah, WOW!! And I'm not even Amish!

You will be too, girlfriend.

[XOXO]

Loria: if you have something to say . . . say it. You post didn't add anything.

[soxfan22]

SOXFAN:

Doctors now have less choice in what they prescribe patients, due to the fact that third party insurance companies actually administer the program

I have a huge question about this. My doctor is now computerized. I take armour thyroid and zyrtek d. Armour is an old medicine that isn’t regularly prescribed anymore and synthroid is now the currently prescribed medicine for people are hypothyroid. Armour is inexpensive because it is no longer under patent. I had done a lot of research and really felt/feel that armour was the best choice for me. I had to change doctors because my doctor wasn’t willing to prescribe it. Zyrtek D is now sold over the counter. Ok there is the background, so I was looking at my Doctors computer and there were red sad faces next to my prescriptions. I asked my Doctor about it and she said it was because they aren’t “insurance friendly” as coded by the insurance companies. I dropped it. I adore my Doctor and didn't want to ask but . . . I have to wonder . . . it is because drug companies aren’t making as much money on armour and zyrtek?? Is this a friendly reminder from the drug companies that they aren't making as much money????

Gina, this can be a confusing issue. What you likely saw on your doctor's computer is what's called a "hard stop". It is a notification that is placed on some prescriptions as a way to reign in costs.

Insurance companies pull their own claims data pretty frequently these days, and they do an analysis on "comparitive drugs" of the same class in terms of dosing and total cost of therapy, per patient. If they find one to be more cost-effective than another, and the efficacy is relatively the same for both, they will put this "hard stop" in place, which is basically telling the pharmacy, if you fill this script, you and your patient will not be reimbursed.

You should also know that these insurance companies also have P&T Committees (pharmacy and therapeutics), where a medical expert or two is always represented. However, understand that if the two treatments are even in the same ballpark with each other in terms of efficacy, the cheaper alternative will become "formulary exclusive" and the more expensive option will be issued this "hard stop" on the computers.

Understand, they will also do the same with generics and OTC products for which you need a prescription. Yes, there are actually a few OTC drugs that would actyually require a script, one being Prilosec (or at least that WAS the case with BC/BS here in CT).

So to answer your question (and I know there are some here who think I am shilling (sp?) for my industry)...No, this is NOT a function of the pharma industry. Most people do not realize how little control the pharma industry actually has over which drugs you get, and which ones you do not get. That is left up to the federal government (for duel eligibles - Medicare/Medicaid, or just Medicaid pts), and to the private insurance companies.

I will also tell you that the federal government gets their drugs for pennies on the dollar. It is law that the FEDS HAVE to get the lowest price in the market. That is why the pharma industry is so scared about universal healthcare. The Fed Gvt will force our companies to negotiate "best price" to everyone, and research and development will be sacraficed. So, if you ever want to see that cure for Diabetes, you'd better root against universal healthcare.

People love to point to Canada's healthcare system as some panacea. But think about it, how many novel therapeutics do the companies in Canada develop in any 10 year period? How many in the US? Most of the great advances in medicine have come from here, though the US pharma/biotech industry. You just can't have it both ways. The only answer is for the pharma companies to do "missionary work", and throw profits out the window. Some here may think that is wonderful, but it is how many of us make a living.

I'll tell you a quick story about these insurance companies...I also call on LTC pharmacies (the omnicare and pharerica's of the world)...I was sitting in a meeting last week with one of my customers, and he was telling me about a patient in one of his skilled nursing facilites that was DENIED their asthma medicine, Advair Diskus. Advair is a combo medicine, combining both a corticosteroid and a beta agonist. This patient, doe to the type of asthma she had, needed both mechanisms of action to effectively treat her asthma (she's 75!). The insurance company told this pharmacy that they could ONLY dispense Flovent to this patient. Flovent is a corticosteroid and does NOT contain a beta agonist. So, because the insurance company denied reimbursement for the Advair, my customers' hands were tied and had to ship the Flovent.

The monthly cost for Advair: $270.00/month
The monthly cost for Flovent: $112.00/month

Any questions as to the motivations of the insurance company? Yet, because the media helps to paint an inaccurate picture, the pharma industry is 'evil'. The pharma industry gives away more free product than any other industry in the world.

Another one...NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo just wrapped up and investigation of United Health (an insurance company). United was setting reimbursement for out of network visits too low, thus scamming patients out of millions of dollars...The most damning thing here? Ingenix, a company that many payors use to set reimbursement rates, is a subsidiary of United Healthcare. In other words, United was inflating it's own bottom line, through deflating reimbursement rates. A major conflict of interest.

Again, did this make news? Barely. but if it were big pharma scamming people out of millions, you can bet Katie Couric would've been leading off with it, and Chris Matthews would NOT have been getting chills up his legs.

Soxfan:

I am not a racist, a bigot, a douchebag, an anti-semite, etc. I used a metaphor and an outdated term that offended you (that no matter what you say, some people still actually LIKE being called, apparently).

I had to laugh a little at this . . . it is so ridiculous that you have been called any of these names . I don’t know if anyone else will agree but, it is clear to me that you are none of these things. There in lies the humor.

Thanks for the kind words, Gina. I appreciate it.

[soxfan22]

Actually, the majority of the founding fathers (in particular, the ones we were taught to revere most highly), were not particularly religious. They were, in fact, Deists.
-j

Bullshit.

[soxfan22]

You know, we don't make very good dinner guests. Politics, abortion, religion, and name calling.

SJ; suit yourself but the look is in and it will attract the ladies.

Gina

Kind of reminds me a bit of "The Breakfast Club".

[XOXO]

Joshie wrote:
Actually, the majority of the founding fathers (in particular, the ones we were taught to revere most highly), were not particularly religious. They were, in fact, Deists.
-j


Bullshit.

Joshie, I meant to comment on this. Show us references. Where on earth did you get this information??

[soxfan22]

Joshie wrote:
Actually, the majority of the founding fathers (in particular, the ones we were taught to revere most highly), were not particularly religious. They were, in fact, Deists.
-j


Bullshit.

Joshie, I meant to comment on this. Show us references. Where on earth did you get this information??

Let me guess...One of our wonderful college classrooms?

[XOXO]

I might need some clarification. Who is benefiting from the hard stop? Me?? The drug I want is very inexpensive--about $8 a month. I pay for it and do not submit it to insurance. When I was using synthroid I did submit it to insurance and paid a little over $8 out of pocket. I don’t remember but I have BCBS and have to pay the first $15 (I think that is the amount) and the insurance paid $40; I think.

Ok, from what you said, I would not be able to submit a claim even if I had a different policy.

“which is basically telling the pharmacy, if you fill this script, you and your patient will not be reimbursed. “

So, if you ever want to see that cure for Diabetes, you'd better root against universal healthcare.

Yeah, I know. I just really dislike how much control drug and insurance companies have over a patients care. I think the quality of care and the quality of our health care professionals would be compromised also with a universal plan. I don't think too many Doctors would be in the profession without financial incentive.

Soxfan, I know that in the past drug companies would give Doctors incentives to prescribe their drug . . . they would give them gifts, vacations, etc. It is because of that I am a little apprehensive about why a Doctor prescribes a certain script. I don’t think they do that anymore but I can’t help but wonder if there is still a little monkey business going on.

If it helps, I really do not trust insurance companies either.

I want reform. I don’t have to have universal health care; it is tempting because currently there is so much corruption. I really had high hopes for McCain/Palin.

Gina

[soxfan22]

Christianity and America
Last week, I heard it again: That oft-repeated urban legend that we’ve heard so often. This time, to my horror, I heard it from a well-educated pastor: “Our founding fathers were not Christians. They were deists, atheists, and agnostics.”

Au contraire!

The pilgrims, as you will recall, were, Christians fleeing Europe in order to escape religious persecution, and they literally began their stay in their new land with the words, “In the name of God, Amen.”



The pilgrims were followed to New England by the Puritans, who created bible-based commonwealths. Those commonwealths practiced the same sort of representative government as their church covenants. Those governmental covenants and compacts numbered more than 100, and were the foundation for our Constitution.

New Haven (Connecticut) and Massachusetts were founded by Puritans who wanted to reform the Church of England, who later became known as Congregationalists. Roger Williams founded the colony of Rhode Island based on the principle of freedom of conscience. Pennsylvania was established by William Penn as a Quaker colony. Maryland was a haven for Catholics from Protestant England.

America was indeed founded by bible-believing Christians and based on Christian principles. When they founded this country, the Founding Fathers envisioned a government that would promote and encourage Christianity.

All but two of the first 108 universities founded in America were Christian. This includes the first, Harvard, where the student handbook listed this as Rule #1: “Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."

In 1777. Continental Congress voted to spend $300,000 to purchase bibles which were to be distributed throughout the 13 colonies! And in 1782, the United States Congress declared, “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.

So, let us take a look at some of the lives and words of our Founding Fathers to see whether they were Christians or whether history has been revised.

http://www.faithofourfathers.net/

There are individual sections on just about every man you mentioned, Joshie. Take a read through if you'd like.