ptown_trojans_1;1779755 wrote:BTW, Trump today on Twitter is freaking gold.

He is calling out Cruz saying the whole Iowa process was a fraud and that there should be a revote. There is the crazy Donald we missed on Caucus night!
"Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!"
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

"George Bush didn't win Florida; he stole the election"

---- Al Gore and every other liberal democrat in the nation



Anyway, Cruz won which is nice, and Trump is saying something else that is bombastic but won't hurt him one bit.

And we move along to NH.............

which is how the universities would be funded..

Here's how he plans to fund it...in his own words on twitter.

Bernie SandersVerified account ‏@SenSanders 22 Dec 2015 We are going to provide free tuition to public colleges and universities by imposing a tax on Wall Street speculation.

• Retweets 2,462
• Likes 5,697

Don't you just love the use of the term "speculation".....
What it really is ...a transaction tax of about 50 cents per 100 share block traded. Ironically, the same thing was tried in Bernie's model socialist utopia of Sweden.....but the Swedes repealed it fairly quickly when they heard the loud sucking sound of business being conducted in London instead of Stockholm. Now when he finally figures this out,(assuming he doesn't already know this and is just trying to fudge figures and hide his tax on the little guy) the money is going to have to be found elsewhere, adding to the already high burden of taxes he hopes to implement.

HitsRus;1779781 wrote:Here's how he plans to fund it...in his own words on twitter.


Don't you just love the use of the term "speculation".....
What it really is ...a transaction tax of about 50 cents per 100 share block traded. Ironically, the same thing was tried in Bernie's model socialist utopia of Sweden.....but the Swedes repealed it fairly quickly when they heard the loud sucking sound of business being conducted in London instead of Stockholm. Now when he finally figures this out,(assuming he doesn't already know this and is just trying to fudge figures and hide his tax on the little guy) the money is going to have to be found elsewhere, adding to the already high burden of taxes he hopes to implement.

A good example of a tax that won't raise anywhere near the revenue that Bernie says it will and ultimately the lion's share of cost of his programs will be handed to the middle class.

Sanders supporters are delusional at best and don't know how the world works.

HitsRus;1779781 wrote: Don't you just love the use of the term "speculation".....
What it really is ...a transaction tax of about 50 cents per 100 share block traded. Ironically, the same thing was tried in Bernie's model socialist utopia of Sweden.....but the Swedes repealed it fairly quickly when they heard the loud sucking sound of business being conducted in London instead of Stockholm.

Excellent point. But he's a commie - where the money comes from (or doesn't) is irrelevant. All that matters is handing out free stuff and burning someone in effigy, symbolically or otherwise.

[video][/video]

queencitybuckeye;1779741 wrote:Ignoring equity, we're the best and no one is close. If you need a complex treatment as a matter of life or death, you're delusional or flat lying if you claim you'd leave the country.

Ignoring equity lol. Yes that's not important at all in deciding how good healthcare is. If it's largely not available to the population, it isn't very good.
and you haven't been out of the country if you think only America had cutting edge healthcare. Hell professional athletes go to Germany for treatment that our wonderful FDA won't approve. Yet America is soooo cutting edge. Trust me, people aren't dying on the streets in Germany France UK etc....

HitsRus;1779785 wrote:[video][/video]

+Infinity

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779786 wrote:Ignoring equity lol. Yes that's not important at all in deciding how good healthcare is..

It's the only factor considered in the ridiculous rankings that put 3rd world countries ahead of the U.S. So if everyone has shitty care, it's better than places with top notch care not available to absolutely everyone. Bullshit. Factoids for dumbasses with a neo-commie agenda.

If it's largely not available to the population, it isn't very good. .

Wrong. Availability is availability and quality is quality. They're two different issues. One more than you're capable of processing.

and you haven't been out of the country if you think only America had cutting edge healthcare. Hell professional athletes go to Germany for treatment that our wonderful FDA won't approve..

Not true, but if it were, it would be a government issue, wouldn't it? The same government you fellate at every opportunity.

Trust me, people aren't dying on the streets in Germany France UK etc....

Anyone in all of these countries wait weeks or months for anything other than absolute emergencies. No need to trust you, I've been everywhere you've been except a handful of shitholes where I send hirelings from bottom-tier schools more suited for scut work.

Like you.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779786 wrote:Ignoring equity lol. Yes that's not important at all in deciding how good healthcare is. If it's largely not available to the population, it isn't very good.
and you haven't been out of the country if you think only America had cutting edge healthcare. Hell professional athletes go to Germany for treatment that our wonderful FDA won't approve. Yet America is soooo cutting edge. Trust me, people aren't dying on the streets in Germany France UK etc....

Delusional. People aren't dying in the streets here either.

sleeper;1779672 wrote:Our education system before university is beyond terrible. The reality is most parents don't value education and don't take the time to make sure their kids are doing their homework and actually going to school. My mom is a teacher and she gets blamed when kids don't do their homework or don't come to class.

The system is broken because there is too much trash in this country.

I would argue the system isn't broken for people who give a shit. IMHO it's not fair to blame teachers for students who don't care. The blame lies with their parents in most cases.

gut;1779661 wrote:If you want "free college", first you are going to go to a 2-yr local/community college and prove (earn) that you can do the work. And that's on your dime. If you maintain a B average (and no watering down the reqs or lowering the bar), THEN you can get the final 2-yrs at a state college for a 4-yr degree.

The idea that we should EXPAND state universities to accommodate hundreds of thousands of incapable students who probably shouldn't be going to college is ridiculous.

This is ultimately an indictment of our secondary education system. We spend way more than most every other country there and get inferior results...in classic liberal logic, the solution is to dump MORE money into post-secondary education because that approach has been so successful in secondary education.

I believe what some European countries do(I think the Scandinavian ones) is you take a test to determine what your career will be. If you test to be a doctor and actually want to be a doctor, they pay for your college. if you test to be an engineer, they pay for you to be an engineer etc...but if you test to be an accountant and instead want to be an architect, you have to pay to get the schooling.

queencitybuckeye;1779820 wrote:It's the only factor considered in the ridiculous rankings that put 3rd world countries ahead of the U.S. So if everyone has shitty care, it's better than places with top notch care not available to absolutely everyone. Bullshit. Factoids for dumbasses with a neo-commie agenda.

It's only considered in nearly every rankings, liar. Only Americans say it doesn't matter because then how can we deflect the fact that were not the best at everything in the world! It absolutely does matter. India is 3rd world.. They have some pretty damn good doctors and specialists there. Their healthcare isn't "shitty". The fact you need to discredit everyone else's healthcare to bring ours up tells me all I need to know about you. oh yeah I forgot to add this in.... you're a commie!!!!!! (never fails)

queencitybuckeye;1779820 wrote:Wrong. Availability is availability and quality is quality. They're two different issues. One more than you're capable of processing.

availability is availability and quality is quality and if you can't receive healthcare, the quality doesn't matter lol. oh yeah I forgot to add this.. ur 2 stupid to get this1!!!!11sarerrgh!!!11111

queencitybuckeye;1779820 wrote:Not true, but if it were, it would be a government issue, wouldn't it? The same government you fellate at every opportunity.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-24/blood-therapy-used-by-tiger-woods-lures-everyday-athletes
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1798763-what-is-this-knee-treatment-kobe-bryant-goes-all-the-way-to-germany-for

not true, cuz google is hard!!!!

yes I forgot.. its the governments fault!! doesn't matter that services aren't offered here which would affect your healthcare rating, it's the government, not us, don't doc us points, we're the greatest!!!!!!111!!!!


I waited from July 4th til December 11th this past year to see a dermatologist who removed 2 malignant melanoma spots on my shoulder blades. 5 months, cancerous spots. Hopefully they hadn't spread in that time. We'll see I guess huh? That only happens in other countries though. Not USA, cuz we're great! Seriously, get the fuck over yourself. We have our downfalls too just like every other country.

queencitybuckeye;1779820 wrote:No need to trust you, I've been everywhere you've been except a handful of shitholes where I send hirelings from bottom-tier schools more suited for scut work.

Like you.

LOLOLOL way to reach Tiernan status here!! Maybe you two can meet up and have a crab salad sandwich together and laugh over how internet successful you two are. I just saw Tim Timken in his office trolling an ohio website with 7 active users while plotting where to send his "hirelings from bottom-tierd schools" to do his "scut work".. because all the successful businessmen do that lololol. GTFOOH lol

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779786 wrote:Hell professional athletes go to Germany for treatment that our wonderful FDA won't approve. Yet America is soooo cutting edge. Trust me, people aren't dying on the streets in Germany France UK etc....

It isn't difficult to get a medication approved by the FDA if a drug company puts in 2-3 years to do so. New drugs hit the U.S. market every day, with little more than mild efficacy results and a safe profile. If some wonder drug is available in Germany that isn't available here, it either hasn't pursued approval here, has been proven unsafe, or hasn't proven to work better for its indication than anything we already have. I'm not sure how you can relate a medication being available in a foreign market but not here to a failure of the American health system.

GOONx19;1779853 wrote:It isn't difficult to get a medication approved by the FDA if a drug company puts in 2-3 years to do so. New drugs hit the U.S. market every day, with little more than mild efficacy results and a safe profile. If some wonder drug is available in Germany that isn't available here, it either hasn't pursued approval here, has been proven unsafe, or hasn't proven to work better for its indication than anything we already have. I'm not sure how you can relate a medication being available in a foreign market but not here to a failure of the American health system.

Not a drug, a procedure. But alas, even drugs take 10 years of clinical testing to reach approval, not 2-3 years.
The funny thing is cataflam has been over the counter like ibuprofen in other countries like Canada for decades but we don't allow that here. Why? Because pharmaceuticals run our healthcare system. they want to control what you can buy OTC.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779855 wrote:Not a drug, a procedure. But alas, even drugs take 10 years of clinical testing to reach approval, not 2-3 years.
The funny thing is cataflam has been over the counter like ibuprofen in other countries like Canada for decades but we don't allow that here. Why? Because pharmaceuticals run our healthcare system. they want to control what you can buy OTC.

I understand the clinical research process; it is a part of my job every day. I'm telling you, if a drug OR procedure is beneficial, all it takes is a few doctors to write up a protocol, and an IRB to deem the protocol safe before patients are gaining access in its pre-approved state. If there isn't a doctor and an IRB who believe in it, you might want to reevaluate the risk/benefit ratio of what exactly it is to which you're attempting to expose yourself. Cataflam isn't available OTC because improper use of diclofenac has been proven to significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular events. The same reason it has lost its OTC status in some countries where is was previously available. I won't argue with you about politics, but get out of here with weak pharmaceutical misconceptions.

GOONx19;1779858 wrote:I understand the clinical research process; it is a part of my job every day. I'm telling you, if a drug OR procedure is beneficial, all it takes is a few doctors to write up a protocol, and an IRB to deem the protocol safe before patients are gaining access in its pre-approved state. If there isn't a doctor and an IRB who believe in it, you might want to reevaluate the risk/benefit ratio of what exactly it is to which you're attempting to expose yourself. Cataflam isn't available OTC because improper use of diclofenac has been proven to significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular events. The same reason it has lost its OTC status in some countries where is was previously available. I won't argue with you about politics, but get out of here with weak pharmaceutical misconceptions.

And what's the risks of improper ibuprofen use? none? don't deal with that in your job everyday? doesn't fit a narrative?

Not a drug, a procedure. But alas, even drugs take 10 years of clinical testing to reach approval, not 2-3 years.
The funny thing is cataflam has been over the counter like ibuprofen in other countries like Canada for decades but we don't allow that here. Why? Because pharmaceuticals run our healthcare system. they want to control what you can buy OTC.

This is BS (bullshit and Bernie Sanders), and YOU are running the narrative here....Bernie's WAR against anything corporate. You claim big Pharm controls the FDA, despite the fact that drugs they spend millions to develop and are waiting to get returns on are kept in testing phase long after approval in Europe.

oh yeah I forgot to add this in.... you're a commie!!!!!! (never fails)

If the shoe fits, own it. Please be honest.....

Zwick gonna Zwick

Thinks he knows everything. He's an expert in everything and even if you work in that field, you are wrong and he is right because he read an article on the Internet.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779859 wrote:And what's the risks of improper ibuprofen use? none? don't deal with that in your job everyday? doesn't fit a narrative?

Haha very insightful response. Of course there are risks. Are you trying to tell me that ibuprofen and diclofenac are equal because they are both NSAIDs? Would you like to have ibuprofen removed from the aisle? I certainly wouldn't mind, nor would Big Pharma, since they are not the ones making the profit off of ibuprofen at this stage. I'm not sure what exactly it is you are arguing for, though. Do you want more oversight or less? Big Pharma would stand to gain more than anyone if the FDA was as lax as you seem to want them to be. Last question: I make zero dollars off the pharma companies; what exactly is the narrative I'm trying to sell?

gosh a ruddies we now have the explanation of how the antichrist was able to get the votes necessary to give him a plurality, he lied to his fellow evangelicals and cheated Ben Carson.

GOONx19;1779879 wrote:Haha very insightful response. Of course there are risks. Are you trying to tell me that ibuprofen and diclofenac are equal because they are both NSAIDs? Would you like to have ibuprofen removed from the aisle? I certainly wouldn't mind, nor would Big Pharma, since they are not the ones making the profit off of ibuprofen at this stage. I'm not sure what exactly it is you are arguing for, though. Do you want more oversight or less? Big Pharma would stand to gain more than anyone if the FDA was as lax as you seem to want them to be. Last question: I make zero dollars off the pharma companies; what exactly is the narrative I'm trying to sell?

I'm trying to tell you you gave a bs answer of why it's not otc since it has the same risks as every otc NSAID. It's by prescription only because pharmaceuticals want it that way... just like they'd prefer for every drug.

SportsAndLady;1779872 wrote:Zwick gonna Zwick

Thinks he knows everything. He's an expert in everything and even if you work in that field, you are wrong and he is right because he read an article on the Internet.

And you'll continue to chime in with an inane response that has nothing to do with a thread b/c that's your thing.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1779885 wrote:I'm trying to tell you you gave a bs answer of why it's not otc since it has the same risks as every otc NSAID. It's by prescription only because pharmaceuticals want it that way... just like they'd prefer for every drug.

All NSAIDs have risks. The likelihood of those risks are not the same amongst all drugs within the class. They do not share equivalent mechanisms, pharmacokinetic nor pharmacodynamic properties. If you don't understand that I don't know what to tell you.

FYI: Naproxen is the most benign of the class. There is no evidence that it is associated cardiovascular disease or death. Rofecoxib (Vioxx), no longer on the market, put users at >200% risk of MI compared to placebo. No other NSAIDs significantly increase that risk. Diclofenac, ibuprofen are the only two NSAIDs in the US that have been shown to significantly increase risk of stroke. Diclofenac is the only NSAID in the U.S. proven to significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular death, which it does by approximately 400%. There are many other NSAIDs produced by Big Pharma, and several of those are available in other countries but not the United States (notably Prexige and Arcoxia) due to FDA oversight.

I'm not going to make an argument for or against Big Pharma, nor is my stance political. I simply said you can't use the availability of a drug or procedure in the U.S. (or the lack there of) as evidence of a lesser health care system. Then you proceeded to provide statements that were not factual.

GOONx19;1779898 wrote:All NSAIDs have risks. The likelihood of those risks are not the same amongst all drugs within the class. They do not share equivalent mechanisms, pharmacokinetic nor pharmacodynamic properties. If you don't understand that I don't know what to tell you.

FYI: Naproxen is the most benign of the class. There is no evidence that it is associated cardiovascular disease or death. Rofecoxib (Vioxx), no longer on the market, put users at >200% risk of MI compared to placebo. No other NSAIDs significantly increase that risk. Diclofenac, ibuprofen are the only two NSAIDs in the US that have been shown to significantly increase risk of stroke. Diclofenac is the only NSAID in the U.S. proven to significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular death, which it does by approximately 400%. There are many other NSAIDs produced by Big Pharma, and several of those are available in other countries but not the United States (notably Prexige and Arcoxia) due to FDA oversight.

I'm not going to make an argument for or against Big Pharma, nor is my stance political. I simply said you can't use the availability of a drug or procedure in the U.S. (or the lack there of) as evidence of a lesser health care system. Then you proceeded to provide statements that were not factual.

What wasn't factual? is Cataflam not otc in other countries but prescription only here?

I only brought up Cataflam b/c when I had a torn tendon in my foot my doctor prescribed it. I told him I was hesitant to take NSAIDS due to family history of liver problems from NSAIDS and he informed me of its long history and safety and how its OTC in most countries. Yet you seem to offer a different opinion. Are you a doctor also?