Why are drug companies allowed to advertise their prescription drugs on television? Since they require a prescription, shouldn’t their advertisement be directed to physicians who could prescribe them? If they direct advertisement to prospective patients, why do we have doctors prescribe the medications? Is what we have now is the drug companies advertising directly to the public so that they will pressure the patient’s doctor to prescribe medication the doctor would not consider prescribing otherwise? WOULDN’T THOSE ADVERTISING DOLLARS BE BETTER SPENY ON R&D?
Privatization’s dirty little secret is that it cuts out the end consumer. For example our city privatized it’s waterworks. Any complaints? Too bad. As long as the city manager is happy with his perceived savings, the public be damned.
After all, the provider gets his money from the city; he owes the citizens nothing.
Turn the electric utility over to the electric company, guess what? You get charged to pay your bill by credit card.
When your politicians talk about “privatization” providing savings, ask them where the consumer’s voice is. The voters do not elect the board of directors of a company. Therefore, they have no voice.
Check out this link:
Can there be any doubt that there is NO branch of this government that represents the middle class, the working poor, or the poor?
SCOTUS has ruled that to be able to deny coverage under the ACA, the privately owned company must hold a “sincere” belief.
If a closely held company, such as HobbyLobby, sells products which are produced in countries that allow, if not support,abortion; can HobbyLobby keep its sincere status?
If a closely held company, such as HobbyLobby, uses providers of any kind who provide insurance which covers birth control are they sincere in their held beliefs?
If a closely held company, such as HobbyLobby, sells its products to businesses who provide insurance to their employees which covers birth control, are they really sincere in their religious beliefs?
If a closely held company, such as HobbyLobby, sells to individuals who have insurance that covers birth control, or uses contraceptives, are they really sincere in their religious beliefs?
If they are selective about whom they discriminate against because of their religious beliefs, are they “sincere” enough to be exempted from the Affordable Care Act.
We know that HobbyLobby, at the least, puchases a lot of their merchandise from China. The government of China supports birth control and abortion. Could any company who sincerely is against any form of abortion, in good faith, engage in commerce with China or any other company which allows abortion or contraception?
CHECK OUT THE INVENTORY THE NEXT TIME YOU ARE IN A HOBBYLOBBY. SEE IF THERE IS ANY MERCHANDISE FROM A COUNTRY WHICH ADVOCATE ABORTION OR CONTRACEPTION.
Are they only “sincere” in their religious beliefs if they inprove their bottom line? If that is the case, are they hypocrites?
Ok, SCOTUS has already ruled that corporations are people. Then, people must be corporations.
If the court rules that corporations can not obey the law of the land if it disagrees with their religious freedom, then people are entitled to the same protection under the Constitution.
That means that if it is my belief that war is immoral and I am opposed to the actions of our military, I will not have to pay my income tax for whatever percentage of the budget that was for the military.
If it is my belief that it is immoral to kill animals for food, then I will not have to pay that percentage of the federal budget that provides benefits or tax benefits to the beef industry.
If it is my belief that the Congress is immoral in the way that they fail to conduct the business of the people, I can deduct the portion of my tax bill that goes to paying their and their aids salaries.
I could certainly the savings in my tax dollars. What if I believe it is immoral to take form someone that belongs to them without their permission; I wouldn’ have to pay any income tax at all.
I’m not a lawyer or Supreme Court judge; but….
Part of the problem with Christianity is that its followers have failed to throw off the yoke of The Old Testament. The New Testament and the Old Testament are diametrically opposed. The New Testament teaches love, compassion, caring. The Old Testament is about violence and revenge. What else can you call the threat of fire, brimstone and damnation.
What if our politicians were not allowed to quote the Old Testament, but instead were only allowed to quote the New Testament. The New Testament is one of inclusion. If we get rid of the Old Testament, we could really mean it when we asked, “What would Jesus do?”.
WWJD about extending unemployment compensation?
WWJD about funding meals on wheels?
WWJD about Medicaid?
WWJD about immigration reform?
WWJD about gay marriage?
WWJD about the money changers on Wall Street?
WWJD about Social Security?
WWHD about a man who couldn’t find a job? (Would he suggest to his followers that they should teach a man to fish when there was one fish for each fisherman?
WWJD about casting the first stone at a sinner?
WWJD about any social issue?
How can we as a society continue to support and elect politicians who insist that our government does the exact opposite of WWJD?
THE ANSWER IS THAT WE ALLOW THEM TO SPIT THEIR THEIR VENOM UNCHALLENGED, AND THEN WE VOTE THEM INTO OFFICE.
When you say “I am not a scientist.”, stop right there. You have just admitted you have no credibility on the subject; we really don’t care what your opinions are.
You’re a member of Congress.
You are a Republican.
We know you don’t believe in facts.
Don’t waste oxygen and increase our carbon dioxide problems by continuing.