I will add lawyer cost... Lack of research in field where the profit isn't big.... An exemple : AIDS... for the corrupt people of certain pills provider this illness is perfectly managed. 1 aids patient = 3 pills a day. So why kill the AIDS, or vaccinate or destroy the illness from the body when you can get a sustainable consummer for your product ?
if i were the insurance racket, i would own all the hospitals,and heavily into the drug companies, so i could collect my premium on both ends, i think the doctors are just making a very stressful paycheck, i only suspect (no data)
I would do the same if I wanted to lose my soul... and then put a lot of pressure in University to only use my product or technologie... Remove all the teacher that disagree with my method... remove their licence, ruin their personnal and financial life... The one who will stand to oppose this domination will be quickly trough psychological warfare be eliminated... and the rest will follow in fear... and when you take kids young enough it's easier... So ahahah... I would love to work for Hollywood and make scenario for horror movies
. January 21, 2010 SouthAmerica: It is worth repeating what I posted on ET on December 16, 2009 as follows: December 16, 2009 SouthAmerica: Barack Obama was elected last year on a platform calling for "Change" and here are a few suggestions to help him to start his changes. Barack Obama is way overdue in making some changes to his economic team as follows: 1) He should replace ASAP Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner with Professor Joseph Stiglitz. 2) He should replace immediately Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke with Stephen Roach (Morgan Stanley) My advice to Barack Obama: Pay more attention to what Paul Volcker has to say... ***** January 21, 2010 From the above suggestions Barack Obama is at least paying more attention to what Paul Volcker has to say... But I don't understand why Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has not been replaced as yet. If Barack Obama really mean to change things in a meaningful way for the better then he should appoint Joseph Stiglitz to be the new U.S. Treasury Secretary. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should not be reappointed for that position and he should be replaced by Stephen Roach. ***** Yesterday I got a copy of Joseph Stiglitz latest book "Freefall" and I recommend the other members of this forum to also read that book. Today Joseph Stiglitz is among a hand full of people that it is worth reading his writtings. By the way, if I were Barack Obama I would pay less attention to what Larry Summers has to say. .
Obama Versus Bush on Spending Very little is safe for Democrats this fall. By KARL ROVE 'If Massachusetts puts Brown in, it's a message of 'that's enough.' Let's stop the giveaways and let's get jobs going." Marlene Connolly is a 73-year-old Massachusetts Democrat who cast her first vote for a Republican in supporting Scott Brown. Her quote and story comes to us via the New York Times, but she stands out for this reason: She shows us that those who actually cast ballots in the Bay State did so because they are frustrated with the administration's unrestrained federal spending and failed economic recovery policies. And here's what Washington needs to keep in mind as it debates the meaning of Massachusetts. Ramming health care through now won't insulate Democrats from voter ire in November. It will feed a fire over spending that is already blistering them. But don't take my word for it. Consider that the administration is now busy scrambling to find a way to dodge responsibility for its own reckless fiscal record. That much was on display recently when David Axelrod, a political strategist for the president, penned an opinion piece in the Washington Post that took aim directly at me. Mr. Axelrod wrote that no one is entitled to his own facts, even as he argued that George W. Bush is responsible for Barack Obama's deficits. He argued that Mr. Bush forced the hand of this administration by leaving office in the midst of a sharp recession. That argument won't fly for two reasons. First, at some point this administration has to take responsibility for itself. It's also not even close to accurate. Consider that from Jan. 20, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Mr. Bushâto $6.3 trillion from $3.3 trillion at a time when the national economy grew as well. Related OpinionJournal Stories: Boston Tea Party Lanny Davis: Blame the Left for Massachusetts Reflections on Scott Brown's Senate Victory By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years. Mr. Obama's spending plan approved by Congress last February calls for doubling the national debt in five years and nearly tripling it in 10. Mr. Bush's deficits ran an average of 3.2% of GDP, slightly above the post World War II average of 2.7%. Mr. Obama's plan calls for deficits that will average 4.2% over the next decade. Team Obama has been on history's biggest spending spree, which has included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending 10% for the last half of fiscal year 2009. Mr. Obama also hiked nondefense discretionary spending another 12% for fiscal year 2010. About Karl Rove Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000â2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004â2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy-making process. Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden. Karl writes a weekly op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is the author of the forthcoming book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions). Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com. Or, you can send a Tweet to @karlrove. Mr. Bush did move to give voters more control over their tax dollars. Both his Social Security reform ideas and the drug program he created offered templates for driving federal spending curves in the right direction, counter to what Democrats wanted to do. Democrats, for example, proposed creating a prescription drug program as an alternative to the one Mr. Bush proposed that would have cost a projected $800 billion over 10 years. The Bush drug benefit was originally expected to cost half that amount and today costs a third less than what it was initially expected to cost because it uses market forces to drive prices down. Mr. Axelrod claims the pork-laden stimulus package has been a success. But Mr. Obama told Americans that if it were passed, unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%. It is now 10%. The president also said it would create 3.7 million jobs, 90% of which would be in the private sector. By Mr. Obama's standards, the stimulus failed miserably. Mr. Bush did sign the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) into law and loaned $240 billion to banks. But those loans are being returned at a profit to the Treasury. Rather than using those funds to pay down the deficit, Mr. Obama wants to use them for new spending. What's more, he has lavished some $320 billion from TARP on car companies, union allies, and pet causes that will never be fully returned. Mr. Axelrod boasts Mr. Obama's proposed health reforms will "not add to the federal deficit." But if that turns out to be true, it will only be because Massachusetts voters just elected a senator who promises to vote against those reforms. In going after Mr. Bush's fiscal record, Mr. Axelrod unwittingly revealed why Democrats are losing. Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats have made a mess of the nation's finances and are desperate to pin the blame on someone else. It's not likely to work. Even in deep blue Massachusetts, voters aren't standing idly by while the administration puts the nation on a dangerous trajectory. When Democrats lose a state they carried by 26 points a little more than a year ago, very little is safe for Mr. Obama's party this fall. Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of the forthcoming book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...22042394.html?mod=djemEditorialPage#printMode
. January 21, 2010 SouthAmerica: Reply to Tom B You have a lot of balls to post an article by KARL ROVE on ET or on any other place for that matter. The best purpose we have today regarding KARL ROVEâs name and legacy is to compare him with the Captain of the âTitanic.â If you think it was a good thing what happened to the âTitanicâ then you should keep using Karl Roveâs as one of your gurus. .
Why do you attack the author of the article rather than dispute the facts in the article. The truth of the matter is that you cannot dispute facts in the article. Is that how people debate topics in the banana republic of Brazil?
Because Rove has demonstrably been fast and loose with ethics and facts during the Bush years, both father's and son's. Sometimes, you need to look at the credibility of the source and whether that source is likely to massage "facts" before accepting them at face. Rove was a thug. Most people don't change who they are. Go from there.
You might have a point if you substitute "Thunderdog/ Gabfly1" for Rove in your sentence. Once again, another poster who cannot debate the substance of the article, attacks the author. Don't let the facts get in the way of your diatribe. I am not interested in going back and forth with you. Let's just agree to disagree. Have a nice day.