Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[faberryman]

Easily. He meant "ports."

Did he? Did he misread the teleprompter or was he winging it? Usually he can read pretty well, but gets into trouble when he goes off script, as he is want to do.

[Rob C]

All of the above, Rob.

Without a huge win on the lottery, it's not an enviable position. I wish like hell I had something worthwhile to do with what's left of my capable time, preferably something to do with making fashion snaps again. Maybe it's age-related, but as I said to one of the calendar pictures on my wall recently, nice at the time, sweetheart, but no more, thanks. And I meant it - still do.

:-(

[Alan Goldhammer]

Well, as you stated, the USA is typically the first place a new product is release, so you have to wonder why?  Perhaps because it is easier here to start making a profit off of it?

FDA is the best resourced regulatory agency in the world.  Companies pay user fees that fund 60% of the personnel, and they are highly trained and very capable reviewers (disclosure:  I was involved in the negotiation of the user fee program at its inception in 1992 and subsequent reauthorizations through 2006; I retired just prior to the reauthorization in 2010)

However, I will contest that this is a double edged sword, and that my overall free market ways does cause me to have a certain amount of confirmation bias as well.  I recently watched a documentary on new medical devices being pushed hard onto doctors by the manufacturers with little testing done.  (Regulations for medical devices are considerably lower then for new drugs.)  However, many doctors don't realize how little testing has been done, since it is assumed from the fact that other areas of medical research require a lot, and they just recommend these things to their patients with many having pretty severe results.  I think one example they cited was a new joint replacement device that was found to leach out a mentally damaging metal compound into the blood stream.  The doctor who used this device on himself nearly lost his license due to mental issues that developed over time.  Fortunately he was able to diagnose the cause and had the new joint replaced with a time tested product. 

So, yes, some regulation is needed.  Too much though can be bad.

I wouldn't call it a lower standard but a different standard.  If a device can be shown to be equivalent to one already on the market there is a lesser burden.  Anything that is novel requires a full dossier for approval.  One can also point to the dietary supplement regulations which are pretty much non-existent and only after we see serious safety problems are they addressed by the FDA.  While you are correct about doctors not knowing full information about medical devices, they are also terribly ignorant about the benefits and risks of the drugs they prescribe.  Often they don't even know about critical interactions between certain drugs that can endanger a patient's well being.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Easily. He meant "ports."

Reading from a teleprompter; "Our army manned the air, It Rand, the ramparts, it took over the airports it did everything it had to do.

Maybe he was reading a flawed text? He seemed to stick to the teleprompter for the most part, which was a pleasant surprise.

Cheers,
Bart

[James Clark]

Hi James,

One of my friends, a card-carrying Trump haters (by her own admission), had this to say (emphasis mine):

Don’t get me wrong, I am as big of a Trump hater as they come, but we must allow for the possibility here that he simply miss-spoke. Have you ever done this? I realize that it’s also possible that he said this because he’s just plain dumb and uninformed, but turning this into headlines gives credence to conservatives’ claims that liberals are just rabidly anti- everything-he-does. There are plenty of truly objectionable things he has done to focus on instead.

Well yeah - of course he misspoke.  Get back to me when he wears a tan suit, because then we can really hammer him on the important stuff .

Generally speaking though, Trump would be well-advised to remember that at least half of this political thing is 100% mental

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Although this may be true, being appointed instead of being voted means they are not engaged in politicking.

If only. The nomination of a recent justice was postponed/blocked/postponed by the Republicans under the Obama administration, hoping to be able to nominate a (1) more Republican-leaning justice. Then under a new administration, the 'postponed' nomination was suddenly done. That then, in turn, triggered Illegal (under the current law) legislation (e.g. in Alabama) on subjects like abortion, in the hope that the Supreme court would revise its stand/interpretation of the jurisdiction (Roe v. Wade case) and turn back on the current law practices.

That smacks of politicization in my book.

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

If only. The nomination of a recent justice was postponed/blocked/postponed by the Republicans under the Obama administration, hoping to be able to nominate a (1) more Republican-leaning justice. Then under a new administration, the 'postponed' nomination was suddenly done. That then, in turn, triggered Illegal (under the current law) legislation (e.g. in Alabama) on subjects like abortion, in the hope that the Supreme court would revise its stand/interpretation of the jurisdiction (Roe v. Wade case) and turn back on the current law practices.

That smacks of politicization in my book.

Cheers,
Bart

Sure, Bart. And a campaign to elect a judge is NOT politics. Right? ROTFL

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And how are judges chosen in the Netherlands, Bart?  Does God point to them and say: "You're appointed?"

Hi Russ,

No, God is not part of the three branches of government in my Country. We DO run a democracy.

Although the thread is about the differences between Republicans and Democrats, I'd be happy to explain a different approach that seems to be working fine for many centuries already. The main difference is that we use a system of weighted cooptation instead of the nomination  of 1 person by 1 (politically colored) President.

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands, in consultation with the Procurator General, first draws up a list of recommendations for six persons. Three persons are nominated by the (our version of a) House of Representatives of the States General, from which the government must make a choice.  Finally, like the other members of the judiciary, the members of the Supreme Court are appointed by royal decree.

Since our government is a result of a popular vote system, that leads to (not 2 but) many (i.e. currently 13 !) different parties weighing in based on equal representation of the population's desires (1 woman/man 1 vote). Also, virtually every citizen age 18 or above can cast an anonimous vote (no need to register) to elect members of the House of Representatives. The turnout percentage of the latest elections was 81.9% of the eligible voters. The political affiliation of Judges does not play a role (it's usually unknown), because Judges are impartial and bound to upholding the law as it's written.

Because throughout the process all parties have a (popular weighted) voice in influencing the different stages, even when narrowing down on the final 3 candidates from which the (popularly weighted) government (24 persons) makes a choice, it is as much depoliticized as humanly possible, while doing justice to the will of the people.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Never?

You're being your pedantic self again.  Everyone else understands my point. 

[faberryman]

You're being your pedantic self again.  Everyone else understands my point.

I wouldn't be so sure. Given some of the things you say, it's hard to know when you are being literal and when you are being hyperbolic.

[JoeKitchen]

But the ones that appoint them sure are !!

So, what's your point? 

As I pointed out before, there have been several Judges who ended not being as conservative or as liberal as those who had appointed them would have liked.  So to imply that Supremes are a carbon copy of those who appointed is not justified and shows your severe lack of knowledge with history. 

Even the so called experts on the court are often surprised by decisions. 

[Alan Klein]

Hi James,

One of my friends, a card-carrying Trump haters (by her own admission), had this to say (emphasis mine):

Quote
Don’t get me wrong, I am as big of a Trump hater as they come, but we must allow for the possibility here that he simply miss-spoke. Have you ever done this? I realize that it’s also possible that he said this because he’s just plain dumb and uninformed, but turning this into headlines gives credence to conservatives’ claims that liberals are just rabidly anti- everything-he-does. There are plenty of truly objectionable things he has done to focus on instead.

Report to moderator     Logged
Slobodan

Most normal people know what people mean when they misspeak.  We all do it, especially people who speak publicly who aren't politicians or public speakers like Trump.  Reagan had a habit of it as did Eisenhower.  The liberal left always made fun of these things to bring them down.  With Trump it's become a sport. 

[JoeKitchen]

FDA is the best resourced regulatory agency in the world.  Companies pay user fees that fund 60% of the personnel, and they are highly trained and very capable reviewers (disclosure:  I was involved in the negotiation of the user fee program at its inception in 1992 and subsequent reauthorizations through 2006; I retired just prior to the reauthorization in 2010)
I wouldn't call it a lower standard but a different standard.  If a device can be shown to be equivalent to one already on the market there is a lesser burden. Anything that is novel requires a full dossier for approval.  One can also point to the dietary supplement regulations which are pretty much non-existent and only after we see serious safety problems are they addressed by the FDA.  While you are correct about doctors not knowing full information about medical devices, they are also terribly ignorant about the benefits and risks of the drugs they prescribe.  Often they don't even know about critical interactions between certain drugs that can endanger a patient's well being.

I am aware of this, but since nearly all devices have a similar already approved counterpart, it is an easy loophole to get around.  Not sure how you would fix it without it then becoming over burdensome. 

Insofar as your ending, I guess this is a reason to vet your doctor and pick a good one, assuming you are will always be legally allowed to do so. 

[JoeKitchen]

If only. The nomination of a recent justice was postponed/blocked/postponed by the Republicans under the Obama administration, hoping to be able to nominate a (1) more Republican-leaning justice. Then under a new administration, the 'postponed' nomination was suddenly done. That then, in turn, triggered Illegal (under the current law) legislation (e.g. in Alabama) on subjects like abortion, in the hope that the Supreme court would revise its stand/interpretation of the jurisdiction (Roe v. Wade case) and turn back on the current law practices.

That smacks of politicization in my book.

Cheers,
Bart

Well thanks for proving my point Bart. 

All of what you just mentioned was politicking done by not a single judge, but politicians.  Fact is, after all of that horse running, the judge who eventually got appointed was not part of any of it. 

Insofar as Roe v Wade, like I mentioned before, the conservatives thought they had it with O'Conner.  I would not be surprised if Roberts fails them again.

[faberryman]

I am aware of this, but since nearly all devices have a similar already approved counterpart, it is an easy loophole to get around.  Not sure how you would fix it without it then becoming over burdensome. 

Insofar as your ending, I guess this is a reason to vet your doctor and pick a good one, assuming you are will always be legally allowed to do so.

You can always pick your own doctor. The question is whether they are in network or out of network, and so whether your insurance covers their fees. Or with Medicare and Medicaid, whether they accept such payments.

[Alan Klein]

If only. The nomination of a recent justice was postponed/blocked/postponed by the Republicans under the Obama administration, hoping to be able to nominate a (1) more Republican-leaning justice. Then under a new administration, the 'postponed' nomination was suddenly done. That then, in turn, triggered Illegal (under the current law) legislation (e.g. in Alabama) on subjects like abortion, in the hope that the Supreme court would revise its stand/interpretation of the jurisdiction (Roe v. Wade case) and turn back on the current law practices.

That smacks of politicization in my book.

Cheers,
Bart

The founders wrote the constitution.  They weren't stupid.  They didn't want justices to run for office like politicians making promises of how they would decide cases to get the votes to be elected as a judge.  The wanted them selected by the president under the advice and consent of the Senate. The latter method which is how it now works is less politicized then the former because it better allows justices to be independent of politics when they vote their decision on cases. Can you imagine how political their decisions would become if they had to run for office every four years?  You'd have judges voting one way only to reverse their decision in time for the next election if they thought the electorate would vote them out of office. They be exactly like the politicians we have now.

[JoeKitchen]

You can always pick your own doctor. The question is whether they are in network or out of network, and so whether your insurance covers their fees. Or with Medicare and Medicaid, whether they accept such payments.

Sure, currently. 

I am not sure if this is true, but I remember a Brit once telling me that the idea of having a consistent general practitioner was a foreign idea with their health system. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

So, what's your point? 

As I pointed out before, there have been several Judges who ended not being as conservative or as liberal as those who had appointed them would have liked.  So to imply that Supremes are a carbon copy of those who appointed is not justified and shows your severe lack of knowledge with history. 

Even the so called experts on the court are often surprised by decisions.

Appointees over the past 20 years have been very true to their political leanings.  Roberts is in a unique position as he is the Chief Justice and 'sometimes' thinks he has an obligation to find consensus.  If there was one less liberal jusitce (may happen if Trump is reelected), Roberts would be a reliable conservative vote.  Last Justice who confounded everyone was David Souter and the Republican President(s) will never make that mistake again particularly since the Federalist Society has to vet every single one of the appointees to either the Supreme or other lower Federal courts.  Amazing that we have non-governmental group basically making the decision that is entrusted to the President.

[Alan Klein]

If only. The nomination of a recent justice was postponed/blocked/postponed by the Republicans under the Obama administration, hoping to be able to nominate a (1) more Republican-leaning justice. Then under a new administration, the 'postponed' nomination was suddenly done. That then, in turn, triggered Illegal (under the current law) legislation (e.g. in Alabama) on subjects like abortion, in the hope that the Supreme court would revise its stand/interpretation of the jurisdiction (Roe v. Wade case) and turn back on the current law practices.

That smacks of politicization in my book.

Cheers,
Bart

PS:  Nothing has happened.  Roe vs. Wade is still in force and won;t be changed.  So if there was "politicization", it hasn't worked and won't work. 

[Jeremy Roussak]

Jeremy, you misunderstand self insurance.  Conventional insurance means that you pay a management company, say Aetna, BlueCross, or United Health care a flat rate and they assume all the risks.  they also set an underwriting margin that set's their reserve and profit margin.  In a self insurance model, the organization assumes the full liability and has to set it's own reserve and margin.  I'm not aware of any self insurance model that is designed to make a profit.  Self insurers will routinely purchase stop loss policies as a way of controlling risk and have to be vigilant to maintain proper margins.  In most cases self insurers can run a program that costs less than contracting with a profit making organization.

You're still just describing insurance with a  large excess. Your organisation determines how much risk it is prepared to bear and insures above that risk. When I insure my house contents, I decide how much risk I want to bear and inform my insurers, who then adjust my premium accordingly.

Jeremy