May he lead this great country with courage and wisdom.

Views: 300

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

If the whole world wants to be hooked up to drugs that is their choice but I don't see a ton of difference between these and street drugs. I don't see where either are healthy. I do see a bunch of "addiction" problems that clog up a system that is supposed to help people become "healthy".

IMHO, too many doctors just give folks what they want without looking at the big picture.

Health care is a serious drain on or whole economy that needs to be addressed. I think it takes courage for Mr. Obama to address this issue while other things appear to be more pressing.

But I look at it like a patient that has a broken arm and high blood pressure. Sure fix the broken arm, that needs to be addressed NOW. But it doen't mean that you shouldn't also address the high blood pressure because if you don't IT WILL SURELY KILL YOU (where the broken arm probably wouldn't).
GD - You missed the self medications ... that can contribute to health problems that are then masked with prescription medications ...

The self meds - alcohol, nicotene, caffeine, sugars, even foods ... the ones we use to "feel good" without even realizing it ... and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not immune to that kind of "feel good," but will continue to work on it.

The real prescription comes in the form of asking oneself what it is that's making one feel so bad ... tough pill to swallow. ( To be sure, there are those circumstances that require meds for mental health reasons and the safety of the individual as well as society ). Because if one doesn't want to swallow that pill, how does one expect prescription meds to make one feel better?

Here's to having a good day - sesport :0)
Cathaus,

I guess that means there are "happy" pills and pills that make you "happy".
Heck, GD let's go back in history then my friend ans see who freed the slaves.
I believe it was the dems in the south that wanted to keep slavery correct, Yes you are Correct.
Thanks, I thought so.
I don't have a problem paying our FAIR share of TAXES............. Put I also understand that will are all taxed to death. From buying gas, food, cloths, parts , repairs, land, house, heavy rd taxes............it could go on and on we are taxed out...... Again folks I don't have a problem paying them.... But we have to ask ourselves when is it enough.. Well for us NOW!!!!!! I don't think we could handle much more .
I am curious about several things concerning Big Pharma.
Who opened the door for drug pushers to advertise their wares on t.v.?
Why would drug companies spend billions of dollars to advertise to the medically uneducated, mainstream public when a prescription is required to buy them.
When did this change take place - when healthcare costs began spiraling out of control? Every time I see someone on t.v talking about their high medical costs, they are usually showing many bottles of pills to treat high-blood pressure and high cholesterol.
Getting the ads off of t.v. might do a lot to lower healthcare costs.
Ever hear of freedom of speech?

Anyway, in the spirit of the Age of Obama, I think we need to destroy Big Pharma. We need to tax them more, cap their profits by dictating what they can cahrge for their products, we need to demonize them. We need to convince the simple-minded people that "Big Pharma' are a big part of the problem. Forget that these actions will have a chilling effect on innovation...buy, hey, in the Age of Obama what is fair is more important than any garden-variety miracle cure....
KB-1
Jay-Big ole fat goose egg
Jay Murrell,

How about with some important discoveries that Pharmaceutical companies treat it the way that Jonas Salk did. It looks like it turned out just fine for him.

I am all for capitalism and I am even a registered (gasp) Republican but sometimes there are far more important things than the almighty dollar.

And if something is not changed in the health care system it will cost tons more of those greenbacks in the long run.
Obama's proposed budget would repeal oil, gas tax breaks
Nick Snow
OGJ Washington Editor

WASHINGTON, DC, Feb. 26 -- The Obama administration has proposed eliminating what it termed "oil and gas company preferences" as it released its proposed fiscal 2010 federal budget on Feb. 26. The move would raise nearly $31.48 billion of revenue by fiscal 2019, it said.

In the budget's mandatory and receipts proposal table, it called for the repeal of the manufacturing tax deduction for oil and gas companies, which it said would raise an estimated $13.29 billion over 10 years, and the percentage depletion allowance, which it said would raise some $8.25 billion during that period.

It also recommended repealing the enhanced oil recovery credit, the marginal well tax credit, the expensing of tangible drilling costs, the deduction for tertiary injectants, and the passive loss exception for working interests in oil and gas properties.

The proposals also included placing an excise tax on Gulf of Mexico production, which the budget said would raise $5.28 billion, and increasing the geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers to seven years from five to raise nearly $1.19 billion, essentially reversing a provision in the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

One major oil and gas group's president responded immediately. Barry Russell of the Independent Petroleum Association of America called it "a devastating blow to the American oil and natural gas industry." He noted that independent producers drill 90% of the oil and gas wells in the US, which means tax increases hurt these companies the most.

"Hurting American oil and natural gas production runs counter to the Obama administration's interests. America's clean-burning, abundant natural gas will be essential to any clean energy agenda for the administration, and America's natural gas and oil are critical to decrease our reliance on foreign oil," Russell said.

Royalties collected from the US oil and gas industry already account for the federal treasury's second-largest income stream, he noted. Less domestic oil and gas production would also immediately reduce federal and state governments' income, he said.

"These proposals make no sense during this economy when increased American energy could result in new jobs and more tax and royalty revenues. Coupled with his administration's delay in implementing the new 5-year plan for offshore exploration, this is not welcome news to the majority of Americans who favor increased American oil and gas production, especially from the offshore," Russell maintained.

Contact Nick Snow at nicks@pennwell.com
No surprise at all. An early take is that Obama and the Dems in congress will re-write the provisions that allow for expensing certain intangible drilling cost items.

The problem here is that the O&G business involves mucho RISK. It is apparent from much of what is posted here that lots of folks have no concept of how RISK plays into our business. As ther Democrats make O&G exploration less attractive for capital by erodiong our tax incentives.....well you can see where that will go.

Elections have consequences, George Bush wasn't perfect, but he did keep us safe, and he understood RISK.
When the democrats/congress bankrupt the O/G industry... like they'll do to the coal industry... where does that leave royalty owners? Is nationalization next for the O/G industry?

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service