Obama's acne horror story not true· Page 2

Cheesey
Preferred Member

15 years ago

It seems every place that has government health care, it sucks.
Like Dulak said, wait times are HUGE. And WHY is that???
Cause it's FREE!
People will go to the doctor for a hangnail if they don't have to PAY for it. Thus, people that REALLY need a doctor have to wait for weeks because of it.
That will happen here if they pass that health care reform crap. You better get any issues taken care of NOW if you want decent care.

Gravedigga
Registered

15 years ago

#12

When I first read the title I thought Obama had started to do late night TV infomercials for ProActive.

"Porforis" wrote:

When I first read the title, I thought Obama was lying about having serious acne when he younger. lol I'm like.. Who cares? It's acne..

"Formo" wrote:

But Obama can cure acne, as well as cure Chuck Norris! He's just that awesome!

"TheEngineer" wrote:

Chuck Norris does not need to cure acne. Acne commits suicide at first sight of Norris because it knows suicide is a more desirable fate than facing Norris.

--------------------------------------------

A wise man once said
---------------------------------------------
You are weak, pathetic and immature..............I would have d

Formo
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#13

the health care refrom needs to be taken very seriously and the right choices need to be made IMO

everything isnt a bed of roses here in the land of 'free' health care england

IMO - service is pretty poor, wait times are huge, and the right treatment is even poorer.

when comparing england to the US its like do you go with a health care system where they dont care or do you go with a place where the insurance companies are just after the bottom line and where you may not even be able to be seen

some kind of compromise IMO ...

"Porforis" wrote:

Nevermind that the most profitable health insurance company in the nation barely nudged out Jack in the Box. The greed of health insurance companies is extremely exaggerated.

I hate bringing in Fox News as a source, but I suppose they're just as biased as any other media outlet.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/26/fact-check-health-insurers-profits-fat/

THE NUMBERS:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better -- drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

"Dulak" wrote:

Despite the health insurance companies greed (I agree they are bad, but not bad as you say, Porforis).. What's worse is the FDA. Approving anti-depressants despite proof that serious side-affects are suicidal thoughts (what's the point, then?) coupled with the over-prescribing of said anti-depressants by doctors that are paid by the drug companies.. Ever wonder how Columbine happened? Or any other major school shooting? Look at the shooters' (more specifically the ones that committed suicide after the shootings) history of depression.. And if they were on anti-depressants.

I'm just saying..

Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!

Porforis
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#14

the health care refrom needs to be taken very seriously and the right choices need to be made IMO

everything isnt a bed of roses here in the land of 'free' health care england

IMO - service is pretty poor, wait times are huge, and the right treatment is even poorer.

when comparing england to the US its like do you go with a health care system where they dont care or do you go with a place where the insurance companies are just after the bottom line and where you may not even be able to be seen

some kind of compromise IMO ...

"Formo" wrote:

Nevermind that the most profitable health insurance company in the nation barely nudged out Jack in the Box. The greed of health insurance companies is extremely exaggerated.

I hate bringing in Fox News as a source, but I suppose they're just as biased as any other media outlet.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/26/fact-check-health-insurers-profits-fat/

THE NUMBERS:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better -- drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

"Porforis" wrote:

"Dulak" wrote:

Despite the health insurance companies greed (I agree they are bad, but not bad as you say, Porforis).. What's worse is the FDA. Approving anti-depressants despite proof that serious side-affects are suicidal thoughts (what's the point, then?) coupled with the over-prescribing of said anti-depressants by doctors that are paid by the drug companies.. Ever wonder how Columbine happened? Or any other major school shooting? Look at the shooters' (more specifically the ones that committed suicide after the shootings) history of depression.. And if they were on anti-depressants.

I'm just saying..

Err, my entire point is that they're NOT any more greedy than everyone else. Why are fast food restaurants, candy makers, websites, and beer manufacturers allowed to make a modest profit, but it's all of a sudden GREEDY for health insurance companies to do so? Why are they evil, and tupperware isn't? What happened to the days when people WEREN'T punished and bashed just because they're providing a service or product in an efficient manner?

My parents had almost no money when they got married. My dad was a rookie salesman, and my mom was going to college. They lived in a trailer for 5 years as they raised my oldest brother. My dad got a promotion and worked hard at his job, made more money. My mother graduated from school, had my older brother. They moved to a rinky-dink house until I was born. My dad got another promotion because he WORKED HARD, my mother got a job as a teacher and they moved into a nice house. Together, they made about 50,000/year.

Why should the government take half of that money away? Why are my parents giving up over 65% of their income now, now that they're approaching retirement age and are making 80,000/year combined? My mother works herself to exhaustion, I spent so much of my childhood without my father there for more than a couple hours a day because he did everything he could to stand out at work. Why the hell am I giving up 20% of my income when I'm making less than 20 grand a year? I'm incredibly frugal with my money and have a small safety net of cash built up, but I'm not making any gains in my life. Are you saying that the 4000 a year I pay in taxes would be better spent by government than by me?

As for anti-depressants, I have no idea what you're thinking here. You're trying to associate anti-depressants with Columbine and other school shootings.

Why were the shooters ON anti-depressants? Because they were depressed.

Why were they depressed? Because in most cases, they were social outcasts.

Sure, the wrong antidepressant can mess with you. I've been there, and personally would rather just tough through 4 months of hell every year than go on antidepressants. I've flat-out refused to take them for a couple years. But why the hell would you blame antidepressants? High school children are incredibly cruel and exclusive if you are socially awkward, and of course people that are suffering from depression and other mental illnesses already are going to lash out when society tells them they're not wanted.

Formo
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#15

the health care refrom needs to be taken very seriously and the right choices need to be made IMO

everything isnt a bed of roses here in the land of 'free' health care england

IMO - service is pretty poor, wait times are huge, and the right treatment is even poorer.

when comparing england to the US its like do you go with a health care system where they dont care or do you go with a place where the insurance companies are just after the bottom line and where you may not even be able to be seen

some kind of compromise IMO ...

"Porforis" wrote:

Nevermind that the most profitable health insurance company in the nation barely nudged out Jack in the Box. The greed of health insurance companies is extremely exaggerated.

I hate bringing in Fox News as a source, but I suppose they're just as biased as any other media outlet.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/26/fact-check-health-insurers-profits-fat/

THE NUMBERS:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better -- drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

"Formo" wrote:

"Porforis" wrote:

Despite the health insurance companies greed (I agree they are bad, but not bad as you say, Porforis).. What's worse is the FDA. Approving anti-depressants despite proof that serious side-affects are suicidal thoughts (what's the point, then?) coupled with the over-prescribing of said anti-depressants by doctors that are paid by the drug companies.. Ever wonder how Columbine happened? Or any other major school shooting? Look at the shooters' (more specifically the ones that committed suicide after the shootings) history of depression.. And if they were on anti-depressants.

I'm just saying..

"Dulak" wrote:

Err, my entire point is that they're NOT any more greedy than everyone else. Why are fast food restaurants, candy makers, websites, and beer manufacturers allowed to make a modest profit, but it's all of a sudden GREEDY for health insurance companies to do so? Why are they evil, and tupperware isn't? What happened to the days when people WEREN'T punished and bashed just because they're providing a service or product in an efficient manner?

My parents had almost no money when they got married. My dad was a rookie salesman, and my mom was going to college. They lived in a trailer for 5 years as they raised my oldest brother. My dad got a promotion and worked hard at his job, made more money. My mother graduated from school, had my older brother. They moved to a rinky-dink house until I was born. My dad got another promotion because he WORKED HARD, my mother got a job as a teacher and they moved into a nice house. Together, they made about 50,000/year.

Why should the government take half of that money away? Why are my parents giving up over 65% of their income now, now that they're approaching retirement age and are making 80,000/year combined? My mother works herself to exhaustion, I spent so much of my childhood without my father there for more than a couple hours a day because he did everything he could to stand out at work. Why the hell am I giving up 20% of my income when I'm making less than 20 grand a year? I'm incredibly frugal with my money and have a small safety net of cash built up, but I'm not making any gains in my life. Are you saying that the 4000 a year I pay in taxes would be better spent by government than by me?

Nope, I agreed with you on the insurance companies. Really, it's the healthcare clinics/providers that are price gouging the insurance companies, which in turn causes them to put all those strict rules in their policies. The best plan I ever had when it came to health insurance was getting an HSA plan. It forces me to think when I chose my healthcare provider for certain issues. But, anyway.. We agree on that issue.

As for anti-depressants, I have no idea what you're thinking here. You're trying to associate anti-depressants with Columbine and other school shootings.

Why were the shooters ON anti-depressants? Because they were depressed.

Why were they depressed? Because in most cases, they were social outcasts.

Sure, the wrong antidepressant can mess with you. I've been there, and personally would rather just tough through 4 months of hell every year than go on antidepressants. I've flat-out refused to take them for a couple years. But why the hell would you blame antidepressants? High school children are incredibly cruel and exclusive if you are socially awkward, and of course people that are suffering from depression and other mental illnesses already are going to lash out when society tells them they're not wanted.

"Porforis" wrote:

I wasn't blaming the anti-depressants for all those shootings. I was blaming the OVER prescribing of them.

Why in the world would you run the risk of giving a depressed/messed up kid anti-depressants with the side-effects of suicidal thoughts? You might as well pile on the kid and tell him how worthless he was, too.

You'd be surprised at how easy it is to get anti-depressants. A lady I know is on them. All she told her Doc. was that she feels depressed all the time, and BAM.. She gets her pills. Instead of just giving her what she wants, maybe the Doc. should have found out the source of her depression and go from there instead of giving her 'happy pills'. You know the source of this lady's depression? She had been cheating on her husband for over a year and the guilt had burdened her down. No amount of 'happy pills' is going to 'cure' her depression, or help her through her day. She needed a recommendation for a therapist/councilor, not just a prescription for some anti-depressants.

Bottom line, there's a time and place for them.

Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!

Porforis
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#16

Nope, I agreed with you on the insurance companies. Really, it's the healthcare clinics/providers that are price gouging the insurance companies, which in turn causes them to put all those strict rules in their policies. The best plan I ever had when it came to health insurance was getting an HSA plan. It forces me to think when I chose my healthcare provider for certain issues. But, anyway.. We agree on that issue.

"Formo" wrote:

Yay!

I wasn't blaming the anti-depressants for all those shootings. I was blaming the OVER prescribing of them.

Why in the world would you run the risk of giving a depressed/messed up kid anti-depressants with the side-effects of suicidal thoughts? You might as well pile on the kid and tell him how worthless he was, too.

"Formo" wrote:

By that logic, anti-depressants should not be given to anybody who is depressed. I don't know everyone's individual story, but chances are they didn't recommend just popping a pill and not having therapy as well. If they did, that was irresponsible. Then again, if the kids were fucked up and didn't want help, and were good at lying/hiding their problems, how was the doctor supposed to know? If the kids don't realize they have a problem and want to help themselves, they're not going to be helped.

You'd be surprised at how easy it is to get anti-depressants. A lady I know is on them. All she told her Doc. was that she feels depressed all the time, and BAM.. She gets her pills. Instead of just giving her what she wants, maybe the Doc. should have found out the source of her depression and go from there instead of giving her 'happy pills'. You know the source of this lady's depression? She had been cheating on her husband for over a year and the guilt had burdened her down. No amount of 'happy pills' is going to 'cure' her depression, or help her through her day. She needed a recommendation for a therapist/councilor, not just a prescription for some anti-depressants.

Bottom line, there's a time and place for them.

"Formo" wrote:

If she didn't tell her doctor that the reason why she's depressed all the time, and actively tries to pass it off as generalized, why is it his job to assume she's lying? If she DID tell him about the cheating and the guilt, it was absolutely irresponsible to not urge therapy. If not, she manipulated the doctor to get what she wanted.

The most important part of your story is the part that's lacking the important details. What kind of doctor did she see? Has she taken antidepressants in the past? What did she tell him? What questions was she asked? Is it possible that your friend isn't giving YOU the whole story either? I do agree that various medications are over-prescribed (including anti-depressants), but if people are willing to lie to get what they want rather than what they need, of course they're going to get it. I'd prefer to have the whole story before I agree to vilify the doctor.

Formo
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#17

Nope, I agreed with you on the insurance companies. Really, it's the healthcare clinics/providers that are price gouging the insurance companies, which in turn causes them to put all those strict rules in their policies. The best plan I ever had when it came to health insurance was getting an HSA plan. It forces me to think when I chose my healthcare provider for certain issues. But, anyway.. We agree on that issue.

"Porforis" wrote:

Yay!

I wasn't blaming the anti-depressants for all those shootings. I was blaming the OVER prescribing of them.

Why in the world would you run the risk of giving a depressed/messed up kid anti-depressants with the side-effects of suicidal thoughts? You might as well pile on the kid and tell him how worthless he was, too.

"Formo" wrote:

By that logic, anti-depressants should not be given to anybody who is depressed. I don't know everyone's individual story, but chances are they didn't recommend just popping a pill and not having therapy as well. If they did, that was irresponsible. Then again, if the kids were fucked up and didn't want help, and were good at lying/hiding their problems, how was the doctor supposed to know? If the kids don't realize they have a problem and want to help themselves, they're not going to be helped.

"Formo" wrote:

What? lol That last 2 sentences threw me off. My point is, is taking the risk of setting a kid off (possibly because of a misdiagnosis) worth just giving him anti-depressants? I have a cousin that was diagnosed with ADHD, and was thrown on pills that would supposedly 'help' him. It turned him into a depressed boy. Those 'miracle' pills messed with his head. Was my cousin messed up before the pills? No. He had a mother that was lazy. He'd go SUMMERS without those pills when he stayed with us, and he was like any other kid. If he was misdiagnosed, how many other kids were? I'm suggesting finding a better way to deal with depression than handing out 'happy pills'. I know, in today's society and their mircrowave mentality people want a cure NOW, and aren't willing to work for it. IMO, shortcuttin the shortcut will not help.

You'd be surprised at how easy it is to get anti-depressants. A lady I know is on them. All she told her Doc. was that she feels depressed all the time, and BAM.. She gets her pills. Instead of just giving her what she wants, maybe the Doc. should have found out the source of her depression and go from there instead of giving her 'happy pills'. You know the source of this lady's depression? She had been cheating on her husband for over a year and the guilt had burdened her down. No amount of 'happy pills' is going to 'cure' her depression, or help her through her day. She needed a recommendation for a therapist/councilor, not just a prescription for some anti-depressants.

Bottom line, there's a time and place for them.

"Porforis" wrote:

If she didn't tell her doctor that the reason why she's depressed all the time, and actively tries to pass it off as generalized, why is it his job to assume she's lying? If she DID tell him about the cheating and the guilt, it was absolutely irresponsible to not urge therapy. If not, she manipulated the doctor to get what she wanted.

The most important part of your story is the part that's lacking the important details. What kind of doctor did she see? Has she taken antidepressants in the past? What did she tell him? What questions was she asked? Is it possible that your friend isn't giving YOU the whole story either? I do agree that various medications are over-prescribed (including anti-depressants), but if people are willing to lie to get what they want rather than what they need, of course they're going to get it. I'd prefer to have the whole story before I agree to vilify the doctor.

"Formo" wrote:

To answer your questions about this lady.. She didn't tell her doctor about the affair. She had history of taking anti-depressants, after her father died 10 years ago. She went more than 2 years without needing or taking said antidepressants. I don't know the type of doctor she went to, nor the questions she asked said doctor. I'm pretty sure I know the majority of the story. No matter how it's spun, though.. Fact is, the issue wasn't with a chemical imbalance in this lady's head. The issue was her guilt and self image. The effect of such was an imbalance, no doubt. My stance is the doctor should have at least pursued the reason behind the sudden depression, and recommended a doctor for her guilt. And then prescribed the 'happy pills'. I don't know how hard this girl tried keeping that information from the doctor, if at all.. But I do know it was too easy to just get the pills.

I know, it's a hard thing for doctors to figure somethings out, especially when they only know what the patient wants them to know. I'm with you there.. I still stand strong in my belief that drugs are way over-prescribed. And they should be under scrutiny, considering some of the stakes (suicidal teens/kids, etc).

Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!

Important Information: