Quote of the Day

TerryRC wrote:You're mistaking religion for conviction. There are many people who are not fundies who consider abortion murder. I am living proof, and I'm not alone. I don't consider abortion murder because of anything in the Bible, Koran, or Vedas. I have other compelling reasons. Certainly there are an awful lot of sheeple who hold their views based soley upon what some member of the clergy tells them, but not all.

I have moral problems with the use of some pesticides. Even so, my job demands I give recommendations to use some of these pesticides that I think the use of to be unethical.

Do you think I should keep my job if I refuse to do those recommendations? Keep in mind that I, just like the pharmacists, knew what I would be asked to do as part of my job before I was hired.

Stick to your ethics or stick to your job. It is just that simple, sometimes.

I suppose that depends. Employers sometimes demand their employees do unethical, even illegal things. Is someone going to be injured or killed from those pesicides?

I'd also like to point out, that you knew before you were hired you would be required to make those recommendations. As I pointed out earlier, most of the pharmacists working in this country today were licensed and hired before the morning after pill was approved for use by the FDA.

You also haven't responded to the very legitmate concerns that there continues to exist a shortage in the field of pharmacy in this nation and that in forcing pharmacists to dispense this drug the potential exists to exacerbate that problem. We should be working to alleviate this.

Does my right to kill my unborn child with a pill outweigh the rights of the citizens of Putnam County to have competent, licensed pharmacists available in my community? The answer is clearly no.

I'd also like to point out, that you knew before you were hired you would be required to make those recommendations. As I pointed out earlier, most of the pharmacists working in this country today were licensed and hired before the morning after pill was approved for use by the FDA.

Of course, the morning after pill is not an abortificant. It merely keeps the egg from implanting. The argument about killing unborn children is bankrupt.

It isn't just the MAP. There are pharmacists that have refused to sell birth-control pills. No babies are killed (just as with the morning after pill). Should this be allowed?

Sorry. Do the job or find another. I'd rather travel farther to see a pharmacist that I know will do their job than deal with some grandstanding local that will refuse to fill my wife's Ortho prescription.

The libertarian answer is, of course, make all drugs over-the-counter.

Sure, some people will abuse it or die because they failed to read the instructions or warnings.

Think of it as evolution in action.

TerryRC wrote:I'd also like to point out, that you knew before you were hired you would be required to make those recommendations. As I pointed out earlier, most of the pharmacists working in this country today were licensed and hired before the morning after pill was approved for use by the FDA.

Of course, the morning after pill is not an abortificant. It merely keeps the egg from implanting. The argument about killing unborn children is bankrupt.

It isn't just the MAP. There are pharmacists that have refused to sell birth-control pills. No babies are killed (just as with the morning after pill). Should this be allowed?

Sorry. Do the job or find another. I'd rather travel farther to see a pharmacist that I know will do their job than deal with some grandstanding local that will refuse to fill my wife's Ortho prescription.

Terry,

Your imposing your views on all pharmacists. Also, you are completing ignoring RU-486, Mifeprex. Mifeprex is used in this country as an abortificant. Other drugs are used as emergency contraceptives. This is the drug my daughter and I were specifically discussing. Even EC's terminate pregnancies. Just because the embryo hasn't implanted, doesn't change the fact it is a human embryo.

I don't know of any cases in recent years of a pharmacist refusing to dispense birth control pills in this country.

I don't know of any cases in recent years of a pharmacist refusing to dispense birth control pills in this country.

Check it out. It is not an isolated case.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.

Grandstanding, martyring pompous B.S.

Who is guilty of imposing their beliefs upon whom?

They should do the job they were hired for. Nobody held a gun to their head and made them take the job in the first place.

TerryRC wrote:I don't know of any cases in recent years of a pharmacist refusing to dispense birth control pills in this country.

Check it out. It is not an isolated case.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.

Grandstanding, martyring pompous B.S.

Who is guilty of imposing their beliefs upon whom?

They should do the job they were hired for. Nobody held a gun to their head and made them take the job in the first place.

In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views.

This guy should have his license suspended.

The others, they have rights too. I said it before and I'll say it again, we don't just relinquish all of our rights when we become employed.

I really like it that some states are taking action and adopting legislation protecting professionals from being forced to participate in acts they consider morally repugnant. If pharmacist Judy objects to ECP's she shouldn't be required to dispense them.

I may see what I can do to get the ball rolling here in WV!

I really like it that some states are taking action and adopting legislation protecting professionals from being forced to participate in acts they consider morally repugnant. If pharmacist Judy objects to ECP's she shouldn't be required to dispense them.

As long as the pharmacy has someone else that will fill it without making the customer wait.

If not, I will be pushing against that ball you will be trying to roll...

The others, they have rights too. I said it before and I'll say it again, we don't just relinquish all of our rights when we become employed.

What about the employer's rights? You know, the right to have someone actually do the job for which they were hired...

TerryRC wrote:Wrong about what? That you have a right not to be offended. I don't think so Lib.

As for religioius discrimation, that's covered by the 1st amendment.

You have read the Bill of Rights, haven't you TC?

I never said I have a right to not be offended. Strawman much? That sounds exactly like something Rush Lamebaugh or Mann Coulter might say.

I do have a right to demand my government be free of your religious laws.

What religious laws?

TerryRC wrote:But people like you want to push YOUR ‘religion’ on the rest of us because of your misguided beliefs but you claim it’s Christians pushing their beliefs. Please LIB!!!

How is the lack of a religion a religion?

That is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

You are wrong in that you refuse to admit that christians DO legislate their religious beliefs.

Fine and dandy. Bet you would scream bloody murder of it was a bunch of islamists trying to do the same thing.

I'd scream bloody hell if it Christians were craming their beliefs down my throat as well. The simple fact is that your claim that Christians are cramming a bunch of religious beliefs down your throat is all huff, no puff. You've yet to actually post a link to a law in which the government is forcing religion on you. Why don't you give that a try and we'll deal with any you find then. Until then, the sky's not falling CL.

TerryRC wrote:What I don't have a problem with and where I think people like you go overboard is voluntary prayer led by, oh I don't know, say a coach with a team before a ball game. There is nothing in the constitution to prevent that but people like you whine and cry about state sponsored religion. It's garbage.

Fine, can I lead your kids in a prayer to Satan before the game? Perhaps a little prayer to Ganesha?

Sorry, if a school official leads it, it isn't considered voluntary.

Tell you what, keep your prayer out of my school and I won't think in your church.

Again, doesn't your bible admonish you to pray in a closet?

People that make a big display of their faith by praying publicly usually have none.

Go ahead Lib, lead your voluntary prayer. It's your contsitutional right under the first amendment. My kids would likely decline to partake in your prayer but they wouldn't stop you, nor would I. I would walk away but I wouldn't interfere with your constitutional gurantees.

And it is voluntary, no matter how much people like you try to say it's not. There is no consquences if a kid refuses to participate, they're not kicked off the team, they don't get a bad grade or anything like that so once again, you've provided an argument that's all huff, no puff!!!

What about the employer's rights? What if CVS or Walmart or Fruth's decides it doesn't want to provide ECP's or Mifeprex? What if they decide they don't want to carry birth control pills? Will you be crusading to force them to?

I wonder what percentage of rx's filled at my local RiteAid pharmacy are for Mifeprex? Should RiteAid in Eleanor fire an employee who has been with them for years because she "refuses to do the job she was hired for" some statistically insignificant percentage of the time? Who should RiteAid replace her with? If they can't replace her should they cut back on hours the pharmacy is open?

Let me tell you a little story......I have a friend who manages a store in a major pharmacy chain in an urban area. She caught one of the pharmacists working in her store stealing beverages and snack items. She was told by the district and regional managers to do NOTHING. She was told to not even speak to this pharmacist about this theft because there simply are not enough pharmacists in that area to find a replacement.

I'm sure there will be some pharmacies who will fire pharmacists for failing to fill prescriptions they find morally objectionable. I'm thinking the majority will not, because there simply aren't replacements available. In some areas, firing these people will certainly mean reducing the hours of operation. In some locations, it may mean there is no pharmacist available to fill prescriptions for my dad's arthritis, or my mother-in-law's heart disease.

I'd scream bloody hell if it Christians were craming their beliefs down my throat as well. The simple fact is that your claim that Christians are cramming a bunch of religious beliefs down your throat is all huff, no puff. You've yet to actually post a link to a law in which the government is forcing religion on you. Why don't you give that a try and we'll deal with any you find then. Until then, the sky's not falling CL.

You don't think the "marriage amendment" that has been proposed isn't an attempt to legislate religious beliefs? Do you really need a link for that? If so, you are technically challenged

How about prohibition. Wasn't that religiously motivated? The draconian drug laws that we have - promoted by religious family groups.

How about this proposed legislation:

Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;

Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;

Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;

Whereas *identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible;Whereas Christians* Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;

Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its Judeo-Christian roots;**

Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;

Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and

Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-847

Nope, I'm making this all up. You win, Aaron.

And it is voluntary, no matter how much people like you try to say it's not. There is no consquences if a kid refuses to participate, they're not kicked off the team, they don't get a bad grade or anything like that so once again, you've provided an argument that's all huff, no puff!!!

Sez you. Prove it. Post a link!

What about the employer's rights? What if CVS or Walmart or Fruth's decides it doesn't want to provide ECP's or Mifeprex? What if they decide they don't want to carry birth control pills? Will you be crusading to force them to?

If they have driven the local pharmacies out of business, you bet I will. Otherwise they could do the same with any drug, taking health care decisions out of the hands of doctors and their patients. "No heart medicine for you. We do, however have this NEW, more EXPENSIVE heart medicine".

I wonder what percentage of rx's filled at my local RiteAid pharmacy are for Mifeprex? Should RiteAid in Eleanor fire an employee who has been with them for years because she "refuses to do the job she was hired for" some statistically insignificant percentage of the time? Who should RiteAid replace her with? If they can't replace her should they cut back on hours the pharmacy is open?

Pharmacists are not trained to prescribe medicine. They are trained to fill a doctor's scripts. If they will not fill the doctor's scripts, they are not doing their job.

Let them take the moral high ground. As always, as it should be, it comes with a price.

TerryRC wrote:What about the employer's rights? What if CVS or Walmart or Fruth's decides it doesn't want to provide ECP's or Mifeprex? What if they decide they don't want to carry birth control pills? Will you be crusading to force them to?

If they have driven the local pharmacies out of business, you bet I will. Otherwise they could do the same with any drug, taking health care decisions out of the hands of doctors and their patients. "No heart medicine for you. We do, however have this NEW, more EXPENSIVE heart medicine".

I wonder what percentage of rx's filled at my local RiteAid pharmacy are for Mifeprex? Should RiteAid in Eleanor fire an employee who has been with them for years because she "refuses to do the job she was hired for" some statistically insignificant percentage of the time? Who should RiteAid replace her with? If they can't replace her should they cut back on hours the pharmacy is open?

Pharmacists are not trained to prescribe medicine. They are trained to fill a doctor's scripts. If they will not fill the doctor's scripts, they are not doing their job.

Let them take the moral high ground. As always, as it should be, it comes with a price.

The pharmacies are all tripping over themselves and each other to match Wally World's new rx prices. I don't think we have to worry too much about pharmacies only carrying high price drugs.

Somehow you are under the misguided impression that all a pharmacist does is count pills and their sole responsibility is to make sure your bottle of vicodin has 20 pills, not 23 and you actually receive which ever antibiotic your doctor prescribed for you.

My husband had a pharmacist refuse to fill an rx a doctor had written for him because although the doctor was told my husband is allergic to penicillin, his doctor prescribed him penicillin! Should that pharmacist have just dispensed that rx as written?

Doctors receive far less information and training regarding medications and drug interactions than pharmacists. Some of them will actually even admit it.

TerryRC wrote:I'd scream bloody hell if it Christians were craming their beliefs down my throat as well. The simple fact is that your claim that Christians are cramming a bunch of religious beliefs down your throat is all huff, no puff. You've yet to actually post a link to a law in which the government is forcing religion on you. Why don't you give that a try and we'll deal with any you find then. Until then, the sky's not falling CL.

You don't think the "marriage amendment" that has been proposed isn't an attempt to legislate religious beliefs? Do you really need a link for that? If so, you are technically challenged

How about prohibition. Wasn't that religiously motivated? The draconian drug laws that we have - promoted by religious family groups.

How about this proposed legislation:

Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;

Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;

Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;

Whereas *identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible;Whereas Christians* Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;

Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its Judeo-Christian roots;**

Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;

Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and

Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-847

Nope, I'm making this all up. You win, Aaron.

And it is voluntary, no matter how much people like you try to say it's not. There is no consquences if a kid refuses to participate, they're not kicked off the team, they don't get a bad grade or anything like that so once again, you've provided an argument that's all huff, no puff!!!

Sez you. Prove it. Post a link!

The best you have is a PROPOSED law, not an actual law that has been passed and tested in court, a nearly 100 year old constitutional amendment that passed the constitutional mustard and Christmas.

And that's it?

Hell, you're making my point for me Lib!!!



So if I can't prove a negative, that's supposed to prove your right? For such a smart feller, you're really dumb sometimes TC.

SheikBen wrote:To put it a different way, Sherm, what really hacks me off is when it is obvious that a candidate is pandering beyond legitimacy. I understand that someone has to win an election. Obama, therefore, might criticize some policies more in some places than others.

But it is patently obvious that Obama does not drink Yuengling (did his minions at least tell him how to say it?), does not go bowling, does not work in a steel mill, and has no idea how middle America comes to it's political conclusions. If he wants to appeal to them, why not try the "noblesse oblige" approach and honestly say that he believes that his programs are best for middle America, as opposed to patently trying to be someone that he is not?

It's the same with "Annie Oakley," (one of Obama's few good ones).

When these people "gaff," it's not because they are misspeaking, but rather because they are speaking from their hearts, but those hearts are corrupted.

It's amazing that you know "their hearts", is it not? And that somehow you lump the only candidate who was poor, and even rejected making huge sums of money on the South Side as a community organizer, even remotely in the category of "noblesse oblige" is telling.

McCain, from a line of Admirals, married to a 100+ millionaire, and Hillary--she, born to wealth and making over 100 million in the last few years?

Obama, who paid off his student loans 5 years ago?

How can you say with a straight face that we know your intentions were good, but you know Obama's heart is "corrupted"?

I think there're more than one Biblical injunctions against your hypocrisy.

SFCraig,

Uhhh, I am accusing Obama of meaning what he says when talks about the working class in Pennsylvania.

How exactly is that unfair?

BTW, paying off student loans early would be a mistake for someone as wealthy as Obama and his wife (VP of the University of Chicago's hopsitals).

I'm sorry, are the UC hospitals code word for Dairy Queen these days?

Obama's former pastor just bought a million dollar house in a gated community.

I suppose I'm supposed to let him remain considered working class as well in his million dollar house.

As to the matter of corrupted hearts, you should well know that the heart is desperately wicked; who can understand it? It is true of Sheik, Obama, and Clinton, and I have never claimed otherwise.

As State Senator, SFCraig, in Illinois, one does not "do without." As US Senator, one does not "do without." As one who is married to the VP of UC hospitals, one does not "do without." Well, OK, one does without Yuengling and bowling, and one should admit as much.

Back when I first moved to the North Shore, my roommate and I thought it would be funny if one of the local denizens went on "safari" to some steel mill town and reported back to Evanston. We embarked on a literary project. We named him Flenard and gave him a long cigarillo and an ascot. This was back in 1997, and bowling was the first thing we had Flenard do, as well as things like drink Pabst Blue Ribbon and work in a garage. We had intended to have a picture of him with his workplace chums entitled "Flenard among Friends."

The point is that it's laugh out loud funny whenever someone of that group masquerades as a common man (whether he once was or not may be debatable--poor people can afford to fly to Indonesia?).

Barack Obama is not the common man. Very few elected Democrats are. I'm not saying that worldly success should preclude you from elected office, but I am suggesting that people with worldly success should not try to pass themselves off as the common man. Their worries are as different from ours as an eagle's is from a rat's.

I was the best man in a wedding in Charleston, WV some time ago and friends of the groom from Berkeley, California, flew into Chicago and then I drove them the rest of the way. We stopped for gas in Sadieville, Kentucky, and they almost lost their minds. Three ZZ Top looking fellers were running the joint, and the "common woman" (who was proud of that fact) expressed how frightened she was of such people.

We stopped for gas in Sadieville, Kentucky, and they almost lost their minds. Three ZZ Top looking fellers were running the joint, and the "common woman" (who was proud of that fact) expressed how frightened she was of such people.

LOL Thank you for my morning chuckle, Michael!

woot woot!!!

You ever get the chance you bring that common girl on up this here ridge! I'll introduce her to my neighbor down the road "Booger" and his hound dogs! Along the way I'm sure she won't miss the trailer with the "No Tresspassing" sign on the front door!

If she survives all that, I doubt my crazy hillbilly with his blonde hair down to his butt and his well-groomed goatee won't phase her in the least. That is provided he doesn't decided to start cleaning his guns while she's around.

Stephanie wrote:
You also haven't responded to the very legitmate concerns that there continues to exist a shortage in the field of pharmacy in this nation and that in forcing pharmacists to dispense this drug the potential exists to exacerbate that problem. We should be working to alleviate this.

Aw Steph, if there "exist a shortage in the field of pharmacy in this nation" then it is because the "profit margin" on the sales of prescription drugs is so damn astronomical ……. that they are “opening up” a pharmacy on every street corner, …… in every grocery store, ….. in every little strip mall, …….. 2 or 3 in every large shopping mall …….. and anywhere else there is a potential sales site.

And it will be the proposed "government health care" that will be exacerbateing that problem.

GEEEZE, Doctors are "opening" their own pharmacies ...... to get their patients to purchase what they prescribe for them ....... before they get away.

.

Hmmm........If the pharmacies are all making so much $$$, why is it the Mom & Pop shops are practically extinct?

No, I think the shortage has more to do with our aging population, and the increase in the number of ailments being treated with prescription drugs.

Holy batcrap you can get an rx for everything from dry eyes to wet pants, itchy scalp to stinky feet. Remember when folks dealt with persistant heartburn by altering their diet and popping some Tums? Just how many pills do they have for that now?

Stephanie wrote:Hmmm........If the pharmacies are all making so much $$$, why is it the Mom & Pop shops are practically extinct?

Are you serious? Same reason the family farmer barely exists, the Corporations wiped 'em out.

Mike,

I remember...your old email address was flenard something, right? Don't ask me how I remember that.

In any case, I've been poor more than I've been rich. Sometimes destitute. Now I'm well into the 6 figures. Do you think I or one born into wealth understand the common man?

I ate McDonalds burgers sitting in my Festiva. I didn't know where my rent was coming from. I drank whiskey and Miller light.

I bought 2 new cars a couple months ago, own an $800K house, drink wine and eat fine cheeses (just like the stereotype!).

In my heart I'm still the working class guy I was and my heart is with them. (And I paid off my student loans in just a hand full of payments)

SFCraig wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Hmmm........If the pharmacies are all making so much $$$, why is it the Mom & Pop shops are practically extinct?

Are you serious? Same reason the family farmer barely exists, the Corporations wiped 'em out.

Well hell yes big corporations have been wiping them out, and doing a mighty fine job of it. They have been successful at this by offering lower cost products and negotiating better contracts with insurance companies.

Somehow I think Sam is under the misguided impression that pharmacies receive the same fee no matter who pays. Not at all true. The pharmacies sign contracts with all of the major health insurers. Those big insurance companies reimburse at much lower rates than the medium size ones who reimburse at substantially lower rates than folks who must pay out of pocket.

Now I have been out of that racket for a while, but I'm willing to bet Medicare and Medicaid still tell CVS & Walmart & tiny little Ocean State Pharmacy back in Hope Valley RI exactly what they are going to pay for a given medication. No negotiating.....you want to participate you take what they pay. Period.

That's the way it works in hospitals, and doctors offices and dental offices and labs and every aspect of the healthcare industry. To suggest the reason there is a shortage of pharmacists because there is a glut of pharmacies is silly. If there were too many pharmacies they wouldn't be all be able to afford to stay in business and keep opening new ones.

The reason they keep opening new ones in every supermarket and strip mall is because there are so many Americans on prescription drugs.....some of them life saving, some of them to varying degrees improve the quality of life. Some of those drugs just make the likes of Pfizer and Merck very very wealthy.

As baby boomers get older this trend will continue to grow and the demand for pharmacists will grow right along with it. For my friend Terry or anyone else to suggest that it is more important that I am able to have an rx for ECP's , or even ordinary birth control, at any pharmacy during any hours of operation is more important than making sure my mother-in-law in rural Holmes County Ohio is able to go to the nearest pharmacy (20 minutes away) and get her heart medication filled is simply lunacy.

There are alternatives to Mrs. Terry's birth control pills and there are much better alternatives to killing your unborn child by ingesting a pill. Terry's wife won't die without the pill, my MIL will very likely die without her meds.

Yes! But in related news, my restless leg syndrome is completely cured, with the only side affect being priapism.

Same reason the family farmer barely exists, the Corporations wiped 'em out.

Are corporations evil monoliths? Sounds like you've done okay with them... How can you reconcile working for a corporation? Oh, yes, I see: Your corporation is a good and beneficent and unlike all the others.

ohio county wrote:

Same reason the family farmer barely exists, the Corporations wiped 'em out.

Are corporations evil monoliths? Sounds like you've done okay with them... How can you reconcile working for a corporation? Oh, yes, I see: Your corporation is a good and beneficent and unlike all the others.

I don't work for any corporation. Again, there is a large disconnect between what you assume to be true and what IS true.

Remember that when you assume.....

And yes, corporations are inherently evil. They are what destroys all that is good about America.