Cantor: Wall street Mob a vast left wing conspiracy

[JB3]

Then I am even more dismayed by your criticisms towards your own union. Especially with the kind of teacher you are, your program and job position would be the first thing to go in an anti-education, anti-union Republican leadership decision. The salary you have, the benefits you enjoy, and the protections given to your job are all the results of years of your union negotiating with your school district. Do you honestly believe you'd be in the position you have now if Admin was making every decision?

I'm well aware of these things. The Unions here provide no better protection for the Arts than the school administration does. They would sell us down the river at their first chance. Same goes for most other Unions in my area. They only care about the core classroom subjects, and it shows in how they treat us.

It seems like we have different knowledge on how education is funded by each state. Your state is certainly unique from other states that I know of. However, to demonize teacher unions in general because of a couple of hand-picked stories you want to tout is disingenuous to your profession and the benefits you have as an educator. There are education unions all across this country that work very hard to protect public education because a free education is necessary to the survival of this nation. Republican backed vouchers and private schools have long been proven to award the privileged and disenfranchise the average American family.

I don't doubt that there are unions that protect public education quite well. But there are also a growing number that don't care about education at all, only about furthering their own political agenda at the cost of the very students they are supposed to serve. Look no further than the Chicago teacher's union, which is fighting tooth and nail against a longer school day, despite studies that overwhelmingly show a longer day to be a productive change. Every time the leader of that union opens her mouth, it becomes clear that she doesn't care about the students in the slightest. All she cares about is money and politics.

You need to do more research about across the board salary cuts happening to teachers in this nation. As an example, Washington state teachers had to take a 1.9% salary cut across the board this year. This is on top of salary freezes over the last couple of years, and the state is considering taking over the healthcare benefits of all teachers to save money. There, you've heard of one now.

I am well aware of what is happening, and the handful of districts that are cutting funding pale in comparison to the tens of thousands that are holding the line or increasing it. The problem is not as dire as you make it out to be. And that's completely ignoring the fact that in most of these cases, teacher pay was cut to KEEP more teachers on the payroll instead of resorting to mass layoffs.

 

[JB3]

Nonsense.

JB3 is misrepresenting the point.

The point is that teachers want a reasonable health care plan. He's trying to turn it into a silly argument about Viagra.

Erm, no. You've completely misrepresented everything. This has nothing to do with a reasonable healthcare plan. This has to do with drug coverage that was being abused and was going to cost a dozen or more teachers their jobs. The union started to fight it, then realized how ridiculous the argument was that they were making.

We're talking about Viagra coverage; you're trying to turn this into a debate about something else entirely, because you know your stance on this incident is dead wrong.

 

[T-Rexx]

The term 'recreational' is being confused here. It is recreational in that it is not necessary in the same way that heart medicine or cholesterol medication would be. It is classed differently than those medications, and is treated differently by insurers and doctors alike because of that. 'Recreational' was not being used in the same way that T-rexx is trying to use it.

In my post #69, I specifically linked to the definition of a recreational drug. You do not seem to understand the concept of "recreational drug." Since you don't want to view the link, I will quote the definition for you here:

Recreational drug use is the use of a drug, usually psychoactive, with the intention of creating or enhancing recreational experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use]recreational drug

The idea that Viagra is a recreational drug really is laughable. It's like claiming morphine is a recreational drug, or Ritalin, or testosterone.

None of those drugs are necessary for survival, either. So, by JB3's definition, none of them treat disease.

 

[T-Rexx]

Erm, no. You've completely misrepresented everything. This has nothing to do with a reasonable healthcare plan. This has to do with drug coverage that was being abused and was going to cost a dozen or more teachers their jobs. The union started to fight it, then realized how ridiculous the argument was that they were making.

We're talking about Viagra coverage; you're trying to turn this into a debate about something else entirely, because you know your stance on this incident is dead wrong.

I'm not distorting this debate, and I haven't "misrepresented" anything. You're trying to claim that teachers want to lay off a dozen of their colleagues, just so they can lay around using drugs inappropriately, at someone else's expense.

That's just absurd, and you know it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nonsense.

JB3 is misrepresenting the point.

The point is that teachers want a reasonable health care plan. He's trying to turn it into a silly argument about Viagra.

Viagra was the point in contention -- there was nothing about changing the rest of the plan.

And if the doctors I talked to are right, then those teachers are either a wild card statistically, or over three-fourths of those getting the drug are getting it for recreational purposes.

 

[JB3]

I'm not distorting this debate, and I haven't "misrepresented" anything. You're trying to claim that teachers want to lay off a dozen of their colleagues, just so they can lay around using drugs inappropriately, at someone else's expense.

That's just absurd, and you know it.

That's not what I'm claiming, that's what actually happened. You have distorted this entire discussion, and misrepresented what it is about. It isn't about healthcare, its about Viagra and its effect on a school district's ability to employ more people. You are wrong. Suck it up and move on.

 

[JB3]

In my post #69, I specifically linked to the definition of a recreational drug. You do not seem to understand the concept of "recreational drug." Since you don't want to view the link, I will quote the definition for you here:




The idea that Viagra is a recreational drug really is laughable. It's like claiming morphine is a recreational drug, or Ritalin, or testosterone.

None of those drugs are necessary for survival, either. So, by JB3's definition, none of them treat disease.

Did you even bother to read the post that you first quoted? You are using recreational in terms of illegal use of a drug. I am using recreational in terms of MEDICAL use. There is a difference, and you seem to be intentionally ignoring it. Viagra is a recreational prescription drug. It is not necessary for survival like heart medicine or anything similar. It is classed as that type of drug because of its use. You really need to learn how to read the posts you're quoting...

 

[CowboyBob]

Since this thread has somehow morphed into a Viagra thread, here goes:

Erectile Dysfunction or commonly known as ED, formerly know as impotence, is a medical condition. Impotence can be cause by a number of medical issues: heart problems, circulation problems, nerve damage, diabetes, etc.

The drug Sildenafil, brand name Viagra, also the drugs vardenafil (Levitra) and tadalafil (Cialis) give temporary relief to this medical condition. When one of these medications is used properly, it is not a recreational drug. Patients trying to conceive while the male cannot achieve an erection is not recreation. Sildenafil is also used for pulmonary hypertension and altitude sickness. It's original use was for high blood pressure when it's main side effect was discovered to be penile erection. The drug's maker Pfizer invented the term ED and marketed it for an impotence cure. It's profits soared.

However, when one of these medications are abused, it can be classified as a recreational drug. Same for narcotic pain medications, muscle relaxants, etc.

It's the abuse that makes it a recreational drug otherwise it's used to treat a medical condition.

 

[T-Rexx]

^ Thanks for that, Bob. Absolutely correct.

Did you even bother to read the post that you first quoted? You are using recreational in terms of illegal use of a drug. I am using recreational in terms of MEDICAL use. There is a difference, and you seem to be intentionally ignoring it. Viagra is a recreational prescription drug. It is not necessary for survival like heart medicine or anything similar. It is classed as that type of drug because of its use. You really need to learn how to read the posts you're quoting...

No.

You have taken a well-know term - "recreational drug" - and invented your own definition for it. You have done this because you know the term will be understood by readers for its real meaning - a drug used recreationally - not the meaning you have invented for it.

You keep trying to assert that Viagra is a "recreational drug" and that it is somehow "classified" differently ("recreationally") by the medical establishment. That is not true. Please cite a credible reference indicating that the medical establishment regards Viagra as anything other than a routine drug designed to treat a common disease.

You seem to feel the need to discredit Viagra as "recreational" because you wish to make the negotiations of the teachers union seem petty, irresponsible, and even unpatriotic. You don't happen to like unions, so you wish to describe their work as unneccessary and counter-productive to their own interests. Fine, but you are doing this by making grossly false claims about Viagra and the medical establishment in general.

This is not about Viagra. If the teachers had advocated for coverage of terbinafine for onychomycosis, I rather expect you would be here trying to discredit terbinafine as a silly "recreational" drug, since onychomycosis is not life threatening and causes mostly cosmetic deformations. Same if the teachers wanted coverage for breast prostheses following mastectomy (what a silly vanity - to want to appear normal) or tretinoin for severe acne.

Of course no employer in the USA is going to pay for every conceivable treatment for every conceivable disease. But, your attempts to paint the teachers' union as irresponsible and even selfish because it makes reasonable requests at the bargaining table is simply dishonest.

 

[Kulindahr]

Since this thread has somehow morphed into a Viagra thread, here goes:

Erectile Dysfunction or commonly known as ED, formerly know as impotence, is a medical condition. Impotence can be cause by a number of medical issues: heart problems, circulation problems, nerve damage, diabetes, etc.

The drug Sildenafil, brand name Viagra, also the drugs vardenafil (Levitra) and tadalafil (Cialis) give temporary relief to this medical condition. When one of these medications is used properly, it is not a recreational drug. Patients trying to conceive while the male cannot achieve an erection is not recreation. Sildenafil is also used for pulmonary hypertension and altitude sickness. It's original use was for high blood pressure when it's main side effect was discovered to be penile erection. The drug's maker Pfizer invented the term ED and marketed it for an impotence cure. It's profits soared.

However, when one of these medications are abused, it can be classified as a recreational drug. Same for narcotic pain medications, muscle relaxants, etc.

It's the abuse that makes it a recreational drug otherwise it's used to treat a medical condition.

Excellent -- that's the distinction the doctors I talked to were making. And by their estimate, four-fifths of the people getting it in that union were using it recreationally.

 

[JB3]

^ Thanks for that, Bob. Absolutely correct.



No.

You have taken a well-know term - "recreational drug" - and invented your own definition for it. You have done this because you know the term will be understood by readers for its real meaning - a drug used recreationally - not the meaning you have invented for it.

I have invented nothing. The term is used by insurance companies for a reason.

You keep trying to assert that Viagra is a "recreational drug" and that it is somehow "classified" differently ("recreationally") by the medical establishment. That is not true. Please cite a credible reference indicating that the medical establishment regards Viagra as anything other than a routine drug designed to treat a common disease.

ED is not a disease. You need to learn how to use these terms correctly before you start chiding others for their use of terms.

You seem to feel the need to discredit Viagra as "recreational" because you wish to make the negotiations of the teachers union seem petty, irresponsible, and even unpatriotic. You don't happen to like unions, so you wish to describe their work as unneccessary and counter-productive to their own interests. Fine, but you are doing this by making grossly false claims about Viagra and the medical establishment in general.

That's because they are petty, irresponsible and unpatriotic. A teacher that would willingly sacrifice the quality of education in order to protect their access to viagra needs to find a new career. A union that does the same should be disbanded.

This is not about Viagra. If the teachers had advocated for coverage of terbinafine for onychomycosis, I rather expect you would be here trying to discredit terbinafine as a silly "recreational" drug, since onychomycosis is not life threatening and causes mostly cosmetic deformations. Same if the teachers wanted coverage for breast prostheses following mastectomy (what a silly vanity - to want to appear normal) or tretinoin for severe acne.

Nice try. You're grasping at straws and you know it. Stop putting words in my mouth because you're unable to make a relevant point in this discussion.

Of course no employer in the USA is going to pay for every conceivable treatment for every conceivable disease. But, your attempts to paint the teachers' union as irresponsible and even selfish because it makes reasonable requests at the bargaining table is simply dishonest.

First of all, the way I used the term recreational is absolutely correct. That is how insurance companies classify Viagra and other drugs like it.

Second of all, what the teacher's union did IS irresponsible and selfish, and IS unreasonable. Any union that chooses an optional drug that can be paid for at a reasonable cost by the employees over the jobs of a dozen of their members is absolutely and without question is acting irresponsibly and unreasonably. If I were one of those members fired because of the selfishness of those other members, I would not hesitate to file suit against the union for violating their agreement with me.

 

[CowboyBob]

ED is not a disease. You need to learn how to use these terms correctly before you start chiding others for their use of terms.

No, Erectile Dysfunction is not a disease in itself; it's a condition that's brought about from disease. (Diabetes, kidney disease, chronic alcoholism, multiple sclerosis, atherosclerosis, vascular disease, and neurologic disease. In younger men, accidents, such as gunshot wounds to the spinal cord, car crashes, and skiing wipeouts, etc.)

Enhancing quality of life is important in treating symptoms of of disease. Poor quality of life can lead to depression, which in turn leads to other major problems. When used as directed, Sildenafil (Viagra) is an important medication not only to treat symptoms of disease, but enhance quality of life. Same thing can be said for Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, Valium.

The term "recreational drugs" has been casually thrown around here on this issue to disparage the use of this medication.

{Text removed by moderator}

 

[Kulindahr]

Wikipedia defines "recreational drug" this way:

Recreational drug use is the use of a drug, usually psychoactive, with the intention of creating or enhancing recreational experience.

Nothing in the article claims that Viagra is one, which is something I would expect to be there if only for the surprise factor. But the definition holds out the possibility of including it.

The Do It Now Foundation indicates that it is used as a recreational drug, but not that it is classed as one.

Apparently Thailand considers it a recreational drug (see here.

But on most of the places I can find recreational drugs discussed, they don't mention viagra, though they mention alcohol and caffeine.

So before we go on with this 'round and n'round, can someone find a cite that identifies Viagra as a recreational drug, and stating that this classification is the norm among pharmacies?

 

[BostonPirate]

if the conservative position is that sex is recreational by nature, and not procreative by nature then this would all sound more logical.

What I am failing to get is why Sexual disfunction medication to possibly give parents a child that they can raise is recreational usage of your genitals. It is clearly procreational usage of their genitals and falls well within established conservative ideology that these men GET the medication.

While It IS possible that the medication can be abused, but I would prefer that avenue be addressed by the FDA, FBI, or ATF than I would the unions and congress.

Who gets what meds based on what they are going to do with them is not within the purvue of the politicians or the unions, thank god, and any intrusion would be screamed at as well by the same radical conservatives who are so worried about abortion.

The conservative position is that sex's validity lies in procreativity, hence, gay sex is immoral and abortion is murder.

If people need medications, their insurance plans should cover it, and if a drug is being abused, the FBI needs to be more aggressive in prosecuting doctors that give out prescriptions without cause, while protecting the consumer and the patients right to healthcare.

Fine and prosecute the corporations and the doctors.

Don't tell me what to do with my dick. That's between me and my doctor, and the doctor and the FDA and other regulatory agencies.

Quality of life, gentlemen, The people are tired of giving up their quality of life, just to pay for wars and tax cuts for the wealthy, under the guise that the "job creators" need the bucks.

well the Job creators have HAD the bucks, and in one decade did not produce the jobs. The answer is NOT to get in between the doctors and the patients. That is what the GOP always says, but so rarely do their words match up with their actions.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
Superb insight!

I especially love this:

The answer is NOT to get in between the doctors and the patients. That is what the GOP always says, but so rarely do their words match up with their actions.

 

[Jack Springer]

The more info I read and hear.

Occupy Wall Street seems to be more and more a communist, socialist protest against capitalism.

Now the Chinese are supporting it.

 

[fetaby]

The more info I read and hear.

Occupy Wall Street seems to be more and more a communist, socialist protest against capitalism.

Now the Chinese are supporting it.

 

[Dolmance]

The more info I read and hear.

Occupy Wall Street seems to be more and more a communist, socialist protest against capitalism.

Now the Chinese are supporting it.

Why bother commenting on the issues at hand if all you're going to contribute is partisan white noise? There are genuine issues here; cultural, political and economic, of which the current demonstrations are expressions and manifestations. If your analysis of those issues goes no further than paranoid conspiracy wack-jobbery, you have no more to contribute to the discussion than a mindlessly yapping lap dog.

 

[T-Rexx]

The more info I read and hear.

Occupy Wall Street seems to be more and more a communist, socialist protest against capitalism.

Then it would appear that the more you read and hear, Jack, the more confused you become.

OWS is probably the most pro-capitalist movement to emerge in decades. It rejects the corporate communism supported by the GOP, whereby the proletariat prop up a tiny percentage of ruling elite with our slave labor.

Ronald Reagan's vision of a tiny cadre of fabulously wealthy and powerful Party elite lording over masses and masses of the proletariat has been realized. But that has proven to be an awful reality for America.

We of the proletariat would like to have our capitalism and prosperity back again. And, while we're at it, we'd like to have a representative democracy that responds to the needs of voters back again, as well.

 

[Jack Springer]

Dude, you are not watching the same group of people I am.

Rose colored glasses or something else?

Guess the use of the word proletariat pretty much sums up your life as a traveler (I'm not talking about a guy with a suitcase).

Then it would appear that the more you read and hear, Jack, the more confused you become.

OWS is probably the most pro-capitalist movement to emerge in decades. It rejects the corporate communism supported by the GOP, whereby the proletariat prop up a tiny percentage of ruling elite with our slave labor.

Ronald Reagan's vision of a tiny cadre of fabulously wealthy and powerful Party elite lording over masses and masses of the proletariat has been realized. But that has proven to be an awful reality for America.

We of the proletariat would like to have our capitalism and prosperity back again. And, while we're at it, we'd like to have a representative democracy that responds to the needs of voters back again, as well.