Government Healthcare LOL

“I'm not so sure that comparing countries regarding entrepreneuralism is apples to apples because many of those countries are socialist or semi-socialist and there's a different mindset. Americans are notoriously driven and notoriously entrepreneurial. We even like to invade other countries just to see how our latest weapons work. :^D I just think, healthcare aside, our country is more entrepreneurial and invidualistic than others. I don't have stats, it's just a hunch, I could be wrong. I wouldn't do good in a national healthcare debate other than my own personal experiences of late. I don't feel the "love" of our system now.”

“Buck hit the nail on the head with the mindset notion. You can't put too high-a premium on the american mindset as a reason for American success - and it's been that way since the start of America as a nation. For a start it took all the people who were willing to strike out on their own.

People are more willing to take risks here. If they want to do something they do it, not ponder the move for weeks and months before half-heartedly moving for it.

Buck makes an interesting point though. Healthcare issues could become a drag on the American economy - it does seem to have become a situation where the free market is not delivering the best value to the consumer.”

“Oh and Arclite - if you have a good dr here, then the preventative is great, and as it's cheaper for the insurance companies to keep you healthy, it's pretty cheap.

Overall though it doesn't seem to be delivering the results for everyone in America.”

“Y2: "it does seem to have become a situation where the free market is not delivering the best value to the consumer.”

This, to me, is one of the most unbelievably interesting comments I've ever see on TT. I'll tell y'all why (in abbreviated terms).

Please, cut me a little slack on your comments / critique's... I'm speaking in general terms here.

1. Y2 nailed it when he said that the free mkt isn't doing their best to deliver value. However, there's a valid reason for this... it's due to the fact that the free-market doesn't control very much of the healthcare mkt anymore! As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the reason socialized medicine is almost a slam-dunk is because the government is, by far, the biggest payer.

2. American citizens have done their fair share (or more) to drive up the costs of healthcare by (A) assuming someone else would pay for it while (B) simultaneously demanding a pill / treatment / medicine for everything imaginabe. Thus, costs to payers (the insurers - Aetna, Prudential, etc.) have increased dramatically because everyone wants medical treatment for the fact that they are 40 lbs overweight, sit on their a$$ all day eating chocolate, have high blod pressure & diabetes, yet SOMEONE should pay for some kind of magic cure-all treatment for them.

3. The irony is that it's free-enterprise marketing on the part of the pharma guys which has made every American believe they need this, that or the other pill for whatever ails them. Thus, free-marketing has driven up the costs so much that no one can now afford them.

To some extent the problem with Healthcare costs is capitalism without controls.

Whew, hard for a Republican to say that, but, I call 'em as I see 'em.”

“I'm turning into a pinko Republican.”

“'Bout as natural as Log Cabin Republicans, eh?”

“Wonder why Sarge bailed on the E-5 question? It seems simple enough to me. Gee it sure was swell talking with Sarge, but the swellin’s gone down.




Well Buck, I’m not sure exactly how valid any statistics are when taken in isolation. There are certainly a lot of factors involved with entrepreneurial activity. And I do agree, the American can-do mindset is certainly one.

But we’ve got to start somewhere. I’m not going to throw out data just because it may not tell the whole story. Government healthcare doesn’t appear to help business start-ups. Until we find some evidence that contradicts this, it would be foolish to think otherwise.




“As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the reason socialized medicine is almost a slam-dunk is because the government is, by far, the biggest payer.”
wanderer


And as I mentioned earlier on this thread, Milton Friedman makes a compelling argument that, as government has exerted more control over, and become a bigger player in, the healthcare market prices have skyrocketed.


It reminds me of this Fannie Mae fiasco. The government functionary who was supposed to oversee the program blames the problems on “a culture of corporate greed.” Oh Really? Well a jury just convicted Kenneth Lay because, as overseer for Enron, he was ultimately responsible for the health of the company. If you aren’t aware that the company is in trouble, then you shouldn’t be in charge.

So are people not going to believe that the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) was responsible for oversight here? Well that’s certainly what James B. Lockhart hopes his rhetoric will accomplish. He’s not at fault, “It’s those greedy loan guys. Let’s expand government’s influence and we’ll fix the problem.” THAT’S BRILLIANT!


Then there’s Federal Flood Insurance. It’s going bankrupt. So what do the government functionaries in charge recommend? They recommend expanding the program. THAT’S BRILLIANT!


In 1962 the FDA tightened government regulations on the pharmaceutical industry because of the Thalidomide scare. Before then, it took about 25 months and about 1 million (in 1978 dollars) dollars to develop a new drug. In 1978, it took about 8 years and about 54 million dollars to bring a drug to market due to ever tightening government regulations. And “the number of “new chemical entities” introduced each year fell by 50% since 1962.” Even though we’ve had less choice, we have had as many (if not more) unsafe drugs brought to market, and subsequently recalled, since then.

So the obvious question is what do some folks believe is the problem with high drug costs? “It’s the greedy pharmaceutical companies who are totally to blame. We need to expand government regulation to control the greedy pharmaceutical companies”, they say. THAT’S BRILLIANT!


Government gets involved, prices go up, bankruptcies happen, mismanagement occurs and what’s the solution? Expand the government’s role. THAT’S BRILLIANT!




Folks, this has happened over and over and over and there are books explaining why government has been the fastest growing segment of the economy for 30 odd years…

…The commies finally succeeded in putting drugs into our water supply.”

“You free enterprise sorts need a government that gives no tax breaks or subsidies or government contracts and no protection for competition from abroad. No military to save your a$$ when the going gets tough. Good luck you spoiled brats.”

“Hello? Pharma Industry? Finally! sorry if I focus on one aspect of your argument but that's the best I can do.

It was a couple of dangerous drugs making it to market, followed by lawsuits that bankrupted a couple of Companies, that brought in new and more stringent controls.

Thalidomide was a concern but The FDA actually did a decent job with it. They were skeptical from the get go with European studies that found it safe after testing on rats. FDA demanded another species be tested; rats.

American Women exposed to Thalidomide got it from their Dr. as a "sample" or on Military Bases overseas, I believe.

BTW - I believe it's still legal for Dr.s to give "samples" that have yet completed the FDA approval process.

On another note - The Thalidomide scare showed the need for multiple species to test a drug on. rats were fine, rabbits exhibited the same defects humans would encounter. Now at least 2 small species and 2 large species have to be tested before a drug can start human clinical trials.

So what you have is a dozen or so animal studies (carcinogenic & several types of teratology studies) before you start the 3 levels of human trials.

most Pharma Companies outsource testing. Some, especially the bigger Companies, do it themselves. The advantage of outsourcing is the FDA is a lot more trusting of the Data. In house brings down the FDA like a pissed off Hornets nest. The disadvantage is GLP practices are so intense that it's not unheard of for an Outsource Company to blow a study with, say, a "thoughtless" day in a 2yr study. Therefore the Company may decide to duplicate studies at two testing facilities. Especially if several Companies are developing the same type of drug and there's a rush to market. You cannot put all your eggs in one basket.

Costs?

I worked in Teratology at an Outsource Company. One study, lasting one Month would cost a Pharma Co. @$300,000 - $400,000. We would run 6-8 Teratology tests for one drug. the 2yr Carcinogenic studies, 1 rat & 1 mouse, would run @$1,000,000 each.

That's small animal only. Not sure what Dog & Monkey studies cost, followed by human trials.

I've seen the cost breakdown. For example, what my Company charged the Pharma for my services. It's a huge profit Margin.

Also note - 1 in 10 drugs make it to Market. I've seen a drug study get cancelled during week 100 of the carcinogenic study, after the teratology studies were completed.

So who's responsible?

Damn good question. I feel the studies are necessary. If necessary, then the 1 in 10 pass rate adds tremendously to costs. They need to recoup huge losses in the development phases. But like I said, the profit margin on testing facilities seems out of control. The testing facility charges the Pharma Co. 3-5 times the salary of anyone working on the study

I think the 1 in 10 needs to be fixed. Not sure about the profit but there is some "greed" involved.”

“And a drug takes 12-15 years to make it to Market. I wish i could have stayed in that field. The pay was phenomenal and the Health Care was Amazing! Full PPO, dental, eye.

;)”

“Good stuff, bear!

Your inside knowledge of a part of the industry is fascinating. Thanks for the info.

I’ve got PPO, dental, eye, legal, short-term, long-term, tax-sheltered healthcare supplement, tax-sheltered annuity, pension, … and six weeks paid vacation. The pay is less than at many other firms I do business with, but how can you beat those kinds of benefits?

In answer to your question of, "who is responsible?" Check out these ideas for some reasons about how it got, and gets, messed up-


One interesting point that Friedman makes is how do you measure the cost, in human life, of drugs not coming to market quickly because of all the FDA regulations? It’s easy to say that mistakes were made in the well known cases of Thalidomide and Vioxx because you can measure injuries that occur due to ingestion of the drugs. But how do you measure injuries because drugs were held up from coming to market (and how to you inform people who are too lazy to go out and buy books)?:

“The so-called “drug-lag” that has resulted is manifested in the relative availability of drugs in the United States and other countries. A careful study by Dr. William Wardell of the Center for the Study of Drug Development of the University of Rochester demonstrates, for example, that many more drugs are available in Great Britain that are not available in the United States than conversely, and that those available in both countries were on the average on the market sooner in Great Britain…”

Hmmmmm…I wonder why didn’t the AP didn’t include that bit of information when they were speculating about healthcare differences between the U.S. and U.K.? Despite socialized medicine, apparently the U.K. doesn’t have government pharmaceutical regulations as restrictive as those in the U.S. Could that be part of the reason that U.S. drug prices are so high? Hmmmmm.

“…Said Dr. Wardell in 1978,
If you examine the therapeutic significance of drugs that haven’t arrived in the U.S. but are available somewhere in the rest of the world, such as in Britain, you can come across numerous examples where the patient has suffered. For example, there are one or two drugs called Beta Blockers, which it now appears can prevent death after a heart attack – we call this secondary prevention of coronary death after myocardial infarction – which, if available here, could be saving about ten thousand lives a year in the United States.”

Free to Choose
Milton Friedman
Pages 196-7




Now here’s an interesting point that Friedman makes about collusion between private interests and government regulatory agencies:

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was actually a result of pharmacists and physicians lobbying government to implement regulations because “…patent medicines and nostrums, sold directly to the consumer by traveling medicine men and in other ways, competed with their services…”

Free to Choose
Milton Friedman
page 193




“But”, some people say, “Isn’t government regulation intended to protect us from unscrupulous businessmen?” Well yeah, that’s the point, but how well does it actually work in practice?:

The company that produced Thalidomide (Chemie Grünenthal) was fined millions of dollars back in the 60’s. The threat of bankruptcy is a pretty effective free-market incentive to produce effective medicines. But with the Vioxx scandal, Merck's liability is very likely to be lessened because the FDA will share a percentage of the responsibility. And THAT is one of the major benefits the pharmaceuticals were after when they lobbied government to create the FDA; decreased product liability. The cost of complying with government regulation just gets passed on to the consumer.

“…Granted all this, may these costs not be justified by the advantage of keeping dangerous drugs off the market, of preventing a series of Thalidomide disasters? The most careful empirical study of this question that has been made, by Sam Peltzman, concludes that the evidence is unambiguous: that the harm done has greatly outweighed the good. He explains his conclusion partly by noting that ”the penalties imposed by the marketplace on sellers of ineffective drugs before 1962 seems to have been sufficient to have left little room for improvement by a regulatory agency.” After all, manufacturers of Thalidomide ended up paying many tens of millions of dollars in damages – surely a strong incentive to avoid any similar episodes. Of course mistakes will still happen – the Thalidomide tragedy was one – but so will they under government regulation…”

Free to Choose
Milton Friedman
pages 198-9

The FDA didn’t protect us from Vioxx (nor from many other less well-reported instances).
http://www.adrugrecall.com/news/vioxx-fda-whistleblower.html




Here’s where human behavior plays an interesting role in government regulation:

“…Increasingly (pharmaceutical companies) must rely on drugs with high volume sales…The evidence confirms what general reasoning strongly suggests. It is no accident that the FDA, despite the best of intentions, operates to discourage the development and prevent the marketing of new and potentially useful drugs.

Put yourself in the position of an FDA official charged with approving or disapproving a new drug. You can make two very different mistakes:
1. Approve a drug that turns out to have unanticipated side effects resulting in the death or serious impairment of a sizable number of persons.
2. Refuse approval of a drug that is capable of saving many lives or relieving great distress and that has no untoward side effects.
If you make the first mistake – approve a Thalidomide – your name will be spread over the front page of every newspaper. You will be in deep disgrace. If you make the second mistake, who will know it?... In view of the contrast between the abuse poured on the European drug companies that sold Thalidomide and the fame and acclaim that came to the woman who held up approval of Thalidomide in the United States (Dr. Frances O. Kelsey, given a gold medal for Distinguished Government Service by John F. Kennedy), is there any doubt which mistake you will be more anxious to avoid?...This inevitable bias is reinforced by the reaction of the pharmaceutical industry. The bias leads to unduly stringent standards. Getting approval becomes more expensive, time-consuming, and risky. Research on new drugs becomes less profitable. Each company has less to fear from the research efforts of its competitors. Existing firms and existing drugs are protected from competition. New entry is discouraged. Research that is done will be concentrated on the least controversial, which means least innovative, of the new possibilities.”

Free to Choose
Milton Friedman
pages 196-9


The politicians can point to successes such as protecting consumers from the greedy pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical companies make record profits while passing the cost of government regulation onto the consumer. Politicians and government bureaucrats increase their own personal job security through government growth. And the consumer pays the bill.

Oh, yeah… and Thalidomide is back on the market again.






Boy, I can hear some people now:
“Arclite why do you have to make such lengthy posts?”

And, of course, my favorite reaction:
“That information is meaningless. Friedman is a “conservative” puppet… dang right we gotta create government regulations in order to stop those greedy pharmaceutical companies.””

“Sarge: If I had an E-5 rating, what am I (besides a giant tick burrowing up your hindparts)?” - arclite

Obsessed with me, and yourself.

Oh, and by the way, it's not a "rating", it's a "grade". Since you're obsessed with proper definitions, you should not have screwed that up. Don't tell me it's the same thing either, because it's not. Even in the military they are used interchangeably, albeit, incorrectly. They are often misused as synonymns for one another. Within a few months of joining the Army I was a Specialist (rating/rank), and an E-3(grade/paygrade). Ever hear of that before? Doubtful, I was an exception to the rule. In peacetime, military regulations do not allow one to be an E-4 before 12 months of duty (unless you complete certain types of training before basic training, which I did not do), but they quickly promoted me to Specialist nonetheless. Eat my shorts wordsmith.”

“For the record, because I know everyone deeeeeply cares, I used to be adamantly anti-government healthcare, and now I don't think it's a bad idear. - Buck

Buck, GET OUT OF CALIFORNIA IMMEDIATELY!!!”

“Wonder why Sarge bailed on the E-5 question? It seems simple enough to me. Gee it sure was swell talking with Sarge, but the swellin’s gone down. - arclite

Well, obsessive one, I just got back from a mini-vacation with my wife for our anniversary. So, your swellin's gone down huh? When I'm not around, huh? I thought you looked a little comfortable in that dress. You should direct your sexual energy elsewhere arclite, I'm not interested in you.”

“Obsessive, Sarge? Gee and here the rest of us had just gotten over the lack of your presence.

We had just got through sobbing, and had moved on to discussing the thread subject, when up you pop with your obsessive compulsion to lie.

You needed to spend some time taking a break from TT by doing that research on the web. Did you buy a little Army hat and tin medals while you were gone?


An E-5 rating would make me a Petty Officer Second Class.

When I first asked what your rating was, there’s another answer you could have given. But you obviously don’t even know what an occupational specialty is all about.

You wanted to make sure you did enough research not to screw up the answer really obviously.

No dice Duke. And you had to make some sort of bluster about giving out “private” information.

Now look at you… fresh from internet research…giving out “private” information on a subject about which you obviously have no first-hand knowledge.



The clue was when I asked about an E-5 rating…not a rank…not a pay grade… a rating. That’s what the Navy calls it.

An E-5 is most definitely a pay grade, but anyone in the military would have known what I was talking about when I said an E-5 rating. No sergeant I ever worked with would be that ignorant.


YOU RANK AMATEUR IMPOSTER!


The conversation here has progressed. We’re using some economical-type words you won’t comprehend. Why don’t you go home now and play with your peasquirter.”

“It takes a special mentality to want the government to take care of you all the time.


”

“Arclite - Before you sent your question (pathetic as it was), I sent DeadNBloated an email telling him I was going away for the night for the anniversary. Do you trust him? I do. Perhaps he could tell us if "I lied", as you say - or you are "just plain wrong", as I say.

You're making a bigger fool of yourself than you think. You're making stupid assumptions. In this entire conversation, you make the same assumption about me over and over. At least 3 times on this website, if you had read my posts in the past, you wouldn't have made that mistake, unless you're a complete idiot. Maybe you can guess what that assumption is. Probably not since you're so self absorbed in trying to make me wrong, about an off topic subject, you're making stupid assumptions. That is what someone who reads books would do, but doesn't live life.
last edited: 5/27/06 7:04:24 PM”

“DeadNBloated - Which is correct?

1. I lied?
2. arclite is wrong about me lying, and therefore owes me an apology?”

“This is kinda' unfortunate... I am really interested in discussions related to Healthcare... and now our thread has been hijacked to talk about this other stuff.

Why don't you guys start your own thread, please?”

“By the way, arclite, you are wrong about "rating". You made the same mistake I said many in the military make.

http://www.bluejacket.com/usn_ratings.html

Navy Ratings

Pay Grade
Pay grade constitutes a numbering system from junior to senior, and is linear across all five branches of the U.S. military.. The lowest military enlisted pay grade is E-1 and the highest E-9 in the Army as well as the Navy. Officer pay grades include W-1 through W-5 for warrant officers and O-1 through O-10 for officers. Enlisted personnel may be promoted from enlisted to warrant officer status and in some cases directly to officer status. In example, the webmaster served as an E-1 through E-7, W-1 through W-4, and O-2 through O-6, sixteen different pay grades in a four decade career.

Rate or rank?
Rate, such as First Class Petty Officer, describes the Navy enlisted pay grade E-6. Officers do not have rates but are said to have rank. Lieutenant (rank) describes a Naval officer of pay grade O-3. The officer's occupational specialty is described in a numerical code.

In the Navy, "rating" is equivalent to "rank". Rank is the description of the level of responsibility of the soldier. It describes a pay grade, but isn't a pay grade. E5 is a paygrade. It can be described by a rate or ranking of PO3. Below on that link I provided for you since you obviously don't have a clue, you will see more specific "ratings" as you scroll down.

You sir, have been owned.

You may apologize after you admit you were wrong about this and about your claim that I lied.
last edited: 5/27/06 7:40:09 PM”

“Wanderer - Direct that to arclite. He's obsessed. I have no intention of starting a thread for people who are obsessed with me. That thread already exists, "Sarge Takes On All Comers". Feel free to sell the idea to arclite. Hey, I thought you put me on ignore wanderer.
last edited: 5/27/06 7:41:23 PM”

“No Sarge, it's more for you than anyone.

My sense is that you take every thread here into an opportunity to do your Christian converting preaching bullsht.

The name of this thread, SARGE, in case you can't read, is Government Healthcare, LOL.

So... what you should do is participate as a normal human being...meaning stick to the subject, or, make a reference to how your religeon solves all these problems and ask the reader to join you in a discussion at thread # ### entitled JDSGYTEFDVSYT....

Stop being an evangalist and denying it. It's not becoming.”

“Um, I think you're confusing this thread with this thread: http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread/44180,5.php where USA (not me) brought up judgement day.

You may apologize when ready.”

“If you need help getting the foot out of your mouth, ask arclite, b/c he needs help too. You guys can pull together like you're playing tug-o-war.”

“Sorry Sarge, you are correct, and I apologize for any mis-statements on my part.

You did not hijack this thread to preach converion to Christianiaty.

You hijacked it for other purposes.. but I still stand corrected and still offer my apologies. I was just so used to your preaching that I made assumptions... not a good move on my part!”

“Apology accepted.

I disagree that I "hijacked" it at all. I believe I was just responding to arclite and so il hiker (who began the personal attacks), but it's not worth going over that again.”

“YAAA! Apology accepted!

Sarge & Wanderer are buds!

Who'da' thunk it?”

“By the way, wanderer, "preaching" as you call it is what I do. It's part of me. If you don't like it, I really (truly) am sorry about that. I sincerely wish you'd put me on ignore rather than be stressed by my personality. I have to deal w/ people "not" preaching on here, but I accept people for who they are - I trust it's in God's hands. I'm sorry you don't accept me for who I am, but I cannot change just for you.”

“Sarge, in my book that's cool, you want to preach? Then GO FOR IT! Be the very best preacher you can be! I'm ON YOUR SIDE!

Now, having said that... there are times one preaches, and then, there are times one (restrains) themself a little.

This website, Sarge, is a generic backpacking website. Most people come here to chat about backpacking-related issues...they don't come here to be preached to about their religeous beliefs.

You can make some good contacts here for conversion... but if you take an "extremist" perspective, then you will (are) turning off most backpackers.

If this is a "recruiting" site for you, why don't you say so?”

“Like I said. It's who I am. It's not about "recruiting" as you now call it. I am a Christian. My life is about God. As I've said previously, I don't think I can "convert" people - only God can do that. Nevertheless, Christianity is who I am. This is a "campfire", right? If I was sitting at a campfire, and you told me Christians will be judged based on their actions (stealing the discussion from the other thread), I would interject what I believe the Bible says, which is contrary to that. It's not about preaching or recruiting, it's who I am.
last edited: 5/27/06 8:19:03 PM”

“arclite - After you read above, one more thing regarding this comment from you:

An E-5 rating would make me a Petty Officer Second Class. When I first asked what your rating was, there’s another answer you could have given. But you obviously don’t even know what an occupational specialty is all about.

That is another thing you are wrong about. Occupational Specialty is another thing all together.”

““DeadNBloated - Which is correct?

1. I lied?
2. arclite is wrong about me lying, and therefore owes me an apology?”

I've had six Amber Bachs and three Guinness Extra Stouts so forgive me if I'm confused but, what's the question?

Your e mail said, "I'm going away til tomorrow night for our 3 year anniversary ("Thank you, thank you very much. Couldn't have done it without my wife.").

Fri, May 26 2006 10:40:34 AM -0700 (PDT)"

What this means i'm not sure. What day is it anyway?”

“Thanks - that is all arclite needed to know.

I shall await is admittance to being wrong and his apology.

I just enjoyed a glass of wine. Quite refreshing after a day in the yard. (next time I'll choose a cold beer)”

“Hey Dead, you sure you're not a politician?


Yo, wanderer (et. al). Any thoughts about the healthcare ideas I posted? TAKE BACK THE NIGHT!


I must apologize, Sarge. I've been having a bit of fun and I fear that I’ve been hard on you. After all, it is Memorial Day weekend. So even though you don’t know the difference between rate and rating, I apologize.

Sarge, I’d really be interested in your professional opinion. What do you think about nine by nineteen? I mean, I have some very mixed feelings about the subject.”

““Hey Dead, you sure you're not a politician?"

Why? Because I was drunk or clueless? Or both?”

“I agree the FDA needs to be fixed. It would be so much better if it was a completely independent organization. That said, I think it would be far more dangerous if the FDA didn't exist.

Have the details of the Vioxx case been fully revealed? I am speculating here:

I'm almost positive Merck developed/tested this drug In-House. If they falsified data to pass the drug a computer trail would most likely reveal questionable "edits" that the FDA would see in its review. If Merck QA/QC Dept. missed it somehow

There is a chance that a Study Director (Ph.D career Scientist) falsified the data and successfully hid the facts.

He/She faces prison time for a felony and most likely would never work again.

There's a chance FDA F'ed up. They would face the same penalties as the aforementioned Study Director.

There's a chance no one missed anything and "#&%!$ happens".

i think it's a very rare occurance where a drug gets through the approval process b/c of falsification of data.

This is another reason where outsourcing is a good idea. The Third party has a lot less reason to falsify data. we lost Eli Lily because they didn't like what happened on one study. Basically blamed us for their animals dying from the Drug.

Maybe it should be illegal for Companies to test their own drug.

Gotta go.”

“So even though you don’t know the difference between rate and rating, I apologize. - arclite

It's obvious I have proven that it is you who does not know what a grade is. It's obvious that you were wrong about me lying. I've proven you wrong on both counts. You are wrong about so many things, it makes me question how much of what you say (on topic) is actually truthful. Probably not much.”

“Nah, Dead, that pretty much describes me and I'm no politician. I know that comes as quite a shock to many folks on this site.




Bear, I'm busy this weekend and cannot devote the time right now to respond. I'll talk to ya tommorrow. I'm having WAAAAY too much fun with my buddy, Sarge right now. Thanks for sticking in the game though.






Welly, welly, welly, I am puzzled by a sergeant who gleefully says “I own you” after having to research a simple military question and then finding information on a third-party website. What branch did you say you were in, Sarge? Was it professional?

I am puzzled over the fact that you were unfamiliar with the term rating until you found the site you reference, but I understand that you’ve been out celebrating. You sure did a nice job of informing us what information you discovered on the site, though.

I understand how a sergeant could be confused about the term rating. There are a number of sites that confuse the terms. That’s what made the question so interesting.

But do you know what makes it really easy? Say I want to learn information about the Army. Of course I go to the official Army website. Say I can’t find the information there…

…”DOH”, I say to myself, “why didn’t I check the DOD website?” That site has all the branches in one place.


That bluecoat site was pretty cool, but I’d think that you could have saved yourself a lot of searching if you’d first gone to the DOD site. Because when I think military, I think DOD. That site sure has a lot of information. And being the DOD, it has the definitive answers. Know what I mean?

Because there sure is a lot of misinformation out there.


So, how you doing researching the nine by nineteen question? I know I had a really hard time searching the web to find the answer to that one. And yet, for a battle hardened weapondry expert, it's so obvious. Heck, it's obvious to anyone who knows weapons.

Keep plugging away there, Sarge.
last edited: 5/28/06 8:34:23 PM”

“I'll get the popcorn...”

“I am puzzled over the fact that you were unfamiliar with the term rating until you found the site you reference, but I understand that you’ve been out celebrating.

My definition was no different after I gave my answer. It's a pay grade.

You are wrong. Plain and simple. You won't admit it, that's predictable. You always are dodging the fact that you were proven wrong about why you say I hadn't posted in a day.

Saying I'm wrong is one thing. I proved you were wrong.

But, to prove you wrong ONCE AGAIN, I will copy and paste from the DOD site as you suggested.

Basic training is followed by a specialized or advanced training phase that provides recruits with a specific area of expertise or concentration. In the Army and Marines, this area is called a military occupational specialty; in the Navy it is known as a rate; and in the Air Force it is simply called an Air Force specialty.

The occupational speciality is independent of pay grade and independent of rank.

Also from that site: Do not confuse rank with pay grades, such as E-1, W-2 and O-5. Pay grades are administrative classifications used primarily to standardize compensation across the military services. The "E" in E-1 stands for "enlisted" while the "1" indicates the pay grade for that position. The other pay categories are "W" for warrant officers and "O" for commissioned officers. Some enlisted pay grades have two ranks.

After that I say to you ... "BAM!"

Also from that site from a press release: "There are 120 Air Force specialty codes that will transfer into 37 Army MOSs, and the Navy has 112 ratings that will transfer into 42 Army MOSs," said Col. Norvel Dillard, chief of the Army's Enlisted Accessions Division. "Those are 'Job One,' but we're looking at others as well. We're also looking for officers, primarily junior officers."

Are you telling me there are 112 Navy "ratings", from what? E-1 to E-112? Um, I don't think so .... A rating is akin to an MOS (occupational speciality).

Arclite - It's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about. You made the SAME stupid make that so many people in the military make. THIS, coming from somebody who believes we should only use original meanings of words, not common meanings. What a goof!

Of course, you will deny you are wrong about any of this, you will continue to ignore the fact that you were wrong about my not posting this weekend, although I provided you with excellent evidence that you are incorrect.

typical”

“Here is another site with specifics that shows rating is the MOS, not the pay grade:

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ratings/navrate.html

You sir were thinking of "rate" as in "pay rate". That is different from "rating".
last edited: 5/28/06 9:14:27 PM”

“Your original question: "If I had an E-5 rating, what am I (besides a giant tick burrowing up your hindparts)?"

No, it would make you a second rate wordsmith.”

“Want more?

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjob1/a/navyjobs.htm”

“Here's another:

http://mil.ccc.cccd.edu/navy_ratings_and_degrees.pdf”

“Here's more ...

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-united-states-navy-ratings

The United States Navy classifies its enlisted personnel with a system of rating (job speciality) and rate (military rank). For example, an Aerographer's Mate First Class would be AG1; the AG indicates the rating (Aerographer's Mate) while the 1 indicates the rate (First Class Petty Officer).

Note, it DOES NOT SAY that the E-6 indicates the rate, as you would claim.
last edited: 5/28/06 9:25:01 PM”

“arclite - It's time you admitted you don't know what you're talking about and were wrong.

Plus, you owe me several apologies now.”

“No sergeant I ever worked with would be that ignorant. - arclite

Also, since none of the sergeants you worked with would have correctly identified the meaning, that shows a lot about the quality of soldiers you hung around. It also demonstrates what you consider to be reliable sources as untrustworthy.”

“Bump for arclite.

Recap (paraphrasing):

1. arclite asked: "If I had an E-5 rating, what am I (besides a giant tick burrowing up your hindparts)?"

2. sarge replied: "It's a 'grade', not a 'rating'".

3. arclite responded: "The clue was when I asked about an E-5 rating…not a rank…not a pay grade… a rating. That’s what the Navy calls it."

4. sarge owned him with: "'Rating' refers to MOS, which is not the paygrade. 'Rate' is the paygrade. Therefore, the question should have been "If I had an E-5 rate, what am I (besides a giant tick burrowing up your hindparts)?" A common mistake even by those in the military.

5. arclite came back with: "Your sources are bad, you should use the DOD website."

6. sarge quoted DOD showing the following actual quotes: "In the Army and Marines, this area is called a military occupational specialty; in the Navy it is known as a rate" and "Do not confuse rank with pay grades, such as E-1, W-2 and O-5. Pay grades are administrative classifications used primarily to standardize compensation across the military services." and "the Navy has 112 ratings that will transfer into 42 Army MOSs"

If arclite is correct and the E-5 refers to "rating" (not "rate" as he should have called it), then there must be 112 ratings in the Navy, E-1 through E-112. LOL!

The bottom line is the self-proclaimed wordsmith arclite made a common mistake that many soldiers make, but in trying to prove his self-worth to everyone, ended up sticking his foot in his mouth. Ordinarily I would have let such a simple and common mistake go, but arclite went on and on and on about the importance of using words with their original meaning, not their common meaning. LOL! What a goofball! (No arclite, that's not a reference to the tranquilizer)”

“Sarge, didn’t you have anything better to do on Memorial Day except obsess about bolstering your argument on semantics?

FACT: I asked you what was your rating and you didn’t have a clue about ratings until I showed you the way.

And you STILL won’t tell us anything about nine by nineteen. It’s simple it’s easy, and it doesn’t take but two seconds to tell me what you know about the subject.


Or will the obvious argument be: “I ain’t answering nothing until you apologize.”


I apologize. Please, give me your advice. Please, tell me what you initially think about two (any two) issues about the subject. I’ll be more specific about my questions once you come on board.












“That said, I think it would be far more dangerous if the FDA didn't exist.”
Bearmagnet

Bear, I’m interested in knowing what hard evidence you posses that allows you to feel that way. Because this sounds more like an opinion based on a feeling.

Check out the link I provide about Vioxx.

Suzy Cohen writes a column on pharmacy info that our paper picks up. She wrote a piece (sometime last week?) where she says that there have been many recalls of drugs approved by the FDA.

Then we’ve got the evidence provided by Friedman. He backs up his FDA information with many more examples of the rising costs, loss of choice, and monopolistic behavior that happen to a business sector once the government becomes involved.

So why do YOU believe, “it would be far more dangerous if the FDA didn't exist.”? What evidence do you have?”

“I have no problem with goverment (heck I work for the government) but I want some sort of check and balance on the doffus's I have to deal with.

I see agencies with no check or balance (say the Federal Air Transportation Airport Security Service) (go ahead figure the acronym). Want to improve "service" at airports?

Have an independent agency staff complaint booths inside the secure area. When joe B. get through he can file a complaint (make it a quick short process). When the level of complaints reaches say 10% of the passengers seen in a time period (say quarterly). The FAA reduces the number of allowed rotations at that airport say...10%.
Rotations are the number of landings and takeoffs. That is where the taxes (i.e. INCOME) is made. So you get some airport like Atlanta Horrorsfield cut their income 10% for a quarter...they will find a way to give better service.”