Forget William Shatner, Byron Dorgan Does It Sexier

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzBhZTA3NzRhYmUyMjExMDEzZWM0ZDQ4NTNlMTNiZTY=
.
Is there any truth to this?

You really have nothing to add, do you?

And you want to complain about Obama calling out the White House press corps for being more interested in trivial tabloid crap rather than relevant, critical issues.

Good lord…

By the way, I notice how old Dorgan got a pass for his “you don’t like it, leave” comment about trying KSM in NYC. But IOKIYAAD

How does it work? Do you sit in front of yer comphewter 24/7 hitting the refresh button every 10 seconds?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/71353-mark-penn-got-6-million-from-stimulus?page
.
Here’s something else that prob should get some Swampland attention.

Sen. Dorgan is absolutely right, by the way. I don’t watch television outside of about 3-4 hours a week and I knew all of those drug commercials pretty much verbatim. I think there were some commercials that had a positive effect, like the early Viagra ones that raised awareness of ED and basically de-mystified the subject so that men could talk with their doctors comfortably about it, but pretty much everything else since then has basically driven up the costs of health care for no reason.
.
Think about it. If you watch one of these commercials and become convinced that you need Symbalta or whatever, then walk into your doctor office and specifically ask for that by name, what is that doctor going to do? He/She is going to prescribe it (baring any adverse medical conditions). If they don’t, you’re liable to go to a different doctor that will, and they likely don’t have the time or inclination to try to talk you out of it, especially if you are the kind of person who is convinced they need a drug based on a television commercial.
.
Doctors should be the one deciding which medications you need based on the symptoms you have, not the other way around. Otherwise, what’s the point of making them prescription drugs when everyone can self-diagnose?

The paternalism in your comment is stunning.

And, illegals are covered under the House bill.
.
Obama lies!!! Or is he going to veto the bill if the Senate passes a simliar coverage clause?
.
We can only hope that Obama and the rest of the liberal libards are smoked out.

And I’ve yet to see a Swamp post on Harry Reid’s “slavery” nonsense. It was on C-SPAN, it’s about health care, it’s offensive. Why the silence?

“And I’ve yet to see a Swamp post on Harry Reid’s “slavery” nonsense. It was on C-SPAN, it’s about health care, it’s offensive.”
.
Why was what Reid said offensive and to whom?

Comparing GOP members who, after all, are simply taking the position that the American people seem to be taking on Obamacare to those who filibustered civil rights legislation and who were for slavery is simply over the top.
.
But of course, the Swamp posters will tell us everything that Michelle Bachmann has to say.

Think about it for a minute, Spob. If Big Pharma doesn’t improve the bottom line by advertising, why do it? The way to improve the bottom line is to sell more product, and that’s the purpose of the ads — to persuade more people to buy their product. Since their product can’t be bought over the counter, increasing sales requires increasing prescriptions. And surely you don’t think the ads are persuading physicians to prescribe the stuff. It follows that sales go up because people see the ads and ask for prescriptions for what’s advertised.
.
So it’s actually Big Pharma that’s taking advantage of the credulousness of the populace.
.
Or maybe you think that “paternalism” consists of having a physician decide what’s best for you rather than doing it yourself. Lemme tell ya, when it comes to medications I trust the doctor a lot more than myself. I may just be lucky, but most of the time the doctor will spend a minute or two discussing the likely benefits and side effects with me, so the two of can be sure it’s the right medicine. If that’s paternalism, give me more of it.

bobell, do you really think that I don’t know that Big Pharma does ads to stimulate demand?
.
But I don’t appreciate your apparent desire to keep Big Pharma from communicating with a free people. Ads stimulate people to ask questions of their doctor, which can lead to better lives for people.

Give it a rest, Spob. Nobody is falling for your mock-outrage at being compared to the Dixiecrats. Sorry.

Not everything that Bachmann says. I mean . . .

Bachmann just an old lovable fuzz ball any way.

Well, MS, Bachmann has gotten a lot of play in here–and Harry Reid’s comment, which is in a long line of intemperate comments from him (e.g., “loser”) doesn’t get mentioned. Bachmann is basically a back-bencher, and Reid is the Majority Leader. This also has to do with health care, something which Swampland has focused on.
.
But you choose to focus on a rhetorical device . . . .
.
Seems to me that you cannot defend the silence.
.
And by the way, what of Dorgan’s comment?

Time to stop beating around the bush, MS. Spob clearly has you and your liberal bias pegged.

I didn’t say “bias” did I? I just raise a point. Perhaps there is a good explanation, which is all I seek. But thanks square1 for the support. MS should be able to defend the story selection, n’est-ce pas.

But I don’t appreciate your apparent desire to keep Big Pharma from communicating with a free people. Ads stimulate people to ask questions of their doctor, which can lead to better lives for people.

Oh please.
.
There is nothing about prescription drug commercials that “communicate” to a “free people” (as opposed to oppressed people?) other than convincing you to buy their product before you have even spoken to a doctor about whether you need it at all. But seriously, Spob, what is “paternalistic” about letting doctors do their job?
.
These are prescription drugs with serious, life-altering risks. Do you recall the fact that Celebrex, Crestor, Fosamax, Paxil, Plavix, Procrit, Vioxx, Zelnorm, and Zyprexa were all drugs that were marketed to the US population via TV commercials and then were subsequently removed from the market due to serious side effects and/or FDA action?
.
How many people died? How many people have to die? And how much higher do prescription drug costs have to go before we start questioning why we allow these companies to directly market their significantly dangerous products to the general population? When was the last time you saw a cigarette commercial on TV? Now, when was the last time you saw a commercial for a drug that can cause serious blood infections (some of which were fatal)? I don’t remember them talking about fatal blood infections during the rheumatoid arthritis commercial for Enbrel, but I guess that doesn’t matter to a free people.

Once again, redraven, your paternalism is stunning. Freedom creates choices, and not all of them are good. I, for one, like choices.

SPOB — I’m sure you realize that your position on prescription drugs, extended to the entirety of our economy, would result in such things as automobiles that catch on fire when in a collision from behind, and people dying from motorcycle accidents because they exercised their freedom not to wear helmets (What do you call a biker who doesn’t wear a helmet? An organ donor), and babies choking to death in poorly designed cribs … Oh, wait, all of that has already happened. If it’s paternalism to require that every unit in an apartment building has two means of exit (in case of a fire), mark me down as a paternalist. People do need to be saved from themselves. The issue is how much saving they need.
.
I’m sure this will surprise you, but I agree with what I understand to be your position that there’s no need to ban advertising of prescription drugs. What is needed is more information, sorta like those anti-smoking ads that ran back before cigarette advertising was banned (and I’m very ambivalent about that ban as well) but built into the commercial, and not by having some speed-reader mutter it into a microphone while the video shows beautiful people romping in beautiful vistas. I like to delude myself that a well-informed populace can sort out advertisers’ claims and decide for themselves whether to use a given product. But there are two flaws in that particular view: (1) A big hunk of the populace isn’t well informed, and (2) Advertising is for persuasion, not informing.
.
In short, this isn’t as simple a question as may appear. And simply shouting “paternalism” doesn’t advance the argument; it’s just name-calling.