Side note: several years ago, Obama, while a senator, made a public statement aired on a documentary about Darfur. He said, basically, that we (congressional members) can do something about Darfur if Americans write letters to their representatives. It all seemed so reasonable until I began to think about it more. You see, congressional members have better access and better information to the Darfur crisis then we did/do, hence the reason Obama is there talking about the confict. Yet Obama wants politicians to be told that they need to prioritize the conflict. Ok, still sorta reasonable. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized what exactly is the conflict being prioritized against? I mean, our congressional members are human, with a conscience, with all available information at hand and are aware of the crisis via the media, like us. Our representative form of Democracy gives them the authority to act on their own conscience. So the question that begs is: What exactly is preventing them from having empathy for and then acting on the disaster that is Darfur? Something has to have some serious teeth in it to be so entrenched that Obama thinks we need to write letters for. Long story short, the only thing I can come up with is financial support of and personal contact with those that support their “profession” of being a lawmaker. Their campaign promises really don’t have that much teeth, but in-person handshake commitments to persons that represent money given are huge. Citizen letters are the only thing an elected official would feel he/she needs to put aside financial commitments made to campaign supporters. In other words, the real first amendment to the constitution is: 0.8.2b) we the people must also write letters to our elected officials so that they can act on our behalf; otherwise, they must take care of money interests first.

My point is: Kyl is doing his duty. Hurray for America!

Note the decrease in funding and staffing of the FDA during the last administration, and then blaming them when they were inefficient. Why are physicians using so many drugs “off label”? Research has not supported the use of drugs for a disease process, but Pharmaceutical companies push their use for these non-researched used, only to assure that they increase their own profits.

Why should a patient receive treatment that is less effective, why should a patient be given drugs that mask symptoms but do not address a cure (yes I know sometimes there is not cure)…but if there is, it only makes sense to cure an ailment that to perpetuate a faux treatment.

If a specific procedure cost $5k to cure, but only $200/month to treat symptoms, there is a tipping point where the more expensive one time cost to cure outweighs the lower cost symptomatic treatment. And that is only the medical side, if the one time cost allows the individual to have a better quality of life, be able to work / contribute to the society instead of drain the system, that is what Cost Effective Research / Treatment is about.

Kyl is only looking at short term political rhetoric and looks pretty stupid doing that. He is WRONG!