There are many subjects to discuss, but I will not discuss all of them. My life is not long enough. This is not important enough.
I had left TH -- for about a month, from about the middle of March to about the middle of April. Then I was notified by e-mail on 4/19/08 that Doc Steech had made a comment on my 4/14/08 blog "A New 'Entitled' Class." I thought the comment odd in more ways than one. In the first place, it had absolutely nothing to do with "A New 'Entitled' Class." In the second place, the message itself was completely astonishing. I wondered, "well, what brought that on?"
The title and message of that 4/19 Steech comment went as follows:
"You are still hostile to Big Pharma
"...Friggs, which makes you anti-American.
"And a socialist.
"Give the pharmaceutical industry some slack, they develop life saving drugs, and you want them to give it away. By force of the government.
"You are a communist, Friggs.
"Shame on you, Friggles. Shame on you."
In the first place, the comment had nothing to do with the blog entry it followed. Second, it was in my opinion enough to make any red-blooded American seethe. And seethe I did. Third, the entire comment was a lie. I am not anti-American. I am not a socialist. I understand that the pharmaceutical industry has developed life-saving drugs. I do not want the industry to give it away, although I understand it is beneficent toward those who truly cannot afford their medications. I certainly do not want them to give it away by force of the government. That is perfectly ludicrous.
Steech stated in a blog comment on 4/21/08 at 8:45 p.m. that my "drugs are too expensive, and she wants to stomp her feet, pound her fists and make them cheaper. Good luck with that, F. We get it, Friggles. Drugs are expensive. You want the prices to come down. Vote for Republicans, and maybe it can come about. You want others to pay for your drugs. This is America. Pay for your own drugs, or do not use them. Period. To lobby against this great industry, and to suggest that their profits are blood money, crooked, tainted, etc. is just plain wrong. It is just plain anti-American. You are a Socialist. What you argue is what Socialists argue: from those according to their ability, to those according to their need: where have we heard these haunting words before? Simple enough? You already know I am sympathetic to this industry. I understand the issues. You don't."
Well, now. Let's start at the beginning of this tirade: my drugs are too expensive. That much I'll give you. I want to stomp my feet, pound my fists and make them cheaper? Hardly. And I have no memory of ever stomping my feet to get anything. If I did when I was a child, I would have had the snot slapped out of me. The only result that could happen if I become angry enough to slam a fist on a table is that things would bounce on the table. I make very few moves that aren't necessary. And I happen to be an adult. I could hardly pound my fists and stomp my feet with the idea of bringing down the price of drugs. That, too, is ludicrous. Can't you just see it?
Vote for Republicans? I've done so perhaps 98 percent of my voting life, beginning with none other than Nixon, with an occasional cross-over for a really good Democrat Senator or Representative. The one big adverse effect that has had on my life in recent years is that it has given me the much-hated, much-resented Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, and I believe I have described in excruciating detail about how hard I worked against it. That is a socialist plan, if I ever heard of one. I didn't want it. It does help me, but it doesn't help the poor working stiffs. However, the swarms of pharmaceutical lobbyists on hand for the vote, Tommy Thompson hanging around on the floor of the House "to answer questions" (yeah, right, Tommy) and many other underhanded shenanigans went on that night to assure the PDPs would be right there. Big Pharma was, I believe, wetting its pants in anticipation of the money to begin rolling in from use of the PDPs. Oh, and dear old Billy Tauzin. After that vote, and, I believe, after his term was up, after a decent time lapse, he became President of PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) at a salary of $2M a year. Nice work if you can get it. Reckon there was ANY quid pro quo going on that night of the vote?
Everybody knows, too, about that revolving door between Congress and the industry.
Now as far as wanting somebody else to pay for my prescriptions, hey, that would be nice, too. But I am here to tell the world that since becoming a self-sufficient adult I have paid for every drug I ever took except a few samples here and there, many, many of which wound up being dumped.
You've mentioned an expression with which I am unfamiliar: from those according to their ability, to those according to their need. I never heard them from anyone but Steech, so maybe he can explain it to me.
Steech said that I already knew he was sympathetic to the pharmaceutical industry. Actually, I had always thought he was one of those "drug detailers" rolling around from doctor to doctor. He may be, for all I know. The one thing of which I had absolutely no knowledge was the fact that his wife was a Big Pharma exec. Sarge mentioned in a comment that Steech was defending his wife about all this. As I said, I had had no idea Steech's wife had any connection with the drug industry, but, rather, believed that Steech was, indeed, one of those "drug detailers."
Another clarification I'd like to make before this is all finished, kaput, gone, six feet under, etc., ad infinitum, is that, contrary to what Steech has said, I am anything but a one-issue blogger. The issue did consume much of my free time before the PDPs came into being, but my interest really dwindled after that. And I believe the PDPs to have preceded my becoming a blogger here. Not even I could write 82 or whatever number blogs about the "greedy, evil drug companies." And, honestly, I can't say I believe them to be evil.
Now. It's getting late, I weary of this subject, and want to be shut of it.
The last comment from Steech stated as follows:
"OK, sorry for the communist remark
"That was a knee jerk and over the top response after reading what I felt was your trashing of my wife's industry.
"How's that? Are we done?
"Doc"
This was written after Steech had asked if we could call a truce, as we had about a year ago. I explained that it was not a truce, but, rather, I'd said "I'm done"; his reply was "I'm done, too" (or something similar). That's a far cry from a truce.
I told him something to the effect that the only thing that would deaden this subject forever was his apology for calling me those hideous names. What you see above is his apology, presumably. What I'd hoped for was a simple "I'm sorry for calling you a socialist, communist, anti-American, and pinko commie." Inasmuch as I have never called him a name -- at least one as repugnant as the ones he'd called me, I could not respond in like manner. There were many, many, many names I thought of, but I refrained from doing something so totally ignorant and graceless and, besides, would tar me with the same brush with which Steech had tarred himself.
However, I simply wanted to say that this is finished.
There is one other thing I wanted Steech to know: all this time he has been verbally sparring with someone who has only a public high school education from one of the most illiterate states in the Union: Louisiana.