BillsFanM.D.

It's not....just ask DWS.

sort of. If this physician is involved in managed care and they refuse to see a patient (without cause) the physician can be reprimanded or removed from the plan. This is especially prevalent is what are termed full risk practices. these are high risk/potentially high reward programs certain insurances offer physicians. There is an 'incentive' to get rid of costly patients and this is closely monitored. If a doc refuses to see a new patient in this environment; the 'next' doc can appeal to the insurance and the 'full risk' costs roll to the other doc. A pattern of this behavior will get the doc booted from the plan. If a doc had a 'cash' office....say a plastics guy who does only nose jobs....he/she could fire patients as they see fit.

Wow. A 200 lb patient is too much. they had three injuries in their office? What in the world are they doing lifting ambulatory 200-250 lb people? I assume this woman walked into the office and I imagine she can 'lift' herself onto an exam table. She's not 500lbs. This smells of an office that is trying to weed out 'difficult' patients to me. I know I have zero specifics about what really happened but this seems like a pretty shallow policy....and I suspect there is much more to this than pure weight. I'd have to get rid of half my patient panel based on that.....

Come October 11th....I'm not so sure he'll be fist-bumping Biden. In fact, we can all be fairly certain that Obama has hung his head many times over his own VP pick. I strongly suspect he will be doing so again very soon. You also have to acknowledge that Obama even 'considering' debating Ryan makes one think that he feels the need to 'knock him down.' Why else would he even consider risking it? If Ryan has already 'punched' Obama's ticket then what's the point? Why chance Ryan blowing him up in a debate? (Not saying it would be that way but it could). Ryan does appeal to a lot of folks and he, and Romney, bring an alternative to the table. As you said, there are lots of voters and time/November will tell.

Death...not so much. Though I suspect the 'intensity' of debate will go up by say.....a factor of 1000. This could be very interesting. Get 'yer popcorn ready.

I've posted a bit so I'll bite. -Never assumed anything. In fact, I said that legalizing steroids wouldn't change anything....you'd still have some doing it and some not. The barbarian and I discussed this. -Ignorance is bliss. Thanks for that. -Your acl reference is wrong on two counts. One.....I (did anyone?) never implied that steroid use/hgh use didn't help performance/recovery. I (we) just pointed out what is known in terms of health risks (at least that's all I did). There is zero questions it 'helps' the athlete short term. Two....it does raise a red flag. But 'cheating' is not the only rationale/reason here. Advanced rehab programs/devices.... Advanced surgical techniques (scopes vs open procedure being the greatest advancement in decades)....HIGHLY skilled and specialized surgeons who do nothing but these surgeries on the BEST athletes in the world. There are reasons these athletes fly all over the country to see just one or two docs. Those surgeons are the best of the best and I believe that has an impact. -the earth is flat..... -'the destructive force of denial......" I never denied steroids/hgh are rampant. -worm food.....indeed. -your point about 'other' painkillers and anti-inflammatories is very valid. These are abused across the spectrum of patients (pro athletes to joe schmo's). NSAIDS, in a small nutshell, can cause gi bleeding, renal injury, and hypertension just to name a few. Lots of health problems attributed to excessive use. Narcotics have obvious concerns.....see Brett Favre and hydrocodone as an example. Good point. But....don't confuse legal nsaids, with legal corticosteroids (both anti-inflammatories which have zero anabolic effect) or legal narcotics (pure painkillers) with illegal steroids (no anti-inflammatory effect and strong anabolic effect).

You're welcome. I concur with you. It's a health risk plain and simple. It also never ends. You 'need' the juice to get to college; then you need it to excel; then you need it to improve your draft status; then you need it to be a starter; then....... then your ego won't allow (most I presume) you to be 'average.' It adds up to years of abuse, provided you haven't hit the wall earlier as a result of the stuff. Years of abuse are not going to have good long term effects.

at the expense of his health and/or life? As they say...you can't take it with you.

You received corticosteroids.....NOT anabolic steroids. BIG difference. I think this is the same 'thought' that the earlier poster had re: brain tumors 'shrinking' under the effect of steroids. Again....these are corticosteroids (like prednisone) not anabolic ones that athletes use. Corticosteroids are like 'supercharged' motrin (and yes i'm simplifying). they are anti-inflammatories and have nothing to do with building muscle mass. Corticosteroids can be used to reduce brain swelling around a tumor but do not affect the tumor, per se, with few exceptions---> Certain lymphomas are responsive to corticosteroids (in concert with other chemo agents) but I suspect the prior poster was referencing the swelling in the brain tissue around a 'typical' solid brain tumor. This is potentially a topic that can go 'round and 'round forever. Medically....there is no question that use of anabolic steroids is bad for you long term. Psychologically (roid rage, depression), physically (tendon ruptures) and in terms of long term mortality/risk (cardiac effects, etc) are merely a few. Much is hard to quantify... but the evidence that is there is strong that you shouldn't mess with this stuff. Just my 2 'medical' pennies.

Yes. Not 'normal' or 'typical' but natural. I would include compact sources still legit. I.e. protein shakes etc. If you are trying to build muscle mass the best source of calories is protein. You need to be in positive balance. I.e. take in more than than you consume and work your tail off. Sort of like what Maybin claims to do every time he adds 30 lbs of muscle.

Given the 'option' as noted in the article leaves the games in the same predicament. An uneven playing field. As it says, each athlete would have a decision to make and I am sure some would choose not to. Hence, we have a field of athletes with varying levels of chemical enhancement; in addition to those 'natural' athletes. Sure....we 'know' who is using but it still would be far from an even playing field. Call me a purist, but I'd rather admire an athlete(s) with natural ability maximized by his/her own work competing against same.

I'm interested in this response as well....

Looks like Rangel has called out Biden on his 'chains' comment. Rangel told the The Perez Notes radio show: “Was he talking about slavery? You bet your ass he was. Was he using the vernacular? Yes, he was. Did he think it was cute? Yes, he did. Was it something stupid to say? You bet your life it was stupid." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/24/rangel-calls-biden-chains-comments-tupid/?intcmp=trending

Completely wrong is a tough target. It may be 'wrong'....in every visceral sense....but legally it will be 'right.' Regardless of 'who' is sued here, it doesn't take a 'rocket surgeon' to determine something funny is going on with these executive orders.

Not only does she flat out lie...she is completely condescending ("Oh....Anderson, Anderson") to a reporter who is doing nothing but presenting her with her own false statements. The real laugher is at the end when she finishes her argument by stating that the Romney camp is 'disingenuous.' Especially, keeping in mind that this is Anderson Cooper doing the interview....not Sean Hannity.

I suppose it's a chain of command thing....starting with the Napolitano. She 'carries' out his orders and she did recently testify before House Judiciary Committee. Perhaps cross examining her will be an easier target. The issue, however, is clearly 'above' her head and seems to be much broader than this issue. Ultimately, I'm not sure so I guess I'll leave your question to the lawyers here.

Agreed. I alluded to that in my original post about 'another' executive order or two taking care of this. This may really create a headache for the President..... and it certainly puts him in a position where his 'power' will need to be defined. Or better yet...where his power, per the constitution, will be confined.

very funny.

I promise....it will be the most transparent administration in history.

Saw that one too. Interesting week for sure. I imagine the higher ups will want to 'take care' of the immigration issue first. Just my guess. From article..... "In both instances, the Obama administration ordered federal law enforcement agents to break the law, to ignore the laws that they're supposed to enforce, and, in the case of the ICE agents, to actually break federal laws that say you're supposed to deport certain people," he said. "And in each case, the Obama administration seems to be doing so for political reasons."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/23/immigration-agents-file-suit-against-napolitano-over-amnesty-program/ Another constitutional hot potato for the POTUS to handle. Perhaps another executive order or two will take care of the 'legalities' here.

You sir....are neither perspicacious or sagacious.

........coming up next on "Face the Nation" with Bob Schieffer.....

Very funny lady....I'll always remember her as a 'guest star' on Scooby Doo. Probably not her best work...but I always liked it. RIP.

speaking of softballs....I don't even know where to start the jokes based on this paragraph snipped from the article. "Authorities walked around the building and found Gauthier in shorts and a short-sleeved shirt with his zipper down. An officer drew his gun when he saw Gauthier's hand in a pocket. Gauthier eventually retrieved a cellphone from the pocket."