|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 03 2016 01:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Amid public outcry over a sharp increase in the cost of the EpiPen, a life-saving drug to stop an anaphylactic allergy attack, Hillary Clinton has unveiled a plan to prevent “unjustified price hikes” for older prescription drugs.
Clinton’s proposal would create a team of representatives from federal agencies that would investigate and monitor the cost of long-available prescription drugs with little or no competition to protect consumers from so-called “price gouging”. The plan sets out criteria for determining “an excessive, outlier price increase” and a set of enforcement tools that include making alternative drugs available and imposing fines or penalties to help fund expanded access.
“Over the past year, we’ve seen far too many examples of drug companies raising prices excessively for longstanding, life-saving treatments with little or no new innovation or [research and development],” Clinton said in a statement. “It’s time to move beyond talking about these price hikes and start acting to address them.”
Last week, Clinton called on Mylan, the manufacturer of EpiPen, to reduce the cost of the medical device after reports highlighted that its price rose by 461%, from from $56.64 to $317.82, since 2007, when the company acquired the product.
In a statement, Clinton called the price hike “outrageous” a “troubling example” of pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of consumers. “Since there is no apparent justification in this case, I am calling on Mylan to immediately reduce the price of EpiPens,” Clinton said in a statement.
In response to the uproar, Mylan said it would launch a generic EpiPen version that is identical to the brand-name device but significantly less expensive, with a list price of $300 for a two-pack. The company also announced earlier that it would offer additional financial assistance, including co-payments worth $300, to patients who have to pay the full out-of-pocket price for the device.
Last year, Clinton outlined a plan to tackle the rising costs of prescription drugs amid outrage over the staggering price increase of Daraprim, a drug that treats life-threatening parasitic infection. The startup company responsible, Turing Pharmaceuticals, owned by controversial former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli, acquired the decades-old drug and raised the cost from $13.50 to $750 per pill.
That plan would deny tax breaks for pharmaceutical companies that market medicines directly to consumers, a controversial and costly practice legal only in the US and New Zealand, according to the World Health Organization. Clinton also said she would push companies to invest in research and development in exchange for federal subsidies. Source
If this policy leads to me no longer seeing ads for erection pills, I support every part that makes that happen. No longer will I see a 52 year old man throw a football through a tire swing.
|
On September 03 2016 01:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 01:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Amid public outcry over a sharp increase in the cost of the EpiPen, a life-saving drug to stop an anaphylactic allergy attack, Hillary Clinton has unveiled a plan to prevent “unjustified price hikes” for older prescription drugs.
Clinton’s proposal would create a team of representatives from federal agencies that would investigate and monitor the cost of long-available prescription drugs with little or no competition to protect consumers from so-called “price gouging”. The plan sets out criteria for determining “an excessive, outlier price increase” and a set of enforcement tools that include making alternative drugs available and imposing fines or penalties to help fund expanded access.
“Over the past year, we’ve seen far too many examples of drug companies raising prices excessively for longstanding, life-saving treatments with little or no new innovation or [research and development],” Clinton said in a statement. “It’s time to move beyond talking about these price hikes and start acting to address them.”
Last week, Clinton called on Mylan, the manufacturer of EpiPen, to reduce the cost of the medical device after reports highlighted that its price rose by 461%, from from $56.64 to $317.82, since 2007, when the company acquired the product.
In a statement, Clinton called the price hike “outrageous” a “troubling example” of pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of consumers. “Since there is no apparent justification in this case, I am calling on Mylan to immediately reduce the price of EpiPens,” Clinton said in a statement.
In response to the uproar, Mylan said it would launch a generic EpiPen version that is identical to the brand-name device but significantly less expensive, with a list price of $300 for a two-pack. The company also announced earlier that it would offer additional financial assistance, including co-payments worth $300, to patients who have to pay the full out-of-pocket price for the device.
Last year, Clinton outlined a plan to tackle the rising costs of prescription drugs amid outrage over the staggering price increase of Daraprim, a drug that treats life-threatening parasitic infection. The startup company responsible, Turing Pharmaceuticals, owned by controversial former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli, acquired the decades-old drug and raised the cost from $13.50 to $750 per pill.
That plan would deny tax breaks for pharmaceutical companies that market medicines directly to consumers, a controversial and costly practice legal only in the US and New Zealand, according to the World Health Organization. Clinton also said she would push companies to invest in research and development in exchange for federal subsidies. Source If this policy leads to me no longer seeing ads for erection pills, I support every part that makes that happen. No longer will I see a 52 year old man throw a football through a tire swing.
Oh god, no more drug commercials would be the fucking dream! Unfortunately there's way way WAYYYYYY too much money to be made from that garbage.
|
On September 03 2016 01:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 01:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Amid public outcry over a sharp increase in the cost of the EpiPen, a life-saving drug to stop an anaphylactic allergy attack, Hillary Clinton has unveiled a plan to prevent “unjustified price hikes” for older prescription drugs.
Clinton’s proposal would create a team of representatives from federal agencies that would investigate and monitor the cost of long-available prescription drugs with little or no competition to protect consumers from so-called “price gouging”. The plan sets out criteria for determining “an excessive, outlier price increase” and a set of enforcement tools that include making alternative drugs available and imposing fines or penalties to help fund expanded access.
“Over the past year, we’ve seen far too many examples of drug companies raising prices excessively for longstanding, life-saving treatments with little or no new innovation or [research and development],” Clinton said in a statement. “It’s time to move beyond talking about these price hikes and start acting to address them.”
Last week, Clinton called on Mylan, the manufacturer of EpiPen, to reduce the cost of the medical device after reports highlighted that its price rose by 461%, from from $56.64 to $317.82, since 2007, when the company acquired the product.
In a statement, Clinton called the price hike “outrageous” a “troubling example” of pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of consumers. “Since there is no apparent justification in this case, I am calling on Mylan to immediately reduce the price of EpiPens,” Clinton said in a statement.
In response to the uproar, Mylan said it would launch a generic EpiPen version that is identical to the brand-name device but significantly less expensive, with a list price of $300 for a two-pack. The company also announced earlier that it would offer additional financial assistance, including co-payments worth $300, to patients who have to pay the full out-of-pocket price for the device.
Last year, Clinton outlined a plan to tackle the rising costs of prescription drugs amid outrage over the staggering price increase of Daraprim, a drug that treats life-threatening parasitic infection. The startup company responsible, Turing Pharmaceuticals, owned by controversial former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli, acquired the decades-old drug and raised the cost from $13.50 to $750 per pill.
That plan would deny tax breaks for pharmaceutical companies that market medicines directly to consumers, a controversial and costly practice legal only in the US and New Zealand, according to the World Health Organization. Clinton also said she would push companies to invest in research and development in exchange for federal subsidies. Source If this policy leads to me no longer seeing ads for erection pills, I support every part that makes that happen. No longer will I see a 52 year old man throw a football through a tire swing.
You forgot the part where he smikes coyly at his partner or there is a silhouette of a couple sharing a bath tub with wine classes.
|
The ACA got through congress dispute overwhelming opposition from the health care industry. I can see ending the tax exemption happening if the democrats do well. It isn't my number 1 issue, but getting healthcare to be less shitty is up there.
|
United States43533 Posts
On September 03 2016 01:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 01:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Amid public outcry over a sharp increase in the cost of the EpiPen, a life-saving drug to stop an anaphylactic allergy attack, Hillary Clinton has unveiled a plan to prevent “unjustified price hikes” for older prescription drugs.
Clinton’s proposal would create a team of representatives from federal agencies that would investigate and monitor the cost of long-available prescription drugs with little or no competition to protect consumers from so-called “price gouging”. The plan sets out criteria for determining “an excessive, outlier price increase” and a set of enforcement tools that include making alternative drugs available and imposing fines or penalties to help fund expanded access.
“Over the past year, we’ve seen far too many examples of drug companies raising prices excessively for longstanding, life-saving treatments with little or no new innovation or [research and development],” Clinton said in a statement. “It’s time to move beyond talking about these price hikes and start acting to address them.”
Last week, Clinton called on Mylan, the manufacturer of EpiPen, to reduce the cost of the medical device after reports highlighted that its price rose by 461%, from from $56.64 to $317.82, since 2007, when the company acquired the product.
In a statement, Clinton called the price hike “outrageous” a “troubling example” of pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of consumers. “Since there is no apparent justification in this case, I am calling on Mylan to immediately reduce the price of EpiPens,” Clinton said in a statement.
In response to the uproar, Mylan said it would launch a generic EpiPen version that is identical to the brand-name device but significantly less expensive, with a list price of $300 for a two-pack. The company also announced earlier that it would offer additional financial assistance, including co-payments worth $300, to patients who have to pay the full out-of-pocket price for the device.
Last year, Clinton outlined a plan to tackle the rising costs of prescription drugs amid outrage over the staggering price increase of Daraprim, a drug that treats life-threatening parasitic infection. The startup company responsible, Turing Pharmaceuticals, owned by controversial former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli, acquired the decades-old drug and raised the cost from $13.50 to $750 per pill.
That plan would deny tax breaks for pharmaceutical companies that market medicines directly to consumers, a controversial and costly practice legal only in the US and New Zealand, according to the World Health Organization. Clinton also said she would push companies to invest in research and development in exchange for federal subsidies. Source If this policy leads to me no longer seeing ads for erection pills, I support every part that makes that happen. No longer will I see a 52 year old man throw a football through a tire swing.
In practice it's more likely to create a board that exists entirely to reward loyal political allies with appointments to the "lobby me for permission to make a billion dollars" commission.
I don't know that there is necessarily a good solution, the way we do it in the UK is the value of a specific drug is calculated (as best as they can calculate the value of health and the human life) and the NHS makes an offer of what they'll pay based upon that analysis. A company could charge whatever it wanted outside the NHS but the NHS makes up the vast, vast majority of sales so they have to price to market or not at all. But that's still not a great solution. It's a breakdown of the free market in an extremely lucrative sector in which regulation is required but is itself fundamentally inefficient.
|
United States43533 Posts
On September 03 2016 01:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 01:21 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2016 01:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Amid public outcry over a sharp increase in the cost of the EpiPen, a life-saving drug to stop an anaphylactic allergy attack, Hillary Clinton has unveiled a plan to prevent “unjustified price hikes” for older prescription drugs.
Clinton’s proposal would create a team of representatives from federal agencies that would investigate and monitor the cost of long-available prescription drugs with little or no competition to protect consumers from so-called “price gouging”. The plan sets out criteria for determining “an excessive, outlier price increase” and a set of enforcement tools that include making alternative drugs available and imposing fines or penalties to help fund expanded access.
“Over the past year, we’ve seen far too many examples of drug companies raising prices excessively for longstanding, life-saving treatments with little or no new innovation or [research and development],” Clinton said in a statement. “It’s time to move beyond talking about these price hikes and start acting to address them.”
Last week, Clinton called on Mylan, the manufacturer of EpiPen, to reduce the cost of the medical device after reports highlighted that its price rose by 461%, from from $56.64 to $317.82, since 2007, when the company acquired the product.
In a statement, Clinton called the price hike “outrageous” a “troubling example” of pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of consumers. “Since there is no apparent justification in this case, I am calling on Mylan to immediately reduce the price of EpiPens,” Clinton said in a statement.
In response to the uproar, Mylan said it would launch a generic EpiPen version that is identical to the brand-name device but significantly less expensive, with a list price of $300 for a two-pack. The company also announced earlier that it would offer additional financial assistance, including co-payments worth $300, to patients who have to pay the full out-of-pocket price for the device.
Last year, Clinton outlined a plan to tackle the rising costs of prescription drugs amid outrage over the staggering price increase of Daraprim, a drug that treats life-threatening parasitic infection. The startup company responsible, Turing Pharmaceuticals, owned by controversial former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli, acquired the decades-old drug and raised the cost from $13.50 to $750 per pill.
That plan would deny tax breaks for pharmaceutical companies that market medicines directly to consumers, a controversial and costly practice legal only in the US and New Zealand, according to the World Health Organization. Clinton also said she would push companies to invest in research and development in exchange for federal subsidies. Source If this policy leads to me no longer seeing ads for erection pills, I support every part that makes that happen. No longer will I see a 52 year old man throw a football through a tire swing. Oh god, no more drug commercials would be the fucking dream! Unfortunately there's way way WAYYYYYY too much money to be made from that garbage.
They're banned in almost all other countries, just so you know. It's one of those weird things you notice after coming to the US than Americans might not think about because they're normal.
|
On September 03 2016 01:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 01:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 03 2016 01:21 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2016 01:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Amid public outcry over a sharp increase in the cost of the EpiPen, a life-saving drug to stop an anaphylactic allergy attack, Hillary Clinton has unveiled a plan to prevent “unjustified price hikes” for older prescription drugs.
Clinton’s proposal would create a team of representatives from federal agencies that would investigate and monitor the cost of long-available prescription drugs with little or no competition to protect consumers from so-called “price gouging”. The plan sets out criteria for determining “an excessive, outlier price increase” and a set of enforcement tools that include making alternative drugs available and imposing fines or penalties to help fund expanded access.
“Over the past year, we’ve seen far too many examples of drug companies raising prices excessively for longstanding, life-saving treatments with little or no new innovation or [research and development],” Clinton said in a statement. “It’s time to move beyond talking about these price hikes and start acting to address them.”
Last week, Clinton called on Mylan, the manufacturer of EpiPen, to reduce the cost of the medical device after reports highlighted that its price rose by 461%, from from $56.64 to $317.82, since 2007, when the company acquired the product.
In a statement, Clinton called the price hike “outrageous” a “troubling example” of pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of consumers. “Since there is no apparent justification in this case, I am calling on Mylan to immediately reduce the price of EpiPens,” Clinton said in a statement.
In response to the uproar, Mylan said it would launch a generic EpiPen version that is identical to the brand-name device but significantly less expensive, with a list price of $300 for a two-pack. The company also announced earlier that it would offer additional financial assistance, including co-payments worth $300, to patients who have to pay the full out-of-pocket price for the device.
Last year, Clinton outlined a plan to tackle the rising costs of prescription drugs amid outrage over the staggering price increase of Daraprim, a drug that treats life-threatening parasitic infection. The startup company responsible, Turing Pharmaceuticals, owned by controversial former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli, acquired the decades-old drug and raised the cost from $13.50 to $750 per pill.
That plan would deny tax breaks for pharmaceutical companies that market medicines directly to consumers, a controversial and costly practice legal only in the US and New Zealand, according to the World Health Organization. Clinton also said she would push companies to invest in research and development in exchange for federal subsidies. Source If this policy leads to me no longer seeing ads for erection pills, I support every part that makes that happen. No longer will I see a 52 year old man throw a football through a tire swing. Oh god, no more drug commercials would be the fucking dream! Unfortunately there's way way WAYYYYYY too much money to be made from that garbage. They're banned in almost all other countries, just so you know. It's one of those weird things you notice after coming to the US than Americans might not think about because they're normal.
yeah directly naming competitors and shitting on them in ads was a bit of "waaah?" moment for me aswell.
|
We have unlimited faith in the free market to fix problems. Except the problem where the US doesn't really understand what a free market is and when something is absolute not a free market.
|
On September 03 2016 01:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 01:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 03 2016 01:21 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2016 01:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Amid public outcry over a sharp increase in the cost of the EpiPen, a life-saving drug to stop an anaphylactic allergy attack, Hillary Clinton has unveiled a plan to prevent “unjustified price hikes” for older prescription drugs.
Clinton’s proposal would create a team of representatives from federal agencies that would investigate and monitor the cost of long-available prescription drugs with little or no competition to protect consumers from so-called “price gouging”. The plan sets out criteria for determining “an excessive, outlier price increase” and a set of enforcement tools that include making alternative drugs available and imposing fines or penalties to help fund expanded access.
“Over the past year, we’ve seen far too many examples of drug companies raising prices excessively for longstanding, life-saving treatments with little or no new innovation or [research and development],” Clinton said in a statement. “It’s time to move beyond talking about these price hikes and start acting to address them.”
Last week, Clinton called on Mylan, the manufacturer of EpiPen, to reduce the cost of the medical device after reports highlighted that its price rose by 461%, from from $56.64 to $317.82, since 2007, when the company acquired the product.
In a statement, Clinton called the price hike “outrageous” a “troubling example” of pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of consumers. “Since there is no apparent justification in this case, I am calling on Mylan to immediately reduce the price of EpiPens,” Clinton said in a statement.
In response to the uproar, Mylan said it would launch a generic EpiPen version that is identical to the brand-name device but significantly less expensive, with a list price of $300 for a two-pack. The company also announced earlier that it would offer additional financial assistance, including co-payments worth $300, to patients who have to pay the full out-of-pocket price for the device.
Last year, Clinton outlined a plan to tackle the rising costs of prescription drugs amid outrage over the staggering price increase of Daraprim, a drug that treats life-threatening parasitic infection. The startup company responsible, Turing Pharmaceuticals, owned by controversial former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli, acquired the decades-old drug and raised the cost from $13.50 to $750 per pill.
That plan would deny tax breaks for pharmaceutical companies that market medicines directly to consumers, a controversial and costly practice legal only in the US and New Zealand, according to the World Health Organization. Clinton also said she would push companies to invest in research and development in exchange for federal subsidies. Source If this policy leads to me no longer seeing ads for erection pills, I support every part that makes that happen. No longer will I see a 52 year old man throw a football through a tire swing. Oh god, no more drug commercials would be the fucking dream! Unfortunately there's way way WAYYYYYY too much money to be made from that garbage. They're banned in almost all other countries, just so you know. It's one of those weird things you notice after coming to the US than Americans might not think about because they're normal.
So I've heard. I hardly ever watch TV now days, but I can't really think of much of any advertisements outside of Drug companies, gambling sites, ambulance chasers, or booze. That's seriously what like 90% of TV commercials are, it's kind of sad. I also don't understand why I'm supposed to ask my doctor about X drug. I'm pretty sure I don't know anything and your 30 second boner pill ad didn't inform me of anything. I believe I go to the doc, tell them I can't get it up and he gives me some options and chooses one to prescribe based on my symptoms, health, what I can afford, etc. That's his job, I don't understand why I'm supposed to butt in there. I guess chalk it up to more anti-intellectualism and this distrust of experts and thinking you know better.
|
On September 03 2016 01:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 01:13 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2016 01:08 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 01:01 Doodsmack wrote:Romney, you may recall, very accurately described his immigration policy as “self-deportation”: Through malign neglect (including random documentation checks by local law enforcement), make life as unpleasant as possible for the undocumented and many of them will go home and take with them the message that the Land of Opportunity was closing its doors.
Here’s how the [RNC's] “autopsy report” described the political consequences of that attitude:
“If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence.”
That did seem to be the case, as Romney lost the Hispanic vote — the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. electorate — in 2012 (according to exit polls) by an astonishing 71-27 margin.
And so the logical thing to do, concluded the report, was to go back to the support for comprehensive immigration reform that was originally devised by Karl Rove as one of the keys to an enduring Republican majority — before “the base” rejected efforts by its last two pre-Romney presidential nominees (George W. Bush and John McCain) to enact it into law.
As we all know, “the base” stopped that from happening once again, and the 2016 nominee turned out to be someone who had made hostility to immigration reform — and a variety of other white ethno-nationalist themes — signature motifs of an unprecedented challenge to Establishment Republicanism.
Now that Trump has...issued his most definitive statement ever on immigration policy, it seems he’s taken Romney’s “self-deportation” position and tried to add some teeth and a snarl. New York Magazine As said before, the Republican party has been hijacked. The leadership knows what kind of message they want to present to have a shot at the general election. They know the type of candidate they want to put forth but their base will have non of it and they keep selecting people who have 0 chance in the general election and there is nothing the leadership can do to stop it short of changing the way the primary works for them (by removing/limiting the ability to vote on a candidate). This is why democrats have superdelegates. The average joe shmoe is poorly educated and makes bad decisions. Electability is not the discussion is used to be during primaries. The people deeply invested in the party used to be concerned about running someone who could appeal to the general public. That someone from their party that agreed with them on most of the issues was better than running a "true believer".
Electability this election has mostly been an illusion used to promote a deeply flawed candidate who is deceptively vulnerable (but to the uneducated can look strong and almost invulnerable) over her competitors.
|
A leaked script obtained by the New York Times on Thursday revealed the word-for-word answers written for Donald Trump to deliver in his upcoming interview with a black bishop in Detroit, Michigan.
Aides for the Trump campaign and Republican National Committee helped come up with the responses laid out in an eight-page draft script intended to prevent the Republican nominee from putting his foot in his mouth during his first campaign event in a black community on Saturday, according to the Times.
While politicians occasionally ask for questions ahead of interviews, having staffers draft the answers wholesale is unusual. According to the Times’ report, Bishop Wayne T. Jackson of Great Faith Ministries International will ask Trump about a range of topics including his Christian faith and lack of support among black voters.
In response to a question about whether he is a Christian and believes the Bible is the word of God, scriptwriters told Trump to couch his response in references to his family.
“As I went through my life, things got busy with business, but my family kept me grounded to the truth and the word of God,” the script obtained by the Times reads.
Trump was told to avoid repeating the word “racist” in response to a question about whether the Republican nominee, who has asserted that black Americans live in crime-ridden, poor communities and suggested that President Barack Obama was not actually born in the U.S., was racist.
“The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding,” Trump was told to say, according to the Times. “Coming into a community is meaningless unless we offer an alternative to the horrible progressive agenda that has perpetuated a permanent underclass in America.”
Trump will also reportedly advocate for a diminished focus on race in the U.S., saying he hopes to “make race disappear as a factor in government,” and will remind undecided black voters that his single-digit support among them “is now up to 8 percent and climbing.”
Trump’s campaign has altered his schedule for the Detroit trip after the Detroit Free Press revealed that the GOP nominee would not address the congregation or meet with community members during his visit, instead opting for a one-on-one interview with Bishop Jackson.
Source
|
On September 03 2016 01:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 01:18 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2016 01:13 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2016 01:08 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 01:01 Doodsmack wrote:Romney, you may recall, very accurately described his immigration policy as “self-deportation”: Through malign neglect (including random documentation checks by local law enforcement), make life as unpleasant as possible for the undocumented and many of them will go home and take with them the message that the Land of Opportunity was closing its doors.
Here’s how the [RNC's] “autopsy report” described the political consequences of that attitude:
“If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence.”
That did seem to be the case, as Romney lost the Hispanic vote — the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. electorate — in 2012 (according to exit polls) by an astonishing 71-27 margin.
And so the logical thing to do, concluded the report, was to go back to the support for comprehensive immigration reform that was originally devised by Karl Rove as one of the keys to an enduring Republican majority — before “the base” rejected efforts by its last two pre-Romney presidential nominees (George W. Bush and John McCain) to enact it into law.
As we all know, “the base” stopped that from happening once again, and the 2016 nominee turned out to be someone who had made hostility to immigration reform — and a variety of other white ethno-nationalist themes — signature motifs of an unprecedented challenge to Establishment Republicanism.
Now that Trump has...issued his most definitive statement ever on immigration policy, it seems he’s taken Romney’s “self-deportation” position and tried to add some teeth and a snarl. New York Magazine As said before, the Republican party has been hijacked. The leadership knows what kind of message they want to present to have a shot at the general election. They know the type of candidate they want to put forth but their base will have non of it and they keep selecting people who have 0 chance in the general election and there is nothing the leadership can do to stop it short of changing the way the primary works for them (by removing/limiting the ability to vote on a candidate). This is why democrats have superdelegates. The average joe shmoe is poorly educated and makes bad decisions. Electability is not the discussion is used to be during primaries. The people deeply invested in the party used to be concerned about running someone who could appeal to the general public. That someone from their party that agreed with them on most of the issues was better than running a "true believer". Electability this election has mostly been an illusion used to promote a deeply flawed candidate who is deceptively vulnerable (but to the uneducated can look strong and almost invulnerable) over her competitors.
I was talking about the 70s-80s and 90s. Not the current election.
|
On September 03 2016 01:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 01:46 LegalLord wrote:On September 03 2016 01:18 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2016 01:13 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2016 01:08 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 01:01 Doodsmack wrote:Romney, you may recall, very accurately described his immigration policy as “self-deportation”: Through malign neglect (including random documentation checks by local law enforcement), make life as unpleasant as possible for the undocumented and many of them will go home and take with them the message that the Land of Opportunity was closing its doors.
Here’s how the [RNC's] “autopsy report” described the political consequences of that attitude:
“If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence.”
That did seem to be the case, as Romney lost the Hispanic vote — the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. electorate — in 2012 (according to exit polls) by an astonishing 71-27 margin.
And so the logical thing to do, concluded the report, was to go back to the support for comprehensive immigration reform that was originally devised by Karl Rove as one of the keys to an enduring Republican majority — before “the base” rejected efforts by its last two pre-Romney presidential nominees (George W. Bush and John McCain) to enact it into law.
As we all know, “the base” stopped that from happening once again, and the 2016 nominee turned out to be someone who had made hostility to immigration reform — and a variety of other white ethno-nationalist themes — signature motifs of an unprecedented challenge to Establishment Republicanism.
Now that Trump has...issued his most definitive statement ever on immigration policy, it seems he’s taken Romney’s “self-deportation” position and tried to add some teeth and a snarl. New York Magazine As said before, the Republican party has been hijacked. The leadership knows what kind of message they want to present to have a shot at the general election. They know the type of candidate they want to put forth but their base will have non of it and they keep selecting people who have 0 chance in the general election and there is nothing the leadership can do to stop it short of changing the way the primary works for them (by removing/limiting the ability to vote on a candidate). This is why democrats have superdelegates. The average joe shmoe is poorly educated and makes bad decisions. Electability is not the discussion is used to be during primaries. The people deeply invested in the party used to be concerned about running someone who could appeal to the general public. That someone from their party that agreed with them on most of the issues was better than running a "true believer". Electability this election has mostly been an illusion used to promote a deeply flawed candidate who is deceptively vulnerable (but to the uneducated can look strong and almost invulnerable) over her competitors. I was talking about the 70s-80s and 90s. Not the current election.
I know. I'm just commenting on where that "electability" argument has gone in the modern era of politics.
I could comment similarly on the "lesser of two evils" argument.
|
On September 03 2016 01:45 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 01:37 KwarK wrote:On September 03 2016 01:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 03 2016 01:21 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2016 01:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Amid public outcry over a sharp increase in the cost of the EpiPen, a life-saving drug to stop an anaphylactic allergy attack, Hillary Clinton has unveiled a plan to prevent “unjustified price hikes” for older prescription drugs.
Clinton’s proposal would create a team of representatives from federal agencies that would investigate and monitor the cost of long-available prescription drugs with little or no competition to protect consumers from so-called “price gouging”. The plan sets out criteria for determining “an excessive, outlier price increase” and a set of enforcement tools that include making alternative drugs available and imposing fines or penalties to help fund expanded access.
“Over the past year, we’ve seen far too many examples of drug companies raising prices excessively for longstanding, life-saving treatments with little or no new innovation or [research and development],” Clinton said in a statement. “It’s time to move beyond talking about these price hikes and start acting to address them.”
Last week, Clinton called on Mylan, the manufacturer of EpiPen, to reduce the cost of the medical device after reports highlighted that its price rose by 461%, from from $56.64 to $317.82, since 2007, when the company acquired the product.
In a statement, Clinton called the price hike “outrageous” a “troubling example” of pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of consumers. “Since there is no apparent justification in this case, I am calling on Mylan to immediately reduce the price of EpiPens,” Clinton said in a statement.
In response to the uproar, Mylan said it would launch a generic EpiPen version that is identical to the brand-name device but significantly less expensive, with a list price of $300 for a two-pack. The company also announced earlier that it would offer additional financial assistance, including co-payments worth $300, to patients who have to pay the full out-of-pocket price for the device.
Last year, Clinton outlined a plan to tackle the rising costs of prescription drugs amid outrage over the staggering price increase of Daraprim, a drug that treats life-threatening parasitic infection. The startup company responsible, Turing Pharmaceuticals, owned by controversial former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli, acquired the decades-old drug and raised the cost from $13.50 to $750 per pill.
That plan would deny tax breaks for pharmaceutical companies that market medicines directly to consumers, a controversial and costly practice legal only in the US and New Zealand, according to the World Health Organization. Clinton also said she would push companies to invest in research and development in exchange for federal subsidies. Source If this policy leads to me no longer seeing ads for erection pills, I support every part that makes that happen. No longer will I see a 52 year old man throw a football through a tire swing. Oh god, no more drug commercials would be the fucking dream! Unfortunately there's way way WAYYYYYY too much money to be made from that garbage. They're banned in almost all other countries, just so you know. It's one of those weird things you notice after coming to the US than Americans might not think about because they're normal. So I've heard. I hardly ever watch TV now days, but I can't really think of much of any advertisements outside of Drug companies, gambling sites, ambulance chasers, or booze. That's seriously what like 90% of TV commercials are, it's kind of sad. I also don't understand why I'm supposed to ask my doctor about X drug. I'm pretty sure I don't know anything and your 30 second boner pill ad didn't inform me of anything. I believe I go to the doc, tell them I can't get it up and he gives me some options and chooses one to prescribe based on my symptoms, health, what I can afford, etc. That's his job, I don't understand why I'm supposed to butt in there. I guess chalk it up to more anti-intellectualism and this distrust of experts and thinking you know better.
You would be amazed at the amount of moronic highly relevant and important suggestions patients come with when it comes to treating their afflictions. "Shouldn't you get me a MRI for the toe that I bumped - it might be fractured?!" I mean, patients taking responsibility for their own well-being (and thus treatment) is great, but there is a reason why I'm the one getting paid for the two of us to talk to each other.
|
The reverse a problem in US. I had to drop my doctor because he kept pushing for me to have chest X-rays, asthma and uselessly comprehensive blood work yearly visit. I had to fight with him to not do them and refused to send me the results by mail, wanting another visit(which requires another co-pay). Of course, he wanted to do all of these things to charge my insurance for them.
|
Sadly I can't always trust my doctors to be doing what is in my best interest rather than merely more money for them. I would like to be able to just trust that my doctor is telling the truth but the reality is that I have to have a pretty decent knowledge of medicine just to evaluate if they really are doing something that is helpful for me.
I guess at least it makes it easier to get prescriptions by just asking for them?
|
Yeah its good for patients to be helpful with their own well being and treatment and yes some doctors are exploiting the system for free cash. There's certainly problems but like rule #1 of life is never let the salesman be your source of information. That boner pill commercial is the LAST person you should be listening to. However ad space wouldn't be wall to wall drug commercials if that was actually happening.
|
On September 03 2016 01:57 Plansix wrote:
The reverse a problem in US. I had to drop my doctor because he kept pushing for me to have chest X-rays, asthma and uselessly comprehensive blood work yearly visit. I had to fight with him to not do them and refused to send me the results by mail, wanting another visit(which requires another co-pay). Of course, he wanted to do all of these things to charge my insurance for them.
I didnt have a dedicated doctors becaused a moved around alot for work but I literally had to get MRI's and tests for the dumbest shit that would keep finding ways into my deductible until I pretty much ended up paying all of it + Show Spoiler +(and just below the amount I could reclaim on taxes, for which I went and spent another 500 on a medical not covered by insurance so I could fall in the medical expenses bracket you can claim on)
And it was for the dumbest shit but its your health so you dont want to risk anything either.
Here in Canada they make me come in for all sorts of shit all the time and I get a paid work day for it and its all free. And im healthy..
On September 03 2016 02:02 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Yeah its good for patients to be helpful with their own well being and treatment and yes some doctors are exploiting the system for free cash. There's certainly problems but like rule #1 of life is never let the salesman be your source of information. That boner pill commercial is the LAST person you should be listening to. However ad space wouldn't be wall to wall drug commercials if that was actually happening.
yeah but the ad doesnt tell you to get the pill. It tells you to ask your doctor about it. Its still the doctors prerogative. Which is a harmless suggestion in of itself. You cant "tell" your doctor what medication you want.
|
On September 03 2016 01:41 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 01:37 KwarK wrote:On September 03 2016 01:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 03 2016 01:21 Plansix wrote:On September 03 2016 01:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Amid public outcry over a sharp increase in the cost of the EpiPen, a life-saving drug to stop an anaphylactic allergy attack, Hillary Clinton has unveiled a plan to prevent “unjustified price hikes” for older prescription drugs.
Clinton’s proposal would create a team of representatives from federal agencies that would investigate and monitor the cost of long-available prescription drugs with little or no competition to protect consumers from so-called “price gouging”. The plan sets out criteria for determining “an excessive, outlier price increase” and a set of enforcement tools that include making alternative drugs available and imposing fines or penalties to help fund expanded access.
“Over the past year, we’ve seen far too many examples of drug companies raising prices excessively for longstanding, life-saving treatments with little or no new innovation or [research and development],” Clinton said in a statement. “It’s time to move beyond talking about these price hikes and start acting to address them.”
Last week, Clinton called on Mylan, the manufacturer of EpiPen, to reduce the cost of the medical device after reports highlighted that its price rose by 461%, from from $56.64 to $317.82, since 2007, when the company acquired the product.
In a statement, Clinton called the price hike “outrageous” a “troubling example” of pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of consumers. “Since there is no apparent justification in this case, I am calling on Mylan to immediately reduce the price of EpiPens,” Clinton said in a statement.
In response to the uproar, Mylan said it would launch a generic EpiPen version that is identical to the brand-name device but significantly less expensive, with a list price of $300 for a two-pack. The company also announced earlier that it would offer additional financial assistance, including co-payments worth $300, to patients who have to pay the full out-of-pocket price for the device.
Last year, Clinton outlined a plan to tackle the rising costs of prescription drugs amid outrage over the staggering price increase of Daraprim, a drug that treats life-threatening parasitic infection. The startup company responsible, Turing Pharmaceuticals, owned by controversial former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli, acquired the decades-old drug and raised the cost from $13.50 to $750 per pill.
That plan would deny tax breaks for pharmaceutical companies that market medicines directly to consumers, a controversial and costly practice legal only in the US and New Zealand, according to the World Health Organization. Clinton also said she would push companies to invest in research and development in exchange for federal subsidies. Source If this policy leads to me no longer seeing ads for erection pills, I support every part that makes that happen. No longer will I see a 52 year old man throw a football through a tire swing. Oh god, no more drug commercials would be the fucking dream! Unfortunately there's way way WAYYYYYY too much money to be made from that garbage. They're banned in almost all other countries, just so you know. It's one of those weird things you notice after coming to the US than Americans might not think about because they're normal. yeah directly naming competitors and shitting on them in ads was a bit of "waaah?" moment for me aswell.
Wait, so the rest of the world doesn't understand the eternal tug of war between Tylenol and Advil, while Aleve plays the role of Gary Johnson/ Team Instinct?
|
I see drug commercials the same way I see advertising for children toys. It is marking to someone to ask someone else if they can have it. The problem is that erection pills or depression pills are not action figures and end up driving up the cost of insurance if they are not necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
