|
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 December 30 2013 21:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 17:19 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2013 16:04 jellyjello wrote:On December 30 2013 14:47 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2013 11:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 30 2013 09:52 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2013 07:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans count enough competitive races to challenge Democrats for control of the Senate in the 2014 elections, if only they can figure out what to do with the tea party.
Crowded primaries in states such as Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina, where tea partyers and social conservatives are fighting for the nomination and pushing candidates farther right, worry many Republicans, especially after they saw their legitimate shots at a Senate majority slip away in 2010 and 2012.
Republicans need a net gain of six seats to capture control from Democrats, who effectively hold a 55-45 advantage now. But Democrats will be defending 21 of 35 seats to be decided in November, and President Barack Obama is looking like a major drag for them. Midterm elections are often tough for a president's party in any event.
"History is with us, geography is with us and the president's signature legislative achievement is the most unpopular" law of his tenure, Rob Collins, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said of Obama and his health care overhaul.
Republicans inside and outside the Senate speak confidently about snatching open seats in West Virginia and South Dakota. They like their chances against Democratic incumbents in Republican-leaning Arkansas, Louisiana and Alaska and remain upbeat about Montana even if Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock names Lt. Gov. John Walsh to succeed Sen. Max Baucus, Obama's choice for U.S. ambassador to China.
The looming question is whether Republicans undercut their solid shot with tea party-style candidates who fizzled out in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada in 2010 and Indiana and Missouri in 2012. Source They could always invite them in and start taking the debt seriously! Own the next shutdown too. But, to borrow from columnist Eugene Robinson ... the GOP has wind at its back, but will still blow it. The problem is that the Tea party doesn't take things seriously in an adult fashion. They act like spoiled children with any issue that they label as important. It's been covered in that way in major TV media since the outset. Still present is a small decrease in likely voters identifying with Tea Party views. Still, 42% support the views of the average Tea Party members, so a little under half the voting public is either okay with their tactics or does not think 'spoiled children' is even close to a correct characterization of their actions. On December 30 2013 14:37 jellyjello wrote:On December 30 2013 09:52 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2013 07:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans count enough competitive races to challenge Democrats for control of the Senate in the 2014 elections, if only they can figure out what to do with the tea party.
Crowded primaries in states such as Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina, where tea partyers and social conservatives are fighting for the nomination and pushing candidates farther right, worry many Republicans, especially after they saw their legitimate shots at a Senate majority slip away in 2010 and 2012.
Republicans need a net gain of six seats to capture control from Democrats, who effectively hold a 55-45 advantage now. But Democrats will be defending 21 of 35 seats to be decided in November, and President Barack Obama is looking like a major drag for them. Midterm elections are often tough for a president's party in any event.
"History is with us, geography is with us and the president's signature legislative achievement is the most unpopular" law of his tenure, Rob Collins, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said of Obama and his health care overhaul.
Republicans inside and outside the Senate speak confidently about snatching open seats in West Virginia and South Dakota. They like their chances against Democratic incumbents in Republican-leaning Arkansas, Louisiana and Alaska and remain upbeat about Montana even if Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock names Lt. Gov. John Walsh to succeed Sen. Max Baucus, Obama's choice for U.S. ambassador to China.
The looming question is whether Republicans undercut their solid shot with tea party-style candidates who fizzled out in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada in 2010 and Indiana and Missouri in 2012. Source They could always invite them in and start taking the debt seriously! Own the next shutdown too. But, to borrow from columnist Eugene Robinson ... the GOP has wind at its back, but will still blow it. I'm all for the principles of what Tea Party stands for, but some of them really need to learn Politics 101. Ted Cruz, especially, needs to read a copy of Dummys for Politics. The guy is completely clueless. It's all well and good being for the principles of the Tea Party as long as you're never called on to fight for them. Congress has exhibited this for the last year even more starkly than in previous years. You misunderstand me. I'm all for fighting for the principles when there is a possibility of success. However, GOP controls only half of the congress while Democrats have the congress + executive power. The antics such as Ted Cruz has demonstrated will not only roadblock us from what we want, but instead set us back politically. You have to pick your fight where and when. Otherwise, you'd be better off playing politics until you gain that leverage. The houses of Congress are different in their powers, size, and terms for very good reasons. The House of Reps, being naturally closer to the people than the senate, were chosen to hold the purse strings. If you want to spend everybody else's money, win the House. If you're serious about opposing Obamacare, you defund it, period. You can't sell your brand as people that talk tough but put no bite into it. The Republicans in the House don't deserve re-election if they talk a pretty speech on Obamacare but will only vote against it when it doesn't matter. The talk of taking the Senate and "Then we'll REALLY stick it to them" falls on deaf ears; the Bush congress were profligate spenders. The half-hearted fight Boehner waged on the government shutdown is typical. You can't pretend to pick your fights when you have no credibility with the American people that you will ever pick a fight at all. You fight. You do remember that Boehner and the several other prominant Republicans warned that shutting down the government would backfire and that it would cost them right? Ofc he fought half-hearted when he knew it was suicide to try it in the first place. It only happened because tea party candidates like Ted Cruz are more concerned about there own success/re-election then the bigger picture. If the House was to control all spending why does the Senate need to vote on a budget? The House and Congress are suppose to balance each other out. You know, this thing called discussion and compromise. But both sides are more and more moving to a gridlock where neither side can get anything done.
If getting anything done means destroying a fine industry in the country, doing nothing is the best course of action. You think representatives are supposed to drop everything they believe in just for the sake of compromise? If I want to spend 0$ on it, and they want $1 billion, then I'm supposed to sign $500 million and be done with it? Rand Paul said it best on the budget deal, "I think compromise is a good thing, but compromise also has to be a solution. I mean compromise just for the sake of compromise so we can feel good about each other I don't think is progress for the country."
Have you ever goaded your friend into doing something, he dragged his feet all the way. He declared that it wouldn't work, left the whole enterprise early, then said he always knew it wouldn't work? It's the epitome of the self-fulfilling prophesy. Boehner caved to demands and sought the earliest possible opportunity to exit.
At the risk of boring you at budget process 101, the president submits his budget, the house and senate go through committee process, amendment process, passage/no passage, and conference. The Democratic Senate approved no budget 2011, 2012, 2013. Continuing resolutions are not a budget, they're stopgap and, if you ask me, a disgrace. The checks and balances present in the constitution are meaningful to serve as checks upon the power of an oppressive branch. The power of the purse is another check to help Congress remain accountable to the people. Checks and Balances are meaningless if you want to ignore that important check in Article 1, Section 8 & Section 9.
I hear the whining and caterwhauling and hand-wringing about the poor state if "neither side can get anything done." If its true, and everybody sees it, vote the responsible parties out of office. If its not true, and getting things done is code for increasing spending, the power of the federal government, and the tax burden, then I hope neither side can get anything done. Ted Cruz enjoyed a 57% favorable opinion of likely Republican voters after his faction in Congress got their shutdown. He did great work restoring confidence in certain elected Republicans that they will fight for what they believe in and not always promise a fight next vote, next 6 months, next year, next election.
|
On December 31 2013 06:02 KwarK wrote:
In terms of capitalism they're doing the correct thing here. They're saying "if it costs X to treat them without our drug then we'll charge X-1 dollars and you'll save a dollar and we'll make money and everyone wins freemarkethighfive". The issue is that you'll end up with people not being able to afford either and dying or having the cost subsidised by the healthcare system which just hurts other people elsewhere because it's a limited pot of money. So while there is a capitalist fair price where everyone involved in the transaction is better off there is also a just price wherein the maximum social benefit is obtained which is completely different. For that you'd need to look at how much profit pharma companies need to make to keep curing diseases and cap their pricing to reflect that.
I don't think it'd be especially unreasonable drug companies to be reminded that the only reason they're able to make any profit at all is that society collectively decided to honour their patents and allow them to maintain a monopoly on their brand of healthcare to the short term detriment of the people. Their monopoly exists only because we choose not to make generic versions of their patents so they ought to not to take the piss.
Low income individuals and countries are going to be charged a lower price, if that makes you feel better. And I'll reiterate that the alternative is more expensive so the real losers here are competing drug companies.
The way that drug financing works makes it hard to cap pricing on one particular drug. Most drugs lose money and a few blockbusters pay for everything. So if you take away the blockbusters, you risk taking away a lot of new financing along with it.
Edit:On December 31 2013 07:33 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2013 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:$1,000 Pill For Hepatitis C Spurs Debate Over Drug Prices
Federal regulators this month opened a new era in the treatment of a deadly liver virus that infects three to five times more people than HIV. Now the question is: Who will get access to the new drug for hepatitis C, and when?
The drug sofosbuvir (brand name Sovaldi) will cost $1,000 per pill. A typical course of treatment will last 12 weeks and run $84,000, plus the cost of necessary companion drugs. Some patients may need treatment for twice as long.
Hepatitis researchers call the drug a landmark in the treatment of this deadly infection. More than 90 percent of patients who get the new drug can expect to be cured of their hepatitis C infection, with few side effects.
Curing hepatitis C has been difficult, involving regimens that don't work as well as the new option and bring harsh side effects.
More than 3 million Americans are infected with hepatitis C, and perhaps 170 million people have the disease worldwide. By comparison, about 1.1 million Americans have HIV, which has infected about 34 million people globally. ...
Gregg Alton, a vice president at Gilead, says the high price is fully justified. "We didn't really say, 'We want to charge $1,000 a pill,' " Alton says. "We're just looking at what we think was a fair price for the value that we're bringing into the health care system and to the patients."
But Andrew Hill, a researcher in the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics at the University of Liverpool, says $84,000 per cure is too much, based on his estimate of Gilead's cost to produce the drug.
"Even when we were very conservative [with our estimate], the cost of a course of these treatments would be on the order of $150 to $250 per person," Hill says. He questions whether the $84,000 price tag represents "a fair profit." ...
Dr. Camilla Graham of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston thinks that the high cost of the new hepatitis C treatments might be justified.
"Maybe we decide that $100,000 is a worthwhile investment to cure someone of an otherwise devastating chronic infection," Graham says. After all, it can now cost up to $300,000 to treat patients with advanced hepatitis C, using less effective and more harrowing regimens. ... LinkCheaper, more effective and yet still controversial. Can't say we lack for high standards  If your store starts selling a normal toothbrush for 250$ and I offer you one for 150$ than that doesn't mean I am charging you a reasonable rate it just means I am gouging you slightly less then other guy.
OK, but you intuitively know that a toothbrush isn't worth $150 because you can go to the store and see them selling for a couple bucks. What's the intuition for how much a one of a kind cure should cost?
|
On December 31 2013 08:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
OK, but you intuitively know that a toothbrush isn't worth $150 because you can go to the store and see them selling for a couple bucks. What's the intuition for how much a one of a kind cure should cost?
Why are we talking about "one of a kind" cures? The problem is that people have to pay thousands of dollars for drugs they could cook in their kitchen and pay sixty thousand dollars for having their appendix removed.
Also pharma companies are spending more money on marketing than on research. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm) Reducing the profits they make from stuff that is 100 years old would increase the incentive to put more money into R&D and maybe stop them from investing money to find a way to shove more Aspirin down everyone's throat.
|
On December 31 2013 07:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 21:50 Gorsameth wrote:On December 30 2013 17:19 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2013 16:04 jellyjello wrote:On December 30 2013 14:47 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2013 11:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 30 2013 09:52 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2013 07:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans count enough competitive races to challenge Democrats for control of the Senate in the 2014 elections, if only they can figure out what to do with the tea party.
Crowded primaries in states such as Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina, where tea partyers and social conservatives are fighting for the nomination and pushing candidates farther right, worry many Republicans, especially after they saw their legitimate shots at a Senate majority slip away in 2010 and 2012.
Republicans need a net gain of six seats to capture control from Democrats, who effectively hold a 55-45 advantage now. But Democrats will be defending 21 of 35 seats to be decided in November, and President Barack Obama is looking like a major drag for them. Midterm elections are often tough for a president's party in any event.
"History is with us, geography is with us and the president's signature legislative achievement is the most unpopular" law of his tenure, Rob Collins, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said of Obama and his health care overhaul.
Republicans inside and outside the Senate speak confidently about snatching open seats in West Virginia and South Dakota. They like their chances against Democratic incumbents in Republican-leaning Arkansas, Louisiana and Alaska and remain upbeat about Montana even if Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock names Lt. Gov. John Walsh to succeed Sen. Max Baucus, Obama's choice for U.S. ambassador to China.
The looming question is whether Republicans undercut their solid shot with tea party-style candidates who fizzled out in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada in 2010 and Indiana and Missouri in 2012. Source They could always invite them in and start taking the debt seriously! Own the next shutdown too. But, to borrow from columnist Eugene Robinson ... the GOP has wind at its back, but will still blow it. The problem is that the Tea party doesn't take things seriously in an adult fashion. They act like spoiled children with any issue that they label as important. It's been covered in that way in major TV media since the outset. Still present is a small decrease in likely voters identifying with Tea Party views. Still, 42% support the views of the average Tea Party members, so a little under half the voting public is either okay with their tactics or does not think 'spoiled children' is even close to a correct characterization of their actions. On December 30 2013 14:37 jellyjello wrote:On December 30 2013 09:52 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2013 07:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans count enough competitive races to challenge Democrats for control of the Senate in the 2014 elections, if only they can figure out what to do with the tea party.
Crowded primaries in states such as Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina, where tea partyers and social conservatives are fighting for the nomination and pushing candidates farther right, worry many Republicans, especially after they saw their legitimate shots at a Senate majority slip away in 2010 and 2012.
Republicans need a net gain of six seats to capture control from Democrats, who effectively hold a 55-45 advantage now. But Democrats will be defending 21 of 35 seats to be decided in November, and President Barack Obama is looking like a major drag for them. Midterm elections are often tough for a president's party in any event.
"History is with us, geography is with us and the president's signature legislative achievement is the most unpopular" law of his tenure, Rob Collins, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said of Obama and his health care overhaul.
Republicans inside and outside the Senate speak confidently about snatching open seats in West Virginia and South Dakota. They like their chances against Democratic incumbents in Republican-leaning Arkansas, Louisiana and Alaska and remain upbeat about Montana even if Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock names Lt. Gov. John Walsh to succeed Sen. Max Baucus, Obama's choice for U.S. ambassador to China.
The looming question is whether Republicans undercut their solid shot with tea party-style candidates who fizzled out in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada in 2010 and Indiana and Missouri in 2012. Source They could always invite them in and start taking the debt seriously! Own the next shutdown too. But, to borrow from columnist Eugene Robinson ... the GOP has wind at its back, but will still blow it. I'm all for the principles of what Tea Party stands for, but some of them really need to learn Politics 101. Ted Cruz, especially, needs to read a copy of Dummys for Politics. The guy is completely clueless. It's all well and good being for the principles of the Tea Party as long as you're never called on to fight for them. Congress has exhibited this for the last year even more starkly than in previous years. You misunderstand me. I'm all for fighting for the principles when there is a possibility of success. However, GOP controls only half of the congress while Democrats have the congress + executive power. The antics such as Ted Cruz has demonstrated will not only roadblock us from what we want, but instead set us back politically. You have to pick your fight where and when. Otherwise, you'd be better off playing politics until you gain that leverage. The houses of Congress are different in their powers, size, and terms for very good reasons. The House of Reps, being naturally closer to the people than the senate, were chosen to hold the purse strings. If you want to spend everybody else's money, win the House. If you're serious about opposing Obamacare, you defund it, period. You can't sell your brand as people that talk tough but put no bite into it. The Republicans in the House don't deserve re-election if they talk a pretty speech on Obamacare but will only vote against it when it doesn't matter. The talk of taking the Senate and "Then we'll REALLY stick it to them" falls on deaf ears; the Bush congress were profligate spenders. The half-hearted fight Boehner waged on the government shutdown is typical. You can't pretend to pick your fights when you have no credibility with the American people that you will ever pick a fight at all. You fight. The half-hearted fight Boehner waged on the government shutdown is typical. You do remember that Boehner and the several other prominant Republicans warned that shutting down the government would backfire and that it would cost them right? Ofc he fought half-hearted when he knew it was suicide to try it in the first place. It only happened because tea party candidates like Ted Cruz are more concerned about there own success/re-election then the bigger picture. If the House was to control all spending why does the Senate need to vote on a budget? The House and Congress are suppose to balance each other out. You know, this thing called discussion and compromise. But both sides are more and more moving to a gridlock where neither side can get anything done. If getting anything done means destroying a fine industry in the country, doing nothing is the best course of action. You think representatives are supposed to drop everything they believe in just for the sake of compromise? If I want to spend 0$ on it, and they want $1 billion, then I'm supposed to sign $500 million and be done with it? Rand Paul said it best on the budget deal, "I think compromise is a good thing, but compromise also has to be a solution. I mean compromise just for the sake of compromise so we can feel good about each other I don't think is progress for the country." Have you ever goaded your friend into doing something, he dragged his feet all the way. He declared that it wouldn't work, left the whole enterprise early, then said he always knew it wouldn't work? It's the epitome of the self-fulfilling prophesy. Boehner caved to demands and sought the earliest possible opportunity to exit. At the risk of boring you at budget process 101, the president submits his budget, the house and senate go through committee process, amendment process, passage/no passage, and conference. The Democratic Senate approved no budget 2011, 2012, 2013. Continuing resolutions are not a budget, they're stopgap and, if you ask me, a disgrace. The checks and balances present in the constitution are meaningful to serve as checks upon the power of an oppressive branch. The power of the purse is another check to help Congress remain accountable to the people. Checks and Balances are meaningless if you want to ignore that important check in Article 1, Section 8 & Section 9. I hear the whining and caterwhauling and hand-wringing about the poor state if "neither side can get anything done." If its true, and everybody sees it, vote the responsible parties out of office. If its not true, and getting things done is code for increasing spending, the power of the federal government, and the tax burden, then I hope neither side can get anything done. Ted Cruz enjoyed a 57% favorable opinion of likely Republican voters after his faction in Congress got their shutdown. He did great work restoring confidence in certain elected Republicans that they will fight for what they believe in and not always promise a fight next vote, next 6 months, next year, next election.
Just to go over your things.
Ofc one shouldn't compromise for the sake of it but situations are rarely as black and white as that. Assuming both sides are willing to come to an agreement and start with reasonable goals they can find a common ground. However I feel a large part of this comes down to the American 2 party system. By having multiple parties with varies degree of overlap on issues negotiations become a lot more manageable because its not always 2 opposing sides saying yes/no.
If you know your friend doesnt want to do it ofc hes not going to give it his all. Its normal.
Should Boehner put his foot down before? sure that argument can be made but he didn't even just leave early. Public opinion was firmly on the side of the Democrats from the very start of the shutdown and it was getting worse by the day. Its not backing off in a self-fulfilling prophesy. It was common sense and seeing the situation for what it was.
The Senate is involved in the budget. Therefor final authority doesn't lie with just the house.
As i said. Ted Cruz and co did what they did for re-election so I hope he got off favorably with Republicans, the real question is what the actual independents thought of it.
And yes people should vote differently to stop the gridlock but hey your a 2 party system so any change is near impossible without massive social movement and things aren't that desperate yet while people have a warm house and food on there table.
|
On December 31 2013 09:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2013 08:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
OK, but you intuitively know that a toothbrush isn't worth $150 because you can go to the store and see them selling for a couple bucks. What's the intuition for how much a one of a kind cure should cost? Why are we talking about "one of a kind" cures? The problem is that people have to pay thousands of dollars for drugs they could cook in their kitchen and pay sixty thousand dollars for having their appendix removed.
I opened the discussion with an article on a new expensive drug that cures Hepatitis C. It cost a lot to research and that has to be paid for somehow, no matter how much it costs you to cook it in your kitchen.
Edit: Patents don't last 100 years...
|
On December 31 2013 09:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2013 09:06 Nyxisto wrote:On December 31 2013 08:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
OK, but you intuitively know that a toothbrush isn't worth $150 because you can go to the store and see them selling for a couple bucks. What's the intuition for how much a one of a kind cure should cost? Why are we talking about "one of a kind" cures? The problem is that people have to pay thousands of dollars for drugs they could cook in their kitchen and pay sixty thousand dollars for having their appendix removed. I opened the discussion with an article on a new expensive drug that cures Hepatitis C. It cost a lot to research and that has to be paid for somehow, no matter how much it costs you to cook it in your kitchen. Edit: Patents don't last 100 years...
But you do know what patent ever-greening is right? Take Glivec for example. A cancer drug that was basically invented in the 60's and is crucial in many cancer treatments. The stuff is still patented today. Estimations are that 90% of patents filled in the last decade in the pharmaceutical sector happened due to ever-greening.
If you think the pharmacy sector consists of thriving bright minds that just want to invent the coolest newest drugs you're experiencing a 1984 level of brainwashing.
|
I think there is a misguided perception that pharmaceutical companies are by and large making us healthier at this point. Most pharmaceutical companies haven't had a huge blockbuster success in years. We haven't seen a great new product like beta-blockers, antibiotics, or the like in a long time. Many of the R&D pipelines are drying up, so that previously highly diversified companies end up putting all their eggs in one or two baskets. Instead they rely on a strategy of buying up smaller companies that are lucky enough to hit upon a big seller.
But more than that, the industry is built around treating symptoms rather than improving health outcomes. Viagra and Cialis are some of the biggest sellers and they are for male impotence, which is often a result of other chronic illnesses to begin with. Proton pump inhibitors often end up making the problem worse because they upregulate the expression of proton pumps in your stomach, so that you can never go off them without suffering a massive rebound in acid reflux. We get new kinds of statins with just as many side effects that doctors prescribe to people with terrible blood lipid panels as a result of shitty diet and no exercise. I think the assumption that we need a bloated pharmaceutical industry or need to provide incentives for them is flawed in itself, but even the most "liberal," or what qualifies as left-wing in the United States, people assume that research and development is the highest good. I'd rather have more national science funding (if you took a mere 10% of the defense budget and used it on medical research without a profit motive you'd get vastly more high quality medical research than we currently get from the pharmaceutical industry.) We need medical research on non-patentable, well-known compounds, like plant alkaloids, or even more mundane substances, for treating illnesses. We need medical research on preventative care and prophylaxis, that isn't funded by the cereal or soy industries. We need medical research on new surgical techniques. What we don't need is another pill with a host of side effects to treat another chronic illness that is a result of western diet and lifestyle.
|
On December 31 2013 09:42 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2013 09:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 31 2013 09:06 Nyxisto wrote:On December 31 2013 08:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
OK, but you intuitively know that a toothbrush isn't worth $150 because you can go to the store and see them selling for a couple bucks. What's the intuition for how much a one of a kind cure should cost? Why are we talking about "one of a kind" cures? The problem is that people have to pay thousands of dollars for drugs they could cook in their kitchen and pay sixty thousand dollars for having their appendix removed. I opened the discussion with an article on a new expensive drug that cures Hepatitis C. It cost a lot to research and that has to be paid for somehow, no matter how much it costs you to cook it in your kitchen. Edit: Patents don't last 100 years... But you do know what patent ever-greening is right? Take Glivec for example. A cancer drug that was basically invented in the 60's and is crucial in many cancer treatments. The stuff is still patented today. Estimations are that 90% of patents filled in the last decade in the pharmaceutical sector happened due to ever-greening. If you think the pharmacy sector consists of thriving bright minds that just want to invent the coolest newest drugs you're experiencing a 1984 level of brainwashing.
Yeah I know about ever-greening. Sometimes it gets approved, sometimes not. Sometimes it's legit, sometimes not.
I'm not arguing that life's perfect here so if you want to argue that patent laws need to be tightened up, go ahead. I've applauded the anti-patent troll legislation that's in the works and I have nothing against improving patent laws for drugs as well. Now, if you want to do something like argue that you have a better way of financing drug research, manufacture and distribution you're going to need to argue long and hard to convince me that you aren't just selling a fantasy.
|
On December 31 2013 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2013 09:42 Nyxisto wrote:On December 31 2013 09:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 31 2013 09:06 Nyxisto wrote:On December 31 2013 08:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
OK, but you intuitively know that a toothbrush isn't worth $150 because you can go to the store and see them selling for a couple bucks. What's the intuition for how much a one of a kind cure should cost? Why are we talking about "one of a kind" cures? The problem is that people have to pay thousands of dollars for drugs they could cook in their kitchen and pay sixty thousand dollars for having their appendix removed. I opened the discussion with an article on a new expensive drug that cures Hepatitis C. It cost a lot to research and that has to be paid for somehow, no matter how much it costs you to cook it in your kitchen. Edit: Patents don't last 100 years... But you do know what patent ever-greening is right? Take Glivec for example. A cancer drug that was basically invented in the 60's and is crucial in many cancer treatments. The stuff is still patented today. Estimations are that 90% of patents filled in the last decade in the pharmaceutical sector happened due to ever-greening. If you think the pharmacy sector consists of thriving bright minds that just want to invent the coolest newest drugs you're experiencing a 1984 level of brainwashing. Yeah I know about ever-greening. Sometimes it gets approved, sometimes not. Sometimes it's legit, sometimes not. I'm not arguing that life's perfect here so if you want to argue that patent laws need to be tightened up, go ahead. I've applauded the anti-patent troll legislation that's in the works and I have nothing against improving patent laws for drugs as well. Now, if you want to do something like argue that you have a better way of financing drug research, manufacture and distribution you're going to need to argue long and hard to convince me that you aren't just selling a fantasy.
The companies do have enough money to finance research themselves. As said before most big pharma companies are putting twice as much money into marketing as they put into R&D. By putting a price cap on their big sellers(which would also help a lot of people afford those drugs), they're automatically forced to put more money into research themselves.
|
Good post 
On December 31 2013 09:46 IgnE wrote:
I think there is a misguided perception that pharmaceutical companies are by and large making us healthier at this point. Most pharmaceutical companies haven't had a huge blockbuster success in years. We haven't seen a great new product like beta-blockers, antibiotics, or the like in a long time. Many of the R&D pipelines are drying up, so that previously highly diversified companies end up putting all their eggs in one or two baskets. Instead they rely on a strategy of buying up smaller companies that are lucky enough to hit upon a big seller.
That's certainly true, though I don't think that's a bad thing. Those small biotechs generally have some really smart people at the helm and their financiers often expect a buyout as their exit strategy.
But more than that, the industry is built around treating symptoms rather than improving health outcomes.
True as well, at least sometimes. ACA has some good experiments in place to improve that.
Viagra and Cialis are some of the biggest sellers and they are for male impotence, which is often a result of other chronic illnesses to begin with. Proton pump inhibitors often end up making the problem worse because they upregulate the expression of proton pumps in your stomach, so that you can never go off them without suffering a massive rebound in acid reflux. We get new kinds of statins with just as many side effects that doctors prescribe to people with terrible blood lipid panels as a result of shitty diet and no exercise. I think the assumption that we need a bloated pharmaceutical industry or need to provide incentives for them is flawed in itself, but even the most "liberal," or what qualifies as left-wing in the United States, people assume that research and development is the highest good. I'd rather have more national science funding (if you took a mere 10% of the defense budget and used it on medical research without a profit motive you'd get vastly more high quality medical research than we currently get from the pharmaceutical industry.) We need medical research on non-patentable, well-known compounds, like plant alkaloids, or even more mundane substances, for treating illnesses. We need medical research on preventative care and prophylaxis, that isn't funded by the cereal or soy industries. We need medical research on new surgical techniques. What we don't need is another pill with a host of side effects to treat another chronic illness that is a result of western diet and lifestyle.
Healthcare is one of the few areas where we have good government investment going on. The rest has been bumped in favor of the mandatory spending monster.
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HbxE46BNXFc/UrIW8CwU5dI/AAAAAAAAEcs/P9tnaL6ZdyQ/s400/invest+4.jpg)
Link
|
On December 31 2013 09:46 IgnE wrote:
I think there is a misguided perception that pharmaceutical companies are by and large making us healthier at this point. Most pharmaceutical companies haven't had a huge blockbuster success in years. We haven't seen a great new product like beta-blockers, antibiotics, or the like in a long time. Many of the R&D pipelines are drying up, so that previously highly diversified companies end up putting all their eggs in one or two baskets. Instead they rely on a strategy of buying up smaller companies that are lucky enough to hit upon a big seller.
But more than that, the industry is built around treating symptoms rather than improving health outcomes. Viagra and Cialis are some of the biggest sellers and they are for male impotence, which is often a result of other chronic illnesses to begin with. Proton pump inhibitors often end up making the problem worse because they upregulate the expression of proton pumps in your stomach, so that you can never go off them without suffering a massive rebound in acid reflux. We get new kinds of statins with just as many side effects that doctors prescribe to people with terrible blood lipid panels as a result of shitty diet and no exercise. I think the assumption that we need a bloated pharmaceutical industry or need to provide incentives for them is flawed in itself, but even the most "liberal," or what qualifies as left-wing in the United States, people assume that research and development is the highest good. I'd rather have more national science funding (if you took a mere 10% of the defense budget and used it on medical research without a profit motive you'd get vastly more high quality medical research than we currently get from the pharmaceutical industry.) We need medical research on non-patentable, well-known compounds, like plant alkaloids, or even more mundane substances, for treating illnesses. We need medical research on preventative care and prophylaxis, that isn't funded by the cereal or soy industries. We need medical research on new surgical techniques. What we don't need is another pill with a host of side effects to treat another chronic illness that is a result of western diet and lifestyle.
I agree with most of your points in spirit but I feel academia is not currently equipped with the capability for the type of research and development that goes on in industry. I would especially point out that development is more or less big pharma's specialty these days.
I don't think you can strictly say that pharma companies are merely going after the symptoms. It depends on the disease field. I accept that due to marketing, the company will attempt to go after more profitable areas than serving patients with the highest needs. The number of orphan status blockbuster is a bit of an embarrassment for the FDA.
An example of a disease where pharma companies have sunk tens of billions into with little to show is Alzheimers. It is not for a lack of trying, as attested by the stubbornness of Eli Lily. Can it be argued that the potential market share of a MegaMega blockbuster for the Alzheimers blinded pharma companies into reckless pursuit? Sure, but you can't say the science is dodgy because this disease indication went through several classes of drugs to little avail.
This is not really aimed at you, but I don't think just giving more money to research scientist is going to increase productivity. I can probably write another essay on how incentives are also misaligned within academia.
On December 31 2013 10:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2013 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 31 2013 09:42 Nyxisto wrote:On December 31 2013 09:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 31 2013 09:06 Nyxisto wrote:On December 31 2013 08:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
OK, but you intuitively know that a toothbrush isn't worth $150 because you can go to the store and see them selling for a couple bucks. What's the intuition for how much a one of a kind cure should cost? Why are we talking about "one of a kind" cures? The problem is that people have to pay thousands of dollars for drugs they could cook in their kitchen and pay sixty thousand dollars for having their appendix removed. I opened the discussion with an article on a new expensive drug that cures Hepatitis C. It cost a lot to research and that has to be paid for somehow, no matter how much it costs you to cook it in your kitchen. Edit: Patents don't last 100 years... On December 31 2013 09:46 IgnE wrote:
I think there is a misguided perception that pharmaceutical companies are by and large making us healthier at this point. Most pharmaceutical companies haven't had a huge blockbuster success in years. We haven't seen a great new product like beta-blockers, antibiotics, or the like in a long time. Many of the R&D pipelines are drying up, so that previously highly diversified companies end up putting all their eggs in one or two baskets. Instead they rely on a strategy of buying up smaller companies that are lucky enough to hit upon a big seller.
But more than that, the industry is built around treating symptoms rather than improving health outcomes. Viagra and Cialis are some of the biggest sellers and they are for male impotence, which is often a result of other chronic illnesses to begin with. Proton pump inhibitors often end up making the problem worse because they upregulate the expression of proton pumps in your stomach, so that you can never go off them without suffering a massive rebound in acid reflux. We get new kinds of statins with just as many side effects that doctors prescribe to people with terrible blood lipid panels as a result of shitty diet and no exercise. I think the assumption that we need a bloated pharmaceutical industry or need to provide incentives for them is flawed in itself, but even the most "liberal," or what qualifies as left-wing in the United States, people assume that research and development is the highest good. I'd rather have more national science funding (if you took a mere 10% of the defense budget and used it on medical research without a profit motive you'd get vastly more high quality medical research than we currently get from the pharmaceutical industry.) We need medical research on non-patentable, well-known compounds, like plant alkaloids, or even more mundane substances, for treating illnesses. We need medical research on preventative care and prophylaxis, that isn't funded by the cereal or soy industries. We need medical research on new surgical techniques. What we don't need is another pill with a host of side effects to treat another chronic illness that is a result of western diet and lifestyle. But you do know what patent ever-greening is right? Take Glivec for example. A cancer drug that was basically invented in the 60's and is crucial in many cancer treatments. The stuff is still patented today. Estimations are that 90% of patents filled in the last decade in the pharmaceutical sector happened due to ever-greening. If you think the pharmacy sector consists of thriving bright minds that just want to invent the coolest newest drugs you're experiencing a 1984 level of brainwashing. Yeah I know about ever-greening. Sometimes it gets approved, sometimes not. Sometimes it's legit, sometimes not. I'm not arguing that life's perfect here so if you want to argue that patent laws need to be tightened up, go ahead. I've applauded the anti-patent troll legislation that's in the works and I have nothing against improving patent laws for drugs as well. Now, if you want to do something like argue that you have a better way of financing drug research, manufacture and distribution you're going to need to argue long and hard to convince me that you aren't just selling a fantasy. The companies do have enough money to finance research themselves. As said before most big pharma companies are putting twice as much money into marketing as they put into R&D. By putting a price cap on their big sellers(which would also help a lot of people afford those drugs), they're automatically forced to put more money into research themselves.
The marketing number you refer to is the entire sales, administrative, and general cost. Marketing is a percentage of it. Nobody actually knows how much pharma spend on marketing as you know it because no pharma companies releases those numbers.
Linkie 1
Linkie 2
|
On December 31 2013 10:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2013 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 31 2013 09:42 Nyxisto wrote:On December 31 2013 09:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 31 2013 09:06 Nyxisto wrote:On December 31 2013 08:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
OK, but you intuitively know that a toothbrush isn't worth $150 because you can go to the store and see them selling for a couple bucks. What's the intuition for how much a one of a kind cure should cost? Why are we talking about "one of a kind" cures? The problem is that people have to pay thousands of dollars for drugs they could cook in their kitchen and pay sixty thousand dollars for having their appendix removed. I opened the discussion with an article on a new expensive drug that cures Hepatitis C. It cost a lot to research and that has to be paid for somehow, no matter how much it costs you to cook it in your kitchen. Edit: Patents don't last 100 years... But you do know what patent ever-greening is right? Take Glivec for example. A cancer drug that was basically invented in the 60's and is crucial in many cancer treatments. The stuff is still patented today. Estimations are that 90% of patents filled in the last decade in the pharmaceutical sector happened due to ever-greening. If you think the pharmacy sector consists of thriving bright minds that just want to invent the coolest newest drugs you're experiencing a 1984 level of brainwashing. Yeah I know about ever-greening. Sometimes it gets approved, sometimes not. Sometimes it's legit, sometimes not. I'm not arguing that life's perfect here so if you want to argue that patent laws need to be tightened up, go ahead. I've applauded the anti-patent troll legislation that's in the works and I have nothing against improving patent laws for drugs as well. Now, if you want to do something like argue that you have a better way of financing drug research, manufacture and distribution you're going to need to argue long and hard to convince me that you aren't just selling a fantasy. The companies do have enough money to finance research themselves. As said before most big pharma companies are putting twice as much money into marketing as they put into R&D. By putting a price cap on their big sellers(which would also help a lot of people afford those drugs), they're automatically forced to put more money into research themselves.
But you don't market for shits and giggles and not all marketing is B2C advertising fluff. If you have a better, cheaper communication method - OK, cool.
As for big pharma specifically, their role is evolving to more of a financing / publishing role and small biotechs are handling more of the direct research. As far as I care - whatever.
|
On December 31 2013 09:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2013 07:50 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2013 21:50 Gorsameth wrote:On December 30 2013 17:19 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2013 16:04 jellyjello wrote:On December 30 2013 14:47 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2013 11:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 30 2013 09:52 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2013 07:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans count enough competitive races to challenge Democrats for control of the Senate in the 2014 elections, if only they can figure out what to do with the tea party.
Crowded primaries in states such as Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina, where tea partyers and social conservatives are fighting for the nomination and pushing candidates farther right, worry many Republicans, especially after they saw their legitimate shots at a Senate majority slip away in 2010 and 2012.
Republicans need a net gain of six seats to capture control from Democrats, who effectively hold a 55-45 advantage now. But Democrats will be defending 21 of 35 seats to be decided in November, and President Barack Obama is looking like a major drag for them. Midterm elections are often tough for a president's party in any event.
"History is with us, geography is with us and the president's signature legislative achievement is the most unpopular" law of his tenure, Rob Collins, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said of Obama and his health care overhaul.
Republicans inside and outside the Senate speak confidently about snatching open seats in West Virginia and South Dakota. They like their chances against Democratic incumbents in Republican-leaning Arkansas, Louisiana and Alaska and remain upbeat about Montana even if Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock names Lt. Gov. John Walsh to succeed Sen. Max Baucus, Obama's choice for U.S. ambassador to China.
The looming question is whether Republicans undercut their solid shot with tea party-style candidates who fizzled out in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada in 2010 and Indiana and Missouri in 2012. Source They could always invite them in and start taking the debt seriously! Own the next shutdown too. But, to borrow from columnist Eugene Robinson ... the GOP has wind at its back, but will still blow it. The problem is that the Tea party doesn't take things seriously in an adult fashion. They act like spoiled children with any issue that they label as important. It's been covered in that way in major TV media since the outset. Still present is a small decrease in likely voters identifying with Tea Party views. Still, 42% support the views of the average Tea Party members, so a little under half the voting public is either okay with their tactics or does not think 'spoiled children' is even close to a correct characterization of their actions. On December 30 2013 14:37 jellyjello wrote:On December 30 2013 09:52 Danglars wrote:On December 30 2013 07:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans count enough competitive races to challenge Democrats for control of the Senate in the 2014 elections, if only they can figure out what to do with the tea party.
Crowded primaries in states such as Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina, where tea partyers and social conservatives are fighting for the nomination and pushing candidates farther right, worry many Republicans, especially after they saw their legitimate shots at a Senate majority slip away in 2010 and 2012.
Republicans need a net gain of six seats to capture control from Democrats, who effectively hold a 55-45 advantage now. But Democrats will be defending 21 of 35 seats to be decided in November, and President Barack Obama is looking like a major drag for them. Midterm elections are often tough for a president's party in any event.
"History is with us, geography is with us and the president's signature legislative achievement is the most unpopular" law of his tenure, Rob Collins, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said of Obama and his health care overhaul.
Republicans inside and outside the Senate speak confidently about snatching open seats in West Virginia and South Dakota. They like their chances against Democratic incumbents in Republican-leaning Arkansas, Louisiana and Alaska and remain upbeat about Montana even if Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock names Lt. Gov. John Walsh to succeed Sen. Max Baucus, Obama's choice for U.S. ambassador to China.
The looming question is whether Republicans undercut their solid shot with tea party-style candidates who fizzled out in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada in 2010 and Indiana and Missouri in 2012. Source They could always invite them in and start taking the debt seriously! Own the next shutdown too. But, to borrow from columnist Eugene Robinson ... the GOP has wind at its back, but will still blow it. I'm all for the principles of what Tea Party stands for, but some of them really need to learn Politics 101. Ted Cruz, especially, needs to read a copy of Dummys for Politics. The guy is completely clueless. It's all well and good being for the principles of the Tea Party as long as you're never called on to fight for them. Congress has exhibited this for the last year even more starkly than in previous years. You misunderstand me. I'm all for fighting for the principles when there is a possibility of success. However, GOP controls only half of the congress while Democrats have the congress + executive power. The antics such as Ted Cruz has demonstrated will not only roadblock us from what we want, but instead set us back politically. You have to pick your fight where and when. Otherwise, you'd be better off playing politics until you gain that leverage. The houses of Congress are different in their powers, size, and terms for very good reasons. The House of Reps, being naturally closer to the people than the senate, were chosen to hold the purse strings. If you want to spend everybody else's money, win the House. If you're serious about opposing Obamacare, you defund it, period. You can't sell your brand as people that talk tough but put no bite into it. The Republicans in the House don't deserve re-election if they talk a pretty speech on Obamacare but will only vote against it when it doesn't matter. The talk of taking the Senate and "Then we'll REALLY stick it to them" falls on deaf ears; the Bush congress were profligate spenders. The half-hearted fight Boehner waged on the government shutdown is typical. You can't pretend to pick your fights when you have no credibility with the American people that you will ever pick a fight at all. You fight. The half-hearted fight Boehner waged on the government shutdown is typical. You do remember that Boehner and the several other prominant Republicans warned that shutting down the government would backfire and that it would cost them right? Ofc he fought half-hearted when he knew it was suicide to try it in the first place. It only happened because tea party candidates like Ted Cruz are more concerned about there own success/re-election then the bigger picture. If the House was to control all spending why does the Senate need to vote on a budget? The House and Congress are suppose to balance each other out. You know, this thing called discussion and compromise. But both sides are more and more moving to a gridlock where neither side can get anything done. If getting anything done means destroying a fine industry in the country, doing nothing is the best course of action. You think representatives are supposed to drop everything they believe in just for the sake of compromise? If I want to spend 0$ on it, and they want $1 billion, then I'm supposed to sign $500 million and be done with it? Rand Paul said it best on the budget deal, "I think compromise is a good thing, but compromise also has to be a solution. I mean compromise just for the sake of compromise so we can feel good about each other I don't think is progress for the country." Have you ever goaded your friend into doing something, he dragged his feet all the way. He declared that it wouldn't work, left the whole enterprise early, then said he always knew it wouldn't work? It's the epitome of the self-fulfilling prophesy. Boehner caved to demands and sought the earliest possible opportunity to exit. At the risk of boring you at budget process 101, the president submits his budget, the house and senate go through committee process, amendment process, passage/no passage, and conference. The Democratic Senate approved no budget 2011, 2012, 2013. Continuing resolutions are not a budget, they're stopgap and, if you ask me, a disgrace. The checks and balances present in the constitution are meaningful to serve as checks upon the power of an oppressive branch. The power of the purse is another check to help Congress remain accountable to the people. Checks and Balances are meaningless if you want to ignore that important check in Article 1, Section 8 & Section 9. I hear the whining and caterwhauling and hand-wringing about the poor state if "neither side can get anything done." If its true, and everybody sees it, vote the responsible parties out of office. If its not true, and getting things done is code for increasing spending, the power of the federal government, and the tax burden, then I hope neither side can get anything done. Ted Cruz enjoyed a 57% favorable opinion of likely Republican voters after his faction in Congress got their shutdown. He did great work restoring confidence in certain elected Republicans that they will fight for what they believe in and not always promise a fight next vote, next 6 months, next year, next election. Just to go over your things. Ofc one shouldn't compromise for the sake of it but situations are rarely as black and white as that. Assuming both sides are willing to come to an agreement and start with reasonable goals they can find a common ground. However I feel a large part of this comes down to the American 2 party system. By having multiple parties with varies degree of overlap on issues negotiations become a lot more manageable because its not always 2 opposing sides saying yes/no. If you know your friend doesnt want to do it ofc hes not going to give it his all. Its normal. Should Boehner put his foot down before? sure that argument can be made but he didn't even just leave early. Public opinion was firmly on the side of the Democrats from the very start of the shutdown and it was getting worse by the day. Its not backing off in a self-fulfilling prophesy. It was common sense and seeing the situation for what it was. The Senate is involved in the budget. Therefor final authority doesn't lie with just the house. As i said. Ted Cruz and co did what they did for re-election so I hope he got off favorably with Republicans, the real question is what the actual independents thought of it. And yes people should vote differently to stop the gridlock but hey your a 2 party system so any change is near impossible without massive social movement and things aren't that desperate yet while people have a warm house and food on there table.
You're still confusing actual budgets with spending builds and appropriation bills. If you want to pass a budget, you go through the budge process, as described. If you want to pass spending bills, you win the house. The Senate is not involved in proposing spending bills, the House is. Sadly, if you want to grab by force everybody's money and spend it on ideas you think great, you'll have to win the house. Democrats had it with Pelosi a while ago and got PPACA passed. Then they lost it, and have tried to keep as much power as they can (courts, executive orders, agency regulations). Better luck next time.
Boehner left early. He was dragged into it, and made it obvious that he wanted out. I'm making the argument that we lacked a leader seriously opposed to Obamacare, and that played into the short-lived shutdown. It's a necessary restraint on the march of government into everybody's lives and into more and more red ink. It was done what, 18 times before on budgetary/spending issues? Obamacare was passed by Pelosi's house, should've been defunded by Boehner. And in general with government shutdowns in the future, we're still waiting for somebody to get serious about the $17 trillion in debt and >90$ trillion in unfunded liabilities.
|
getting serious would be good. Ted cruz was not serious. He was a narcissist focusing on his own political career rather than the good of the country or responsible governing.
Admittedly most of congress is like that. Throw em all out and bring in wholly new people. I'm tempted to say we should pull people from the federal jury pool to serve in congress; I really think they'd do better than the people in there now.
|
On December 31 2013 13:15 zlefin wrote:
getting serious would be good. Ted cruz was not serious. He was a narcissist focusing on his own political career rather than the good of the country or responsible governing.
Admittedly most of congress is like that. Throw em all out and bring in wholly new people. I'm tempted to say we should pull people from the federal jury pool to serve in congress; I really think they'd do better than the people in there now.
I agree that replacing every single one of them would be a net gain, provided you pulled based on geographical location. I only wonder if their cupidity and ignorance would be a little more, about the same, or a little less than those currently inhabiting office ... given how many come from the public school systems handled by the government.
I'll have to leave it at my disagreement: Ted Cruz was serious, did what was positively good for the country and responsible government in general (the job of a representative in an majority irresponsible government is to oppose). His opponents understate the impact of obamacare, worship compromise as an end in itself, or neglect the history of GOP congresses.
|
A close ally and former high school classmate of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) was ordered on Tuesday to testify about the scandal involving lane closures on the George Washington Bridge.
David Wildstein was subpoenaed to testify at a hearing Jan. 9 by New Jersey Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D), who has been leading the investigation into the September lane closures.
Wildstein was the director of interstate capital projects at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees the bridge.
He and another Christie appointee at the agency resigned earlier this month amid mounting questions about the lane closures, which caused days of gridlock in Fort Lee, N.J.
Some Democrats have alleged Christie's Port Authority appointees had the lanes shut because a Fort Lee's mayor declined to endorse the governor's re-election bid. Wildstein has said the lane closures were the result of a traffic study and Christie has repeatedly denied any role in the decision to shut the lanes.
"When not making traffic cone jokes and shrugging off the threats to public safety these lane closings created, Gov. Christie has made clear that this decision was largely the fault of Mr. Wildstein," Wisniewski said in his statement announcing the subpoena issued to Wildstein. "So as we continue gathering information on this matter the time has come to hear directly from Mr. Wildstein. The public deserves answers as to how this decision was made, who was involved and its true purpose. I look forward to Mr. Wildstein providing insight into this decision that put public safety at risk and raised serious questions about this vital yet dysfunctional agency being used for political vengeance."
Source
|
On December 31 2013 13:15 zlefin wrote:
getting serious would be good. Ted cruz was not serious. He was a narcissist focusing on his own political career rather than the good of the country or responsible governing.
Admittedly most of congress is like that. Throw em all out and bring in wholly new people. I'm tempted to say we should pull people from the federal jury pool to serve in congress; I really think they'd do better than the people in there now.
How do people know things like this? Did you read Ted Cruz's mind? It's an easy, cheap, and very common attack to make to accuse a politician of grandstanding to further his ambitions "at the cost of the country." It's also rarely true.
|
United States42830 Posts
nevermind, it's DEB. No DEB, clearly no man can conclude anything about the motives of anyone else based upon their actions because can you really know another man, I mean really, when it gets down to it. Nevermind what they actually did.
|
On January 01 2014 06:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2013 13:15 zlefin wrote:
getting serious would be good. Ted cruz was not serious. He was a narcissist focusing on his own political career rather than the good of the country or responsible governing.
Admittedly most of congress is like that. Throw em all out and bring in wholly new people. I'm tempted to say we should pull people from the federal jury pool to serve in congress; I really think they'd do better than the people in there now. How do people know things like this? Did you read Ted Cruz's mind? It's an easy, cheap, and very common attack to make to accuse a politician of grandstanding to further his ambitions "at the cost of the country." It's also rarely true.
I don't think you need to read the guy's mind to realize that what he was really trying to do was make a point about government spending, all so that when 2016 rolls around he can say "I stood up and fought against the administration's spending and their Obamacare agenda". The only way the dems would ever cave and actually defund Obamacare was if public opinion was massively against them, which would have been a tremendous longshot at best for Cruz. If one of those two things is not what Cruz was going for, than he is just an imbecile so it is one or the other; imbecile, or narcissist, I'd give each about a 50% shot.
|
On January 01 2014 06:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2013 13:15 zlefin wrote:
getting serious would be good. Ted cruz was not serious. He was a narcissist focusing on his own political career rather than the good of the country or responsible governing.
Admittedly most of congress is like that. Throw em all out and bring in wholly new people. I'm tempted to say we should pull people from the federal jury pool to serve in congress; I really think they'd do better than the people in there now. How do people know things like this? Did you read Ted Cruz's mind? It's an easy, cheap, and very common attack to make to accuse a politician of grandstanding to further his ambitions "at the cost of the country." It's also rarely true.
How about the Republicans themselves who came out saying Cruz had no plan for the shutdown?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
