Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > November > 27 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USBig Drugs, Big Government
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Once the new Congress is sworn in, a top priority for Democrats will be to authorize the federal government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare recipients. The Bush administration is strenuously opposed — and rightly so.
“Government negotiation of drug prices does not work unless you have a program completely run by the government,” the secretary of health and human services, Michael O. Leavitt, said recently in reaffirming administration opposition to one of the Democrats’ first 100-hour priorities. “Democrats say they want the government to negotiate prices. What they really want is government-run health care.”
That I believe. The Dems have never abandoned for a second the idea of government-run universal health care. One of the great political struggles in this country is the race to enshrine a marketplace system based on competition and choice or a version of Hillarycare.
Drug price negotiations allow government to set prices and politicians to dispense pills. It’s another version of the body-part by body-part health care mandates that had state legislatures practicing medicine, determining for example which procedures should be covered by medical plans and how long some patients should remain in the hospital. This is not going to bring drug costs down, except in a few showboat instances where politicians harangue drug companies to give away certain medications, the prices of which are then shifted to others — other drugs, other payers. In 10 years, the cabal will be Big Pharmaceuticals and Big Government, padding and shifting prices while building in political contributions and showboat giveaways demanded by politicians.
Comments
By jbmlaw
November 27, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. My favorite potential solution to the purported problem is to introduce market discipline. Now drugs are subsidized by insurance, which is subsidized by employers, which are (arguably) subsidized by tax exemptions. Subsidies distort the market, by creating artificial demand and thus creating pricing floors for products. If, hypothetically, you wanted to reduce drug costs, you need only pass a law prohibiting any health insurance or any employer from subsidizing the costs of any drug. If people actually have to pay for their drugs, many drugs will go unpurchased, justifiably, thus restoring the natural market.
There are other, more radical steps one could take to reduce costs. A favorite of conservative-libertarians such as this writer would be barring tort suits for any consequence of any use of any drug “approved” by FDA. Alternatively, instead of allowing physicians to prescribe drugs, leave that responsibility with pharmacists only, thus removing the disinformation sales force from the calculus. One could abolish the prescription process entirely, making all drugs available to any purchaser on demand. Patent law also protects above-market prices.
Almost anything, other than increased government participation, seems reasonable to me.
By jbmlaw
November 27, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this
One additional note, then I’ll drop out until lunch: the theory of a single-purchaser with all power to negotiate – so-called “monopsony” power – to my knowledge has never been tested in the real world. I remember much talk about a similar plan, to undermine the oil cartels in the 1970s. As it turned out, it was only US price controls on retail gasoline that allowed the oil cartels to set the price without regard to the market, and instead of the monopsony, Reagan broke the cartel by simply decontrolling oil. There is a lesson for us there.
By I Voted for the War Because I'm a Chickenhawk
November 27, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this
I’m an excellent drug negotiator - I get all the meth I need in exchange for my special tossed salads.
By Van
November 27, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this
One of the big questions for me, is why the Government would want to be involved in creating more government?
A simple solution to the entire prescription drug idea, would be to put up for competitive bid, to existing drug plans, a piece of the Medicare drug plan.
Say, the top 10 companies each take 10% of the folks enrolled and provide them their needs - of course the bad part is we still have to pay via our taxes, but we would have to shoulder less of the burden. The private companies have already negotiated.
The Democrats and other career politicos seen to be interested not the public good, but to consoladate more power in themselves and the federal government.
These dynasty makers, empire builders and turf defenders, will be the ruin of the entire system.
By CJ
November 27, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this
As is frequently the case, Jim Wooten and Michael Leavitt are wrong. Allowing the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies will reduce prices – it’s a free market no-brainer. (Once again, conservatives aren’t conservative.)
The Veteran’s Administration has successfully reduced the price of prescriptions for their constituents for years by doing exactly what the Democrats are suggesting – negotiating bulk prices with the pharmaceutical companies.
Applying the term “Hillarycare” to this discussion to scare readers is demagoguery. If a so-called conservative can’t win the argument with substance, then they just scream “Hillarycare” and hope for the best.
jbmlaw wrote: “If people actually have to pay for their drugs, many drugs will go unpurchased, justifiably, thus restoring the natural market.” Is it just me, or does anybody else see something disturbing about this statement?
jbmlaw suggested “barring tort suits for any consequence of any use of any drug “approved” by FDA”. What if the pharmaceutical company manipulated the testing methodology or testing results in an effort to get the drug approved? What if the pharmaceutical company was negligent in the manufacturing or distribution of the FDA approved drug? What if continued testing of an approved drug found problems not manifested prior to FDA approval and the pharmaceutical company didn’t report or correct such problems? jbmlaw hasn’t thought this one through either.
By @@
November 27, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
Jim: So what have we got here? The Democrats trying to wag the tail of what they perceive is a rabid dog? Big Pharma? You would think they were smarter than that. Once bitten, twice shy. It’s the “smarts” that’ll get ‘em every time.
Wal-Mart & Target’s reduced cost plan on generic drugs, the most widely prescribed among the uninsured. Grrrrrrrrrr…
I’d like to see the Democrat dogs with their tail between their legs, yipping in retreat.
I do have one “bone” of contention as things are now. Confine the FDA to regulating safety only.
Down “Big Fella” and let the good dogs roll.
Over and out….with government’s interference in the free market, that is.
By Mid-South Philosopher
November 27, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim, jbmlaw, and others.
How about the government getting out of the business of stopping citizens from purchasing drugs from Canada or other overseas locations!
If the government is going to protect the big drug monopolies, then it should negotiate the best deal for all of us.
Now some will say…”Oh, but those overseas drugs might not be FDA approved!”
Most of those overseas drugs…at least in Canada…are produced and sold at a lower price by the same American companies.
Never trust a “corporatist.” A “corporatist” is really an “elitist communist” disguised as a “capitalist.”
That ought to set the blog tchurning today, Jim.
By time for the truth
November 27, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
Finally (just a lone voice?) a well written article that hopefully will set a trend, ending the pathetic media pussyfooting around that craven leftist multicultural panderers have inflicted on the rest of us. Who’d have thought that a dogmatic catholic pope could actually do any good for the rest of us?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3QB5NKHNKKX0DQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/opinion/2006/11/27/do2701.xml
By getalife
November 27, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
Mid-South just nailed it but lets get real:
Reuters — The bloodiest bombings in Baghdad since the U.S. invasion in 2003, and the reprisals that swiftly followed, show that Iraq’s sectarian conflict may be too far gone for leaders to stop, even if they want to. The killings of some 250 people in just a few days last week marked a “high-water mark”, analysts said. It demonstrated with savage clarity how little control Iraq’s government exercises, with a security force accused of sectarian bias and a series of peace plans doing little to slow the pace of killing.
What a friggin mess.
By DebbieDoRight
November 27, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
Oh Boo Hoo!! The Dems want to make sure all americans can afford to pay their light bills and have affordable medication at the same time. Why aren’t those mean ole dems satisfied with the Con-Serv-A-Trons drug plan? Is it because its indecipherable unless you have a PHD in nonsense? Is it because it’s so bogged down in ridiculous red tape and big government by the so-called less government right (gasp!) that it’ll take a team of rocket scientists to figure it out? Oh woe is the Con-Serv-A-Trons, woe, woe, woe……
By DebbieDoRight
November 27, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
Twisted Sister Truth: Morning!! I missed u!! How was your thanksgiving? I hope you and your family are well. Now Twisted Sister, how could you quote that Ann Coulter British wannabe and expect to have any credibility?
Her assumptions, (which she doesn’t base on fact — al la Coulter), that all british born muslims are just lieing in wait to blow up britain, hence she can compare all muslims to having those same feelings are formed by blatant bullcrap that only a few ignorant people would believe.
Her saying this is like saying “all white people are KKK”. It’s ridiculous!!
By Mid-South Philosopher
November 27, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
Getalife,
I had not planned on getting into the discussion of the Iraqi fiasco. My feelings about the situation are fairly well-known.
I suspected that the “sectarian” insurgents and the foreign terrorists would ratchet-up the intensity of their attacks after the Democratic win in the Congress. Likely, they plan to keep the pressure on in the hope of getting us to “bug out.”
I had not counted on the intensity to be this much, and I had not counted on the violence to be so focused on the Iraqi people.
We needed at least 250,000 combat troops to occupy Iraq. The Rumsfeld Doctrine (I guess it was his doctrine, but the more I watch, it may have belonged to Georgie ‘lost in Alabama during Vietnam’ Bush)failed miserably to take into account the tasks of occupation.
It seems to me the President has two options:
Submit to some form of the Democrat “quasi-cut-n-run” proposal, or
Work with Rangle to reinstitute the draft and build our combat forces up to about 300,000.
The latter choice would require almost as many support troops…so we are talking about a half-million troops in the theater within a year.
My bet is he will embrace option 1, but, then again, he’s “Georgie” Bush…who knows.
By JK
November 27, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
Big Pharma spends billions blitzing us with prime time advertising to convince us we need drugs that we don’t. (Hint: eat right, exercise, and entertain your fantasies, and you won’t need Prilosec, Lipitor, Zoloft, or Cialis. D’OH!) Then they spend more billions on lobbying efforts, to ensure our legislators represent THEM (by restricting affordable imports) and not the American people. Then they set prices artificially high so that old people who really NEED the medicine have to pick and choose which bills to pay.
And somehow, yet again, Mr. Wooten thinks Democrats are the problem. A typical Monday morning!
By Dusty
November 27, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight,
Rocket Scientist for the government’s drug program? Not exactly. You do have to be smart enough to know your Social Security number, how to use a telephone and know what medicines you are taking. If you don’t know those three steps, then you do have a problem.
Pick up the 107 page booklet sent by the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services to every citizen on Medicare. Look on the back cover and call the number listed there (1-800-633-4227). They will not only suggest a plan for you on the info you give them, they will sign you on for a program.
I have helped several people do this and amazingly enough, none of us were rocket scientists. The government has done everything but serve refreshments while you get a prescription drug card. It is a mammoth piece of work they have done to help Americans.
By time for the truth
November 27, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
I see transgendered crackpipe debbie is back from its most recent failed attempt at rehab. As ever crackpipe debbie’s innate cretinism obfuscates for poor old crackpipe the BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS actual point of the article which is that the time for us generally more advanced tolerant types [leftist nutters excepted of course] in the west to pander in any way to mohammedans is long gone and they (mohammedans) must take sides - either they’re actually against their fellow fanatical murderous mohammedan fascists or they’re (silent/cowed) supporters.
As ever crackpipe’s dishonest ludicrous distortions and unhinged rantings are hugely amusing though.
I kind of hope - NOT - that your Thanksgiving rehab cold turkey wasn’t too bad this time crackpipe. (gedditt??).
By getalife
November 27, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
Mid-South,
Here is a politician telling the truth on Iraq
By @@
November 27, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Interesting article on the Pope.
There has been an onslaught of violent attacks on liberal Amsterdam’s gay community.
By whom, you ask? Muslim extremists.
And here in America we debate Same-Sex Marriage or Civil Unions. Demand or compromise?
I’ll go with “Civil” because it’s so very American.
By (o)(o)
November 27, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
Iraqis get free healthcare from Uncle Sam. The whole country is in tribal triage.
HMOs? The Sunnis chose Kaiser PermaMecca. The Shiites chose Blue Crescent + Blue Shia. The Kurds chose to keep their leeches and blood letting, (but they have a two pint deductible).
In Iraq, Sister Morphine wears a burka. The most common ailment is Mosquehausen By Proxy Syndrome.
It’s so bad over there, that when Iraqis apply for a loan, they have to prove how much Collateral damage they have.
Gadz this bit stinks.
By Curious Observer
November 27, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
So life itself—that is what having access to prescribed drugs means—is merely a commodity to be left to the tender mercies of the free market?
I have no choice but to conclude that jbmlaw, TFTT, Van, and Dusty are right-wing morons, without regard for the value of life.
There is no real free market for many prescription drugs. The manufacturers enjoy a monopoly by virtue of patents that keep getting extended. And if, by chance, a patent is about to expire, the manufacturer does a little dance with the mixture and gets a new one. It all means that manufacturers are free to set whatever price they choose for such widely used drugs as Lipitor and Avandia. You will never—never—find a generic equivalent for such drugs. At more than 100 bucks for a 30-day supply, there’s a nice profit in them.
And the heartless Republican administration is in collusion with these manufacturers. How better to pay off political campaign debts than by forbidding the federal government from negotiating drug prices and rendering it illegal for citizens to buy the same drugs from Canada, which at least has a government that does force price concessions from the pharmaceutical industry?
Rant all you want about the virtues of the free market. The free market has no value to a person who’s dead. It is little short of criminal to take positions that put the lives of fellow citizens in jeopardy. There are many words for such profit-at-all-cost people, but for now scum will do nicely.
By Rod
November 27, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
I’m with you Jim! Shame on the Democrats for wanting poor people to be able to obtain medicine to get well when they’re sick.
Under Jim’s plan (and the Republicans), we can keep the medicine from the poor people and eventually they’ll all die out and there will be nothing left but us richer, Republican, white people.
Course, then, some of us will be considered poor and won’t be able to buy medicine. Oh well, at least Jim will still be able to buy his medicine.
Long live Jim! Down with the poor blacks!
By Renee
November 27, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Hey Dusty, if it’s so easy then why don’t you just get the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services to reduce the 107 page booklet to a single card with a phone number? Huh? Because the Republicans made that booklet so the poor will just give up and go without their needed medicine instead.
By time for the truth
November 27, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
@ deranged scumbucket observer
Given I’ve said NOTHING about the funding/distribution of prescription drugs - indeed I’ve been focusing this morning on the lefts’ cowardly appeasement of mohammedan fascists (and crackpipe debbie’s Thanksgiving ‘rehab’ cold turkey) - where does an oafish hard leftist simpering lobotomised dolt like you glean the FACTS to make yet more empty moronic assertions about my position on prescription drugs?
As for your now trademark vacuous bewildered humanscum like (gedditt??) loud snigger inducing attack on other conservatives - keep your bollocks coming bubbaturd - you are increasingly one of my fave leftist wankers on here!!
By SusieHomeMaker
November 27, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
Dusty: Read the legislation that prompted the prescription drug plan; that’s the part I was talking about.
Twisted Sister Truth: Girlfriend, your panties in a wad today? U sound positively even more ridiculous than usual!!
And Curious Observer: “I have no choice but to conclude that jbmlaw, TFTT, Van, and Dusty are right-wing morons, without regard for the value of life.”
Sad but so true……..
By Dusty
November 27, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
MidSouth Philosopher,
I have no respect for any philosopher who repeatedly calls the President of the United States “Georgie”. Very cute!
You don’t know what options the president has. Did the generals and others call to tell you their latest plan?
The cut-n-run program for Democrats is not quasi, it is a real white flag idea.
Rangle wants a draft so that all Americans (read wealthy) will be in the military and he can tell the people back home what a great leveler of society he is. He is not noted for clear non-partisan thinking.
We do not want to “occupy” Iraq. That sounds like we want a “colony”. We want a stable Iraqi government which is not occupation. Not much is stable in Iraq right now, but forget the empire scenario. We are not there to stay. Why make it sound like we WANT to stay? So think again, MidSousie! And don’t forget to support the troops already in Iraq.
By time for the truth
November 27, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
Its hilarious to see that the resident leftist pondscum have once again been severely abusing their own (much needed/under strength) prescription drugs - hence the blog’s increasing paranoia and pinko witless bollocks - which is amusingly and pleasingly reflected in the usual leftist pondscums’ cyber puke.
Got any death threats today for anyone snivelling moron rod?
By Lonnie
November 27, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
Jim must own a LOT of stock in the Pharmaceutical companies
By Renee
November 27, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
I see tftt is getting her panties in a wad today! She wants to be the only one who can afford to get the drugs to take care of her gonorrhea, syphilis and AIDS.
Honey, if you weren’t such a slutty crack whore, it wouldn’t have come to this!
By Flameworthy Liberal
November 27, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Oh wow, a war protester sets himself on fire in Chicago during rush hour and nobody notices. In fact his body wasn’t even found until days after. Now this supposed martyr should be the lead example of what the protestors for peace should all be doing.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/130292,cst-nws-roep09.article
By time for the truth
November 27, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
How utterly predicktable … crackpipe debbie makes moronic utterly uninformed comments about the level of would be homicide bomber Pakis in the UK and then when challenged slithers away (with its usual obsessive transgendered bollocks) from discussing its crass stupidity. Your earlier comments also show a complete and total ignorance of what Nu-Labour and leftist multi-cultural panderers have done to the UK.
By Rod
November 27, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Uh, tftt, exactly when did I ever give anyone a death threat on here?
Try never. I know you’ve done an awful lot of illegal mind altering drugs in your day (explains why you’re a Republican), but I never threatened anyone.
By Dusty
November 27, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Susie, Renee, and other Dems,
The government’s prescription drug card program was prepared for all levels of society. They put all information about the program for people who can read and make their own decisions. The phone number was for those who could not do that.
Susie-no-all, why don’t you tell us about prescription legislation before it happened? I was under the impression citizens wanted cheaper drugs and that is what most of them got. I am sure you will tell us in brilliant terms all about the ulterior motive of providing better prescription opportunities.(You can omit the name-calling.)
By Chazman
November 27, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
I guess if Time for the Trash writes in all bold, he thinks we will take him more seriously.
By time for the truth
November 27, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
I see that the chemically castrated Renee is once again crudely projecting its shame at what the federal judge imposed last month on the maternal wing of its family. Hopefully Renee will manage to get up off its knees and manfully say no to that last Zoo Atlanta client this afternoon so its visit with its new psychiatric social worker will finally result in some direct action on its behalf.
By time for the truth
November 27, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
snivelling moron rod - you told me I should be “killed” in response to my very sensible post calling for sensible action against N Korea and Iran a while back. Saying someone should be “killed” on a blog is essentially (if not explicitly/literally a death threat).
cheers for biting yet again so nicely!!
By Redneck Convert
November 27, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
I can’t figure out what the commies want. They complane about the Medicare drug program and want lower drug prices. Well, I don’t want my taxes going to help Those People, and I’ll come right out and say it. Where TFTT, Van, jbmlaw, Dusty, and others on here won’t. But they think the same way I do. They are Thinking Right.
We should let the old people die off the naturel way. Instead of buying their drugs and keeping them alive. If a few more croaked, we wouldn’t have a Medicare or Social Security problem.
I’m all for the free market. Unless it involves hiring illegals to take my job. Let the drug companies charge as much as they can for drugs. I can’t figure out why its OK to raise prices on my Skoal and Beech Nut, but not OK to raise drug prices.
Well, its back to the beer run. A lot of bars are plumb out of beer after the long weekend. Specially in the Baptist and Church of God areas. I reckon those boys know how to sellabrate a holiday.
By DebbieDoRight
November 27, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
Twisted Sister Truth: He didn’t say “killed” he said gelded. Probably to you it’s the same thing, but to me it’s totally different…..
By Mid-South Philosopher
November 27, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dusty,
Thanks for your constructive criticism.
Want to or not, we are either going to “occupy” Iraq and “establish” that “stable” government (similar to the manner in which General MacArthur established a stable Japanese government after World War II)or we are not. If we are not, then, let’s get the hell out! What we are currently doing is “idiocy,” and I, for one, have buried one too many young Americans. It is time to either sh** or get off the pot!
Incidentally, inasmuch as I voted for George Bush for President, under the mistaken impression that he was a fiscal conservative, “Georgie” is but a “term of endearment.”
By DebbieDoRight
November 27, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
How utterly predicktable … crackpipe debbie makes moronic utterly uninformed comments about the level of would be homicide bomber Pakis in the UK
Would-Be-Homicide-Bombers? Is that like being “almost” Chineese? Like I was “almost Chineese” but my dad married a Greek person instead?
By Rod
November 27, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
tftt clearly shows why the moronic republicans lost and are getting obliterated with each and every election. I “said” you should be killed? Well, I don’t remember it, but I do admit it would make the world a much better place. Like that’s a death threat, hardly.
tftt, I don’t waste my time thinking about you - at all. However, clearly I have gotten so under your skin that you remember my posts and my words for weeks later. You can’t get me out of your mind!
Now, when someone asks you “who’s your daddy?” You can say Rod - cause I’m your daddy now (I know you never knew who it was cause your mama slept with everyone willing to pay her).
I OWN time for the truth!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - great big SMIRK!!
damn, you’re getting to easy tftt (like that was possible!)
By DebbieDoRight
November 27, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
SIDEBAR: Twisted Sister Truth, why do you like talking about male genitalia so much? Enquiring minds wanna know….
By Rod
November 27, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
By SusieHomeMaker
November 27, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Dusty: Why didn’t you read the legislation for yourself? Even AARP was against it in the beginning but decided to go ahead with it in an order to compromise just so that SOME HELP would be put into place.
And, unlike you, I have omitted the name calling. Peace!
By jbmlaw
November 27, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
Glad to see Philosopher back. I believe my friends CJ and Philosopher share one error, exposed by “I Voted” @ 8:30 – the assumption that the government will negotiate competently. Can you say “$500 toilet seat?” If you are going to compel the monopsony, at least contract it out to somebody who is good at negotiation, like WalMart.
Philosopher urges one idea I like, free import of drugs from anywhere; that is as “free market” as you can get. My guess is that the drug companies don’t like that idea, which may mean it has merit. Since automobiles are expensive and undoubtedly more necessary to daily life than any drug, our leftist friends next will be pushing for government negotiation for automobiles. Makes as much sense as injecting the government into drugs.
I can also understand CJ @ 9:03 and her reluctance to attach any real meaning to “FDA approval,” as FDA is the government. Competence means nothing where the government is concerned; its only purpose is to drive up the costs of compliance. If, on the other hand, “FDA approval” truly meant something, a blanket exemption for tort liability would be entirely appropriate. To the extent that CJ implies same, I agree that a better course would be to abolish the FDA entirely; that would eliminate a layer of unnecessary costs, since FDA approval means nothing useful.
To those many leftists who suggest or imply that access to drugs equals life itself, I respectfully note the death rate remains 100%, with or without drugs. Like medical care itself, the question is not whether this is a black hole, but only how much money we should pump into it. I believe we should allow each individual make that decision, rather than compel any to participate.
Great article, TFTT @ 9:26.
By Mid-South Philosopher
November 27, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
Hi,jbmlaw
Good to be back.
My comment about the government negotiating with the drug companies was a “mental deficient moment.”
Also, I do recognize consumers who shop for medications abroad should exercise caution, but we agree, it should be an option NOT interfered with by the government.
By Keith Lynch
November 27, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
Dear Readers, my name is Keith Lynch and I would like to thank the public for your support in not only your purchase of my book but also your prayers. I would like to also wish you a happy holiday season, but for me I cannot celebrate while my family is still in so much turmoil. This part of the year is especially depressing for me and I will fast for JUSTICE while here in Chicago. Please pray for my family and me that God will bring us back together and give us justice. I will place quotes from the Bible to express what I believe happens to people who are taken advantage of by the judicial system.
Woe to you teachers of the law, you hypocrites. You say if anyone swears by his oath they are bound by their word, but when officials are exposed as lyres of their words you reward them in your judgments. You neglected the more important matters of the law-justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guilds' you strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Woe to you teachers of the law, you hypocrites! You build courts of law like white washed tombs, which look beautiful and clean on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. The Lord sits in judgment, and then you will know that there is a God! "I will carry out great vengeance on them and punish them in my wrath. Then they will know that I am the LORD, when I take vengeance on them." Ezekiel 25:17Log onto www.kllundypublishingllc.com and review the injustice, which befallen my family and me at the hands of law enforcement and public officials in Dekalb County, Decatur, Georgia. Ask officials to comment on the accusations.
Keith Lynch
By Dusty
November 27, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
Mid South Philosopher,
Have you always said…. if things don’t go right in wartime, then GET OUT? We could have finished a lot of wars very quickly with that idea in mind. Of course, we probably would not be free Americans.
Your point is that we don’t have to worry about freeing Iraqis. Leave them. They aint us!!
Other than that, just suppress them. Ah well, we do tire of war and the young faces of those who have left this earth. It really hurts. The only compensation at times is to believe in what they believed in. That their purpose had great merit for Iraqis and us. I’m sticking with that one.
But you LIED!!! When you call President Bush “Georgie”, it is NOT a term of endearment and we both know it.
By Van
November 27, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
Curious Observer
What a crock - did you even read my post. I guess simple minded lefties have no desire to transfer some of that DC power base to the people.
My suggestion that the existing companies that handle private prescription plans take over for the Government is too middle of the road for the lefties.
Again, it seems the far left would rather keep all their power instead of doing what is good for the people. A socialist solution must be a better idea.
By Rod
November 27, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Hey jbmlaw - you’re correct that the death rate remains 100%.
Does that mean you would rather you and your family die today instead of 20-40 years from now?
It sounds like you actually like the idea of poor people not getting medicine so they die now (or suffer through the illness) instead of waiting as they’d prefer for later in life.
Are you that sick? Sounds a bit like tftt.
By Bubba
November 27, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
Hey Keith Lynch, go take a long walk off a short pier.
By getalife
November 27, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
Yep, good ole Dick blocks cheap drugs for big pharma
Of course, Jim supports this outrage.
By Surly Bonds
November 27, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
Big Drugs: I now pay $1500/mo for a family blue cross plan w/RX that only cost me $500/mo in 2004. (and there’s a $1K deductible)
The system is already broken and needs 2B fixed.
Wait till the doc gives you the C word phone call. It hits with the subtlesness of Kramer’s N word tirade. You face oblivion. It changes everything. You start envying strangers you see walking around, somehow knowing that they’ve got more time than you. There’s no hiding.
No reprieve. No mercy. It’s a cold and brutal game of tag and you’re it.
That’s when you stop being afraid. That’s when you confront all your demons. You fight them here so you wont have to fight them down there.
Listen to a song of death: I am. I was. I will be. I will be.
By Brian Curtis
November 27, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
JBM: Overall, Mid-South and CJ nailed the points of the original post very well; collective bargaining is crucial to obtaining the best prices.
Your objection to the government’s ability to negotiate good prices is, itself, based on an underlying problem: the tendency to do favors for corporate backers and contributors, i.e., “sweetheart deals” and pork.
If I thought the government negotiators wouldn’t be squarely in the pockets of those very pharmaceutical corporations they’d be “negotiating” with, I’d be all for this plan. But as long as the corporate interests are pulling the strings, the consumers will continue to get screwed by pharma and government alike.
By getalife
November 27, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
How about we call him the worst President ever Dusty?
By Diogenes
November 27, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
Jim,
Even though your fears are probably valid, escalating drug prices and medical costs are driving those without insurance nuts. The cost of insurance is soaring. Even employees are finding the cost of their company health insurance beyond their means. Is the Democratic plan the best solution? Probably not. The plan needs to be more extensive and it needs to assure that every member of our society has access to affordable health care and the needed proper medications, or health care will soon be a luxury for the wealthy only. It is too little, too late.
By Van
November 27, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
Flameworthy Liberal,
Someone threw away their life and no one noticed - a fitting epitaph.
Reminds me of Fatma An-Najar, a 64-year-old grandmother suicide bomber - all she got for her “martyrdom” was a few lightly wouinded Israelis and her body parts all over the street.
Like 90% of all suicides, no matter what the setting, these folks are not right in the head.
In the first case, The man who doused himself with gasoline and lit himself off, was Malachi Ritscher, 52, a local musician and anti-war activist.
I guess he thought his “protest” was going to influence someone - another total waste - talk about your carbon foot print.
I personally can not understand how killing oneself can further any rational discussion. I guess life here is so bad, they can’t wait to get out - as long as they only hurt themselves, I say - go for it - waste all you want.
However, if you really want things to change, stay around and help be part of the solution and not just another smear on the sidewalk.
By Buy Danish
November 27, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Even AARP was against it in the beginning but decided to go ahead with it in an order to compromise just so that SOME HELP would be put into place.
Susie Q,
“Even the AARP”? So what? Did you happen to notice their wall to wall “Don’t vote” campaign before the elections? Or did that campaign only run on FOX to persuade centrist/right voters not to vote?
Ever wonder how this special interest group could afford to “lobby” 24/7 - and basically tell unsuspecting people not to vote?
Sure they technically provided a website where people could learn about the issues, blah blah blah, but I betcha a million mangoes that most people didn’t bother.
The AARP is nothing but a huge lobbying firm pushing for government entitlements while opposing Social Security reform.
By Dusty
November 27, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Susie Homemaker,
Go ahead and discuss past time legislation on a prescription drug plan. At this moment, I do not think it is helpful.
I do hope that some improvements can be made but I don’t think the “sick” want meds from Mexico or India or China. Poor people need cheaper drugs but they don’t want defective ones. I am sure that is what AARP and other organizations want too.
What is your plan? Do you know about all the programs that drug companies offer for people with low incomes? About Medicaid? What is your aim here besides trying to make our government look bad for trying a new program?
By Vatican Lectures
November 27, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
The pope doesn’t want women to get reproductive healthcare, no matter who pays for it. There’s more going on here than just dollars and cents. We have a theocracy in American that wont fund sin. Sin: Any woman who cycles. Penance? She’s naturally disenfranchised from any healthcare whatsoever. It’s a policy straight from the dark ages.
Fact: if men cycled monthly, menstral cramps would be a sacramental ceremony more holy than vespers. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be more sacred than our right to bear arms. If men could give birth, midwives would rule der verld.
By Buy Danish
November 27, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
“collective bargaining is crucial to obtaining the best prices”
Brian Curtis,
Really? How does Wal-mart do it?
Or do you mean “economies of scale” and not “collective bargaining”?
By Shelly
November 27, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
If conservatives were really concerned about the well-being of average Americans, then they would get out of bed with Big Pharma and Big Oil.
As an uninsured American, I buy my drugs in Canada. I can’t afford to “pay for the pharmaceutical research” that the rest of the world enjoys—by paying higher prices here in the U.S.
The real problem is that pharmaceutical companies have a broken profit model. They need to come up with a new one that doesn’t require them to kiss up to conservatives or screw hard-working Americans.
By GRCleft
November 27, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw @ll:42 “To those who suggest or imply that access to drugs equals life itself, I respectfully note the death rate remains 100%, with or without drugs.”
I respectfully note that jbmlaw is depraved.
By DebbieDoRight
November 27, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
If men could get pregnant, they birth rate would drastically reduce and then there’d be no more talk about “population explosions”.
By ACT
November 27, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
America is a nation of hypochondriacs.
By Peter
November 27, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
Jim IS finally right………..
I agree let’s make sure the poor don’t get medicine, in fact if you are poor, and sick, I would suggest we ship you to Iraq to fight and die with dignaty!
Jim has been “right” in the past as well…..Republican’s in power mean……
“smaller government”, less “Pork Spending”, “Ballanced Budget”, Accountability in the White house, and in all forms of government……
And of course…..standing up for ALL AMERICANS………not just the Rich Folks!
HA HA HA………
By Diogenes
November 27, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Jim,
I am puzzled by something. For the past six years, the Republicans have engaged in a contest to see just how fast they can get government to grow, and you have supported that in the name of “conservatism.” Now that the Democratic party might indulge in the same sport, why are you suddenly warning us about the ills of big government?
By SusieHomeMaker
November 27, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish: I have a mother over 65 who has benefited greatly from AARP — now I don’t know the ins and outs of AARP, (mainly because I don’t need it yet), but I do believe it’s a NEEDED lobbyist unit. More needed than the Guns Lobby.
Dusty: My not agreeing with a leglislation does not make me a person who is “trying to make my government look bad”. This is supposedly america, remember? The land of the free?, the home of the brave?, freedom of speech, religion, right to congregate etc.?
My questioning the government makes me a patriot. If not, our forefathers would not have taken up arms against England to forget a new country that gave us these unalienable rights.
Without questioning and confronting the in-power government, (England), we would not have been called Americans, we would’ve been called New Britons.
By JK
November 27, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
If conservatives were really concerned about the well-being of average Americans, then they would get out of bed with Big Pharma and Big Oil.
Shelly, good point, but it won’t happen. Big oil gives them big cars. Big Pharma gives them big ‘rections. In their minds, that’s all they have worthy of respect. If we respect something else, like someone’s keenly scientific mind for example, we’re just librul elitists who think we’re too good for big cars & big ‘rections. Heh.
By jbmlaw
November 27, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
Dear Rod @ 12:06, the conceptual flaw in your excessively dramatic post is that people die under the current system, and only government intervention can save them. Don’t you think that is fundamentally a silly argument? We are talking about ways to rein in costs, not sending government agents into the streets to shoot the citizenry (except maybe in Fulton and Dekalb counties.)
By jbmlaw
November 27, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Dear GRCleft @ 12:44, you obviously know something I have not yet heard about life expentency? I will acknowledge that leftists in control will not increase the probability of death, it will only diminish the size of the estates we leave to our children.
By DebbieDoRight
November 27, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Pharmaceutical Drug Companies Profits Soar Under Medicare Drug Program Plan
According to the analysis, the Medicare drug program contributed to this surge in drug profits through a combination of three factors: the failure of private plans to negotiate low prices, the elimination of billions in rebates paid by pharmaceutical companies for drugs used by low income beneficiaries, and the increased sales by drug manufacturers due to the Medicare subsidy. The high prices under the Medicare program have resulted in billions of dollars of wasted taxpayer funds.
By Craig
November 27, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight/SusieHomeMaker,
Why don’t you pick a name and stick with it? You look even dumber than usual changing back and forth.
By DebbieDoRight
November 27, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
not sending government agents into the streets to shoot the citizenry (except maybe in Fulton and Dekalb counties.)
LMAO!!!
By jbmlaw
November 27, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
Sorry for the typo on the last post. Article on point in the leftist LA Times today, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-medicare26nov26,0,6950591.story?coll=la-home-headlines Warning to my leftist friends, this will not say what you want to hear. Back to work, see you all later.
By harold
November 27, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this
they aint gonna get a better price than the Wal Mart, so why bother
By Buy Danish
November 27, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Susie Q,
Yes the AARP provides benefits. It is also a Big Special Interest Lobbying Firm with oodles of money that opposed Social Security reform - which will leave the next generation of seniors vulnerable, and will force the younger generation to support an unsustainable system.
Why are they so opposed to people being able to put a fraction of their earnings in a free-market account to supplement their Social Security?
Could it be that they are not a free-market organization?
Diogenes,
Believe me, compared to what Hillary Care would look like, what the Republicans did is a drop in the bucket.
I’m glad to see all these new generation conservatives like you who are suddenly interested in profligate government spending.
Better late than never. Can I count you in as someone who will oppose Universal Health Care and the lousy service and outrageously high taxes that it would create?
By Mary
November 27, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Why don’t we just all get our drugs from Canada and Mexico.
Stop this BS where if you have a bad co-pay you cant afford your prescriptions so there fore you do without so therefore you become sicker so your insurance company will allow you to be treated in the hospital then prescribe more drugs that you cant afford to buy so you dont…..
Get the picture big business. The consumers are the ones suffering not the insurance companies, not the pharma companies, not the doctors…but the working poor. Employees who because of high prescription co-pays and/or no insurance and unreasonable drug prices can’t afford their medications, but go deeper and deeper in the hole trying to or who do without and pray nothing bad happens.
By Dennis
November 27, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Here’s Jim with another verse of his one song, “Let’s Privitize Everything (the folks on the bottom are all lazy and deserve nothing).”
Jim knows, just like everybody else knows, that the drug folks don’t contribute to the elections of politicians without wanting something back, namely guaranteed profits. And they get it.
I’d like Jim and others like him to talk to older and retired people who can’t afford the drugs they need and tell them how to afford those drugs and pay their other bills too.
And no doubt there might be a response to this from some good christian conservatives screeming about my wanting to spend somebody else’s money.
What some of you folks can’t accept is that some people can work hard all of their lives and still end up with nothing. And if that didn’t happen to you, you’re one of the fortunate few.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Curious Observer
November 27, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
Dennis,
Ignorance, not blindness, wins my vote. Any heartless “human being” who reasons that because we’re all going to die some day we shouldn’t have any concern that some sick people can’t afford their medications is ignorant, if not malicious. Either way, such “thinkers” are a threat to humanity.
By getalife
November 27, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
The Bush girls gone wild should be in Iraq
By Dusty
November 27, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
Suzy Homemaker,
You can stop the sermon now. Nobody told you not to speak. I mentioned that you only told one side of the story, the side that makes the government look bad.
You are free to say anything you want, whether it makes sense or not. So babble on. We know you have a perfect right to do just that.
By Buy Danish
November 27, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
Dennis,
First of all, there IS a program for “older and retired people” that President Bush put and a Republican congress put in place.
It’s called the “Medicare Prescription Drug Plan” and despite the best efforts of the mainstream media, seniors are happy with the program.
Despite this great big new very expensive entitlement that will be funded by taxpayers, you are still miserable.
Moreover, I guess it hasn’t occured to you that one reason that pharmacutical companies contribute to Republicans is because they are constantly threatened with lawsuits by Big Democrat Trial Lawyers?
There is no way that Republicans can “lock in profits” for anyone - although you idiot Dems can do a good job of preventing them from making any profits at all and then shutting them down for good.
If you ever get sick and need some drug that these evil companies make, I hope you will find it in your heart to stop “screeming” long enough to thank them for saving your freaking life, or making the quality of your life better.
BTW, your stupid little tag line is just as meaningless as it was yesterday when you were ranting about “White Power”.
By jbmlaw
November 27, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Dear Curious @ 2:00, you persist in your “it’s all about yourself” perspective. [Warning, my next sentence is not factual, but is fundamentally true, for those nuanced enough to appreciate the distinction.] 90% of the population spends 90% of total lifetime medical expense during the final 90days of life. [End of non-factual truth.] Instead of wasting all of that seed corn on yourself, does it not make more sense to leave it to make the next generation better? You leftists need to get over your self-absorbtion.
By Flameworthy Liberal
November 27, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
“Big oil”
“Big pharmecutical companies”
“Big business”
“Conservatives in bed with business”
“Profits”
BIG BIG BIG.
Here we go again with the agenda-driven left dogma of the evils of business and profits. Pharma companies make profits and use those profits for research, just like oil companies. In the world of the Left, if you aren’t a non-profit entity, then you are not really worthy of being a valid business in the free market. You therefore need to be under strict government control to tell you how much your total profits should be irrespective of your profit margin, and if you exceed that, the excess will be confiscated. Does something need to be done about prescription prices and healthcare in general? Sure. But turning over all control of the healthcare industry to a mandate of the federal government, be it Hillary Care or anything else, is a disaster in the making. Nobody in their sane mind could possibly believe that a national healthcare system where you are told who your doctor is and where you are to visit and when is a wonderful idea for America. But, that’s the general Left for you in this nation - government is the answer to everything and capitalism/the free market is bad. Anyone visited a VA hospital lately with an elderly parent or grandparent or great-grandparent? I shudder to think that’s the quality of care we’ll all receive under government healtcare.
By DebbieDoRight
November 27, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Here we go again with the agenda-driven left dogma of the evils of business and profits. Pharma companies make profits and use those profits for research, just like oil companies.
Yes, that’s true ALL the profits from the Pharma companies and the Oil companies go toward “research”. What they are researching however, is more ways to get the government to subsidize their bottom line.
Craig: FYI - Debbie doesn’t do duos.
By Dennis
November 27, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
Well, first, Danish, I’m not a dem. Nor a repub. I’ve learned, and I don’t trust either damned one as each is a faction of the “only party” and that is the “business party”.
I won’t go so far as to accuse you (since I’m rarely on here and don’t know you) of being the type that measures success only by money. But those who cry the loudest about “entitlements” are usually the folks with the money who don’t have to worry about how they’re going to pay their bills.
Regarding the racist bit you’ve decried, I think I’ve made a good point, but I invite you to disprove it; The same arguements once used against “sorry” black people are the same “type” of arguement used against “lazy” people who should have “worked harder” and provided for their own social security and medical care.
Everybody who works for the brass ring doesn’t get it, and you know it. Few there are who do compared to those who don’t.
Perhaps it hasn’t occured to you that if everyone was as successful as you, you would have less, not what you now have.
Everyone who has worked to advance this country is “entitled” to a portion of it’s bounty.
As to crediting Bush for the “successful” prescription program, let’s wait and see. I’m in it (AARP as a matter of fact)and I use it, but the choices of companies is getting smaller. Thus with less competition, those companies that are still around will soon be offering a “take it or leave it, we don’t give a damn” attitude just like the big drug companies do now.
Regarding your statement here; “Moreover, I guess it hasn’t occured to you that one reason that pharmacutical companies contribute to Republicans is because they are constantly threatened with lawsuits by Big Democrat Trial Lawyers?”, gimme a break. That’s pitiful.
And the “tag”, it meant “something” to you…. You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By JK
November 27, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Pharma companies make profits and use those profits for research, just like oil companies.
Since you Big Pharm lovers have all the answers, here’s my question: What’s with the mega-billion$ in advertising? Can’t watch news or primetime without “Ask your doctor if it’s right for you!” Um, if I see my doctor with a problem, wouldn’t she know what drugs are available, and if it’s right for me? (Ask any doctor how far up their butts the pharm reps climbed this month with all their new breakthrough drugs.) I can’t write my own prescription, so why the billions targeting my business and encouraging me to [raise health care costs and] make an unnecessary appointment to get drugs I probably don’t need? Why aren’t THOSE billions being spent on research, if that’s really what they care about?
Also: What’s with the culture of “maintenance drugs?” When was the last time they cured something? “Oh, we can’t cure you, but you can take these pills for the rest of your life…” Really? It would appear that there’s no profit motive for curing anything — not if we’ll all line up at CVS for the rest of our lives for “maintenance” pills. I mean, would they even SELL a cure for something they’re currently reaping billions to maintain? Does anyone else wonder about that?
By DebbieDoRight
November 27, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Nobody in their sane mind could possibly believe that a national healthcare system where you are told who your doctor is and where you are to visit and when
I thought that’s what HMOs were for!
By DebbieDoRight
November 27, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
Instead of wasting all of that seed corn on yourself, does it not make more sense to leave it to make the next generation better?
If we do, it’ll just go to the 30+ Trillion dollar deficit.
You leftists need to get over your self-absorbtion.
Self absorption is the manna for the right, not the middle or the left.
By Food Critic
November 27, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Health Insurance Companies exist for shareholders, not for the sick. Dont expect any change until there’s a bed pan revolution. Only then can we can take, “Hell no, we wont go” to a ho nudda lebble!!!!
By Curious Observer
November 27, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Does anybody else wonder how much stock in the pharmaceutical and medical supply industry jbowelmovementlaw and the other defenders of the status quo own?
By Buy Danish
November 27, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Dennis,
Fine, you’re not a “dem” you are just plain “dim”. How is it that you claim not to trust either party but you want to invest our nation’s health care in a Big Government program? That is about the most nonsensical thing I have ever heard - and believe me I’ve heard plenty.
As for your white power argument, I will borrow a word from you and say that it is “pitiful” with no basis in fact. Washington D.C. schools get more money than any others and their student body is…black. Put truth to power!
What DOES have a basis in fact is the fact that Democrat trial lawyers target the Big Pharmas with lawsuits. In fact that is why there are no American companies willing to manufacture flu vaccine anymore.
JK,
Nice conspiracy theory about the drug companies purposely not finding cures for illnesses just so they can be forced to take their pills for the rest of their lives.
One problem with your moonbat theory is that the drug companies only hold the patents on the drugs for a limited time, after which the generic drug companies get to make a version of those drugs, benefiting from all the work and investments that Big Pharma did in the first place.
Any more bright ideas?
By John
November 27, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
Once again Jim, you are very wrong. Since the Republicans have been in power we have seen nothing but government growth and the Consitution tossed aside. The Feds should be able to negotiate prices just like Wal-Mart or other big chain.
By JK
November 27, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
Danish, you really are an arrogant b-tch. I did not present a “moonbat theory” to this board, as you say. I raised questions pertinent to today’s topic, whereas you see every question as an invitation to misquote and insult people. Your comment about limited patents is pertinent, but you didn’t address my other questions with your insults which were not pertinent. You really should up your dosage of Zoloft or HRT or whatever it is you take to make your personality tolerable. It’s clearly not working.
By Van
November 27, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
Question for the blog,
Why would anyone want another government bureaucracy, another ineffective group of folks managing your prescription medicines?
Why does the government always have to re-invent the wheel and put that cost on the backs of the working stiffs. Other companies already do this and have the expertise to handle it better than those congresscritters inside the beltway.
By jbmlaw
November 27, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
Dear Curious @ 3:54, I think you answered my question. It’s all about you, and you don’t care whether you leave anything for the next generation. There is nothing so selfish as a pious leftist. Think about your kids, for G_d’s sake.
By JK
November 27, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
Here’s an example:
“Hi! My family calls me The Finisher. Finish up in there! Finished your homework yet? But what I didn’t finish was treating my acid reflux disease. I felt better, and stoped taking my overpriced medication from XYZ pharmaceutical. My doctor said I should take one every day even if I feel better!”
What’s the purpose of this ad? To keep people in line at CVS every month! Here’s a tip dude: Stop eating garbage junk food every day, cut back on the coffee and cigarettes, and your tummy will start feeling better without a lifetime supply of whatever it is…
By Buy Danish
November 27, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
Here is some factual information for JK and others who are complaining about Big Pharma and their evil plans to rip off the little people.
After going through an explanation about how Big Pharma does all the work, and only gets 17 years on its patents, it mentions that “it costs on average around $800,000,000 to develop and test a new drug before it is approved for use.”
Note one effect:
This new surge of generic drugs has altered the market of pharmaceutical compainies. They have the option to either spend another multi-billion dollars reaserching a new drug which will better mankind, or they can spend much less money altering thier current drug. For example Tylenol makes cough syrup. But they also have Tylenol PM, Tylenol Kids, and Tylenol Sinus and Headache. And each of those drugs has thier own individual patent. Tylenol could chose to spend multi-billions of dollars reserching the cure for any other disease which needs proper medication, but they choose to cling to their economy-niche for fear of loosing money to generic drugs.
It seems to me that these short patents rights, which are in effect price controls, are responsible for less potentially life-saving innovation and higher costs to consumers.
Consider this a lesson in why price-controls inevitably have the opposite effect for which they were intended.
By getalife
November 27, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this
Here is where to get cheap generic drugs
By Buy Danish
November 27, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this
JK,
Why do you care what Big Pharma does since your solution is for everyone to stop drinking coffee and eating junk food?
Are you people having another “Who’s the biggest idiot contest”?
By Food Critic
November 27, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this
Is there a doctor in the blog?
By Doctor
November 27, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this
Why, yes, I’m a doctor, sir.
By Food Critic
November 27, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this
You’re a doctor? Well then do something about the sick trolls on this blog. They’re obviously insane.
By Doctor
November 27, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this
Now hold on, I cant just give meds to mutant lobotomy-challenged trolls. I need to give them a physical exam to make sure that their problem isn’t inbreeding or cross species genome splicing. Sorry, insurance you know. They’d cancel my policy. I am sorry. You’ll just have to endure.
By CJ
November 27, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish @4:33 “drug companies only hold the patents on the drugs for a limited time, after which the generic drug companies get to make a version of those drugs, benefiting from all the work and investments that Big Pharma did in the first place.”
Buy Danish is apparently unaware that “Big Government” (i.e. taxpayers) funds much, if not most, of the drug industry’s research and development through the National Institutes of Health. If he’s not afraid of the truth, BD can go to http://www.nih.org for more information.
By Jeff Cranston
November 27, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this
Great Point, CJ! Finally a real person who doesn’t abuse posting priveleges. Bravo sir.
Now, I have a serious question that affects us all. At Home Depot, they have plywood called “Sandply”, and I think it comes from China, and it has a horrible smell, akin to Dog Poop, (I’m serious). There have been reports on the news about this Chinese Plywood that Home Depot carries that is illegal in China because of the toxic chemicals that they use. The Chinese will allow this composite-wood for export, but will not allow it in their own country for use.
Does anyone know anything about this? I just bought some and took it back cause it smelled so bad.
Please, if you know anything about this please please answer, provide a link, anything.
I have to know, cause I use alot of plywood in my artwork. This goes into American’s homes, and I am not going to buy it anymore if it is truly toxic.
Jeff Cranston
By Van
November 27, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this
cj,
Great link - http://www.nih.org
Northern Inyo County Local Hospital
Great research
By Buy Danish
November 27, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this
CJ,
This link?
Try again.
By Serious Lee
November 27, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this
Canada sure seems to be able to negotiate some good prices!
And CJ is right. The US taxpayer is funding most of the research. A double wammy. We are stuck with much higher drug prices than Canada even though we are the ones funding the research.
Why is Canada able to get good government bargains???????????????????????
By Advisor
November 27, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this
Government does not set prices on drugs, nor would they if the restriction on negoating drug prices were lifted from the Medicare Drug part D benefit. Negotiated drug prices are in the best interest of everyone except those who would profiteer at the public trough. I bet Jim has some drug company stocks in his portfolio, either his personal account, or his retirement account. Do journalistic ethics require Mr. Jim to reveal his financial interest in this topic prior to try to influence public opinion with his editorial? Every insurance company in America that covers drugs engage in neogations with the drug manufactures over price, seeking bulk discounts. Yet the neoconvicts denied this basic cost control measure to the biggest drug buyer of all, Medicare Part D. Why?
By CJ
November 27, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this
Correction to my 5:21. The link to the NIH website is http://www.nih.gov
By advisor
November 27, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this
The smell could be butric acid, a favorite toy of my mispent childhood. It is harmless except for the smell, which will make you barf real quick. We would borrow some from the high school chem lab, and use it in church, at weddings, at seafood breakfast buffets. The entertainment value was in watching high powered fancy dressed adults barf their guts out in public. It smells like really dirty socks, except much more concentrated. That is because it is butric acid that gives dirty socks their smell. If you want a discount on a new car, just put a drop in the car prior to the sale, then complain of the smell.
By Jeff Cranston
November 27, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this
JK: my sister works in the cancer ward in New Hampshire. She claims that a cure for most cancers is available, but the medical authorities are sitting on it because it is too profitable. My wife just spent $150K on surgery, chemo, and radiation in less than eight months. Her total time actually recieving treatment was only about 100 hours.
Now the logic is that the health-insurance companies would want the cure, so that they’re not liable. The logic follows that the drug industry and the medical industry wouldn’t want the cure, because it’s so profitable.
I cant bring myself to believe it, no matter how much my sister insists that it’s true. Take cancer away, and the whole medical industry would collapse? I should google how much revenue cancer brings the industry? How much of a percentage? Cancer is just not funny. It’s the one disease not even Rush would make fun of.
By CJ
November 27, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this
Van and Buy Danish,
I made a mistake with the URL. Your sarcastic posts in response speak volumes about your intellectual honesty. However, if I’m mistaken and the problem is your intellect and not your honesty, then let me offer another resource in the event that I make a similar mistake in the future: http://www.google.com
I’m confident that you’ll let us know if I messed that one up too.
By Buy Danish
November 28, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this
CJ,
I took your advice and went to that Google thingy you told us about. Look what I found! An article that goes into great detail debunking all your theories. Why, it even talks about how Big Pharma antacids like Zantac save gazillions of dollars a year in medical costs as these drugs keeps people out of the hospital with ulcers.
This article is from 2001 so some of the numbers are outdated. For instance, the NIH budget is now $27 billion a year, and it costs Big Pharma $800 million dollars per drug.
Other than those details, its analysis is right on. Gotta love the title too – Goddam the Pusher Man.
By Buy Danish
November 28, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this
CJ,
I apologize. It was JK who had the “we don’t need Big Pharma anyway just eat better” theory.
By Buy Danish
November 28, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this
Why is Canada able to get good government bargains???????????????????????
Serious Lee and others,
Here’s your answer:
The reason that Rx drugs cost less in countries like Canada is that international laws on commerce treat prescription drugs differently from other consumer products. U.S. pharmaceutical companies are required under a 1994 treaty to sell their drugs at drastically cut prices to countries with drug price controls. Any pharmaceutical company that fails to comply can be punished by having its patent protection taken away. It is as if you were selling books in the United States for $10 and when you offered them to Canada, officials there told you that they would either give you $4 or violate your intellectual property rights and make copies of the book without your permission, in the name of educating Canadians.
To comply with this treaty, drug companies slash prices for countries with price controls, which means most countries in the developed world. The purchasing countries in this “deal” are supposed to agree not to turn around and resell the drugs to Americans. That means all the state programs to “reimport” drugs are illegal, but the law is almost never enforced — and as you read this the Senate and House are considering bills that make importation completely legal.
The United States, which does not currently have price controls, produces nearly 90 percent of the world’s supply of new pharmaceuticals. Countries with price controls do not produce any significant supplies of new drugs — instead, the innovators have fled to the U.S., where they have the protection of the free-market system and protection for intellectual property they create. At least, today they come here.
It sounds like we need to renegotiate these treaties and just say no to price controls.
By Second Story Man
November 28, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this
Buy Dorkish: I represent all the readers of the AJC when I tell you to get lost. You blog too much. It’s unnatural. This isn’t myspace or facebook. You have no right to perpetuate these pathetic threads that go on and on even to the next day. It’s indecent. It’s unamerican.
Just blog once and stfu. You’re a nuisance and a liability. You havent’ offered one original insight. not one. you just babble with your gaggle of snorts.
but dont feel bad. you’re as common as the titmouse. (i wonder if t*tmouse gets through the profanity screen)
By Mrs. RepubLady
November 28, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
Buy Danish, BRAVO for putting those moron liberals in their place! You deserve a trip to the Cheesecake Factory today, or at least a Cold Stone Creamery. Your defence of the good American pharmacies has moved me more than the CVS commercials where there eyes fill up with tears when they tell how they helped somebody. We need more good Americans like you looking out for big business. I would love to buy you a large, triple-sausage pan pizza to celebrate!
By Buy Danish
November 28, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
Idiots above^^^,
1.) I am trim and slim (or lean and mean, depending on your perspective) and have no interest in junk food, nor junk food-for-thought. You cannot tempt me with your insincere offers of cheesecake, icecream and pizza.
As you seem to be very familiar with what is offered at those locations, I suggest you may want to work on the soft and squishy parts - which include, but are not limited to, your flabby brain.
By cary
November 28, 2006 06:12 PM | Link to this
I am a conservative republican but I don’t agree with this approach. I believe that something has to be done to limit the power that the major pharmaceutical companies have on the consumer. American consumers pay roughly 3000 percent more than the actual manufacturing costs, because we are the only nation that does not have price controls and negotiate our drug prices. In a sense, we are bearing the cost of the world’s R&D. However, the prices Americans pay are still excessive — and in fact, drug companies are increasingly pocketing their huge profits rather than reinvesting them. For example, in 2002, 78 new drugs were approved by the FDA. Of those, only 17 were deemed by the FDA to have new active ingredients, and only seven were found to be improvements over the older drugs. On top of that, of the seven found to be an improvement over the older drug, not one of them came from U.S. companies.