FINALLY Bush threatens veto over government waste . . .

[BaliBabyDoc]

Thanks George Bush for making a mess of Medicare

"I signed Medicare reform proudly and any attempt to limit the choices of our seniors and to take away their prescription drug coverage under Medicare will meet my veto," Bush said

So much for working on that budget deficit. By merely repealing this legislation and using "market forces" and a little government intervention to hold down drug costs/improve utilization . . . that would save us somewhere between $750B and $1T in the next decade.

I know Bush wants a legacy but is The Debt President really worth it?

Bush pledged this week to "deal with the unfunded liabilities of Medicare" once Social Security is overhauled as he has proposed. But lawmakers long skeptical of the administration's cost estimates of the prescription drug benefit said the new, higher price tag hurt the White House's credibility on this issue.

I wonder when he plans to deal with the unfunded liability of Iraq?

 

[Engineer]

Sign all "spending" bills. Veto "spending cut" bills.

And this is conservative how?

Yep.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Now that's not fair . . . Bush is advocating the signing of spending cut bills that are minor or primarily affect low income people. I think that kind of leadership deserves recognition. I bet if Congress sent him a bill fully funding No Child Left Behind, he would veto it. Adequate funding for the EPA would get the veto pen in a heartbeat.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Now that's not fair . . . Bush is advocating the signing of spending cut bills that are minor or primarily affect low income people. I think that kind of leadership deserves recognition. I bet if Congress sent him a bill fully funding No Child Left Behind, he would veto it. Adequate funding for the EPA would get the veto pen in a heartbeat.

All in theory. Every spending bill has been signed "so far". There may be cuts, but REAL cuts won't happen under this guy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Now that's not fair . . . Bush is advocating the signing of spending cut bills that are minor or primarily affect low income people. I think that kind of leadership deserves recognition. I bet if Congress sent him a bill fully funding No Child Left Behind, he would veto it. Adequate funding for the EPA would get the veto pen in a heartbeat.

All in theory. Every spending bill has been signed "so far". There may be cuts, but REAL cuts won't happen under this guy.

Naaaaw, he just announced

Cutting loans to small business

Cutting health for kids

Cuts for Farmers

Cuts to Manufacturing

 

[DealMonkey]

Some people would claim that Medicare is the program in crisis, not social security. But hey, whatever.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Some people would claim that Medicare is the program in crisis, not social security. But hey, whatever.

These two programs make up more than 1/2 the budget and considered required spending. I would consider that both of them are in crisis, as both of them continue to demand more tax dollars for their operation.

 

[BBond]

Let's be honest. Medicare will never be feasible so long as it's run as a payoff to big pharma. And Bush's threat to veto any cuts shows which side of the fence he's on. His plan pays pharmaceutical houses at America's expense.

Some changes can be made to Bush's Medicare debacle that will ease the costs immediately.

Bush's plan does not allow for the U.S. government to use its buying power to bargain for better prices. Who can agree with that? And Bush's plan doesn't allow for drugs, even drugs which are manufactured here in the USA and shipped to Canada for instance, to be re-imported at a lower price. Who can agree with that?

Get the best price from the manufacturers and allow imports.

If the pharmaceutical houses can sell their products for less in Canada I'm sure they can sell them for less here too. And Bush's excuse for not allowing re-importating drugs from Canada because we have to be sure they are safe is one of the best examples of flawed logic I have ever heard.

We're shipping many of those drugs to Canada in the first place. And I haven't read any stories of Canadians dropping dead in the streets from unsafe prescription medicatons manufactured in Canada either.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Some people would claim that Medicare is the program in crisis, not social security. But hey, whatever.

These two programs make up more than 1/2 the budget and considered required spending. I would consider that both of them are in crisis, as both of them continue to demand more tax dollars for their operation.

That's the problem. As a regular budget item SS taxes are being spent on deficits instead of funding the system they were intended to fund.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond
Let's be honest. Medicare will never be feasible so long as it's run as a payoff to big pharma. And Bush's threat to veto any cuts shows which side of the fence he's on. His plan pays pharmaceutical houses at America's expense.

Some changes can be made to Bush's Medicare debacle that will ease the costs immediately.

Bush's plan does not allow for the U.S. government to use its buying power to bargain for better prices. Who can agree with that? And Bush's plan doesn't allow for drugs, even drugs which are manufactured here in the USA and shipped to Canada for instance, to be re-imported at a lower price. Who can agree with that?

Get the best price from the manufacturers and allow imports.

If the pharmaceutical houses can sell their products for less in Canada I'm sure they can sell them for less here too. And Bush's excuse for not allowing re-importating drugs from Canada because we have to be sure they are safe is one of the best examples of flawed logic I have ever heard.

We're shipping many of those drugs to Canada in the first place. And I haven't read any stories of Canadians dropping dead in the streets from unsafe prescription medicatons manufactured in Canada either.

1. Our goverment does not need to set the price of medication. It would be easy to argue that taking the profit out of big phara would only slow future drug development. This is bad.

2. Drug imports from Canada. While I have no problem with drug imports from Canada, but Canada does. They have fixed price/amounts contracts with those big pharma, if they exceed their contract amounts, they will see higher amounts being charged. This is not a long term fix. However It would likely cause our prices to moderatly decrease and Canadas to increase.

 

[SuperTool]

So the cost is almost 2x of what was claimed before it was voted in. Looks like it's not just science that has been politicized by the GOP, but math too.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
Let's be honest. Medicare will never be feasible so long as it's run as a payoff to big pharma. And Bush's threat to veto any cuts shows which side of the fence he's on. His plan pays pharmaceutical houses at America's expense.

Some changes can be made to Bush's Medicare debacle that will ease the costs immediately.

Bush's plan does not allow for the U.S. government to use its buying power to bargain for better prices. Who can agree with that? And Bush's plan doesn't allow for drugs, even drugs which are manufactured here in the USA and shipped to Canada for instance, to be re-imported at a lower price. Who can agree with that?

Get the best price from the manufacturers and allow imports.

If the pharmaceutical houses can sell their products for less in Canada I'm sure they can sell them for less here too. And Bush's excuse for not allowing re-importating drugs from Canada because we have to be sure they are safe is one of the best examples of flawed logic I have ever heard.

We're shipping many of those drugs to Canada in the first place. And I haven't read any stories of Canadians dropping dead in the streets from unsafe prescription medicatons manufactured in Canada either.

1. Our goverment does not need to set the price of medication. It would be easy to argue that taking the profit out of big phara would only slow future drug development. This is bad.

2. Drug imports from Canada. While I have no problem with drug imports from Canada, but Canada does. They have fixed price/amounts contracts with those big pharma, if they exceed their contract amounts, they will see higher amounts being charged. This is not a long term fix. However It would likely cause our prices to moderatly decrease and Canadas to increase.

There is, IMO, a fundamental conflict between your two statements. If Canada has contracted fixed price/amounts with big pharma and you have no problem importing drugs from there how can you oppose the USA negotiating fixed price/amounts as well?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
Let's be honest. Medicare will never be feasible so long as it's run as a payoff to big pharma. And Bush's threat to veto any cuts shows which side of the fence he's on. His plan pays pharmaceutical houses at America's expense.

Some changes can be made to Bush's Medicare debacle that will ease the costs immediately.

Bush's plan does not allow for the U.S. government to use its buying power to bargain for better prices. Who can agree with that? And Bush's plan doesn't allow for drugs, even drugs which are manufactured here in the USA and shipped to Canada for instance, to be re-imported at a lower price. Who can agree with that?

Get the best price from the manufacturers and allow imports.

If the pharmaceutical houses can sell their products for less in Canada I'm sure they can sell them for less here too. And Bush's excuse for not allowing re-importating drugs from Canada because we have to be sure they are safe is one of the best examples of flawed logic I have ever heard.

We're shipping many of those drugs to Canada in the first place. And I haven't read any stories of Canadians dropping dead in the streets from unsafe prescription medicatons manufactured in Canada either.

1. Our goverment does not need to set the price of medication. It would be easy to argue that taking the profit out of big phara would only slow future drug development. This is bad.

2. Drug imports from Canada. While I have no problem with drug imports from Canada, but Canada does. They have fixed price/amounts contracts with those big pharma, if they exceed their contract amounts, they will see higher amounts being charged. This is not a long term fix. However It would likely cause our prices to moderatly decrease and Canadas to increase.

But our government does set the price of medication by not putting a limit on the price it's willing to pay. If the government is willing to pay any price, then there are no market forces for keeping the price down. Also, big pharma spends more on marketing than they do on R&D by a wide margin.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So the cost is almost 2x of what was claimed before it was voted in. Looks like it's not just science that has been politicized by the GOP, but math too.

Bush administration theory of government:

1. Choose an agenda

2. Fabricate information to suit your agenda.

Bake well in a coopted, subverted "free" press for as long as it takes to get ~half of the nation to parrot your lies.

Let cool until costs double, then spend.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
Let's be honest. Medicare will never be feasible so long as it's run as a payoff to big pharma. And Bush's threat to veto any cuts shows which side of the fence he's on. His plan pays pharmaceutical houses at America's expense.

Some changes can be made to Bush's Medicare debacle that will ease the costs immediately.

Bush's plan does not allow for the U.S. government to use its buying power to bargain for better prices. Who can agree with that? And Bush's plan doesn't allow for drugs, even drugs which are manufactured here in the USA and shipped to Canada for instance, to be re-imported at a lower price. Who can agree with that?

Get the best price from the manufacturers and allow imports.

If the pharmaceutical houses can sell their products for less in Canada I'm sure they can sell them for less here too. And Bush's excuse for not allowing re-importating drugs from Canada because we have to be sure they are safe is one of the best examples of flawed logic I have ever heard.

We're shipping many of those drugs to Canada in the first place. And I haven't read any stories of Canadians dropping dead in the streets from unsafe prescription medicatons manufactured in Canada either.

1. Our goverment does not need to set the price of medication. It would be easy to argue that taking the profit out of big phara would only slow future drug development. This is bad.

2. Drug imports from Canada. While I have no problem with drug imports from Canada, but Canada does. They have fixed price/amounts contracts with those big pharma, if they exceed their contract amounts, they will see higher amounts being charged. This is not a long term fix. However It would likely cause our prices to moderatly decrease and Canadas to increase.

But our government does set the price of medication by not putting a limit on the price it's willing to pay. If the government is willing to pay any price, then there are no market forces for keeping the price down. Also, big pharma spends more on marketing than they do on R&D by a wide margin.

Precisely. 🙂

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
Let's be honest. Medicare will never be feasible so long as it's run as a payoff to big pharma. And Bush's threat to veto any cuts shows which side of the fence he's on. His plan pays pharmaceutical houses at America's expense.

Some changes can be made to Bush's Medicare debacle that will ease the costs immediately.

Bush's plan does not allow for the U.S. government to use its buying power to bargain for better prices. Who can agree with that? And Bush's plan doesn't allow for drugs, even drugs which are manufactured here in the USA and shipped to Canada for instance, to be re-imported at a lower price. Who can agree with that?

Get the best price from the manufacturers and allow imports.

If the pharmaceutical houses can sell their products for less in Canada I'm sure they can sell them for less here too. And Bush's excuse for not allowing re-importating drugs from Canada because we have to be sure they are safe is one of the best examples of flawed logic I have ever heard.

We're shipping many of those drugs to Canada in the first place. And I haven't read any stories of Canadians dropping dead in the streets from unsafe prescription medicatons manufactured in Canada either.

1. Our goverment does not need to set the price of medication. It would be easy to argue that taking the profit out of big phara would only slow future drug development. This is bad.

2. Drug imports from Canada. While I have no problem with drug imports from Canada, but Canada does. They have fixed price/amounts contracts with those big pharma, if they exceed their contract amounts, they will see higher amounts being charged. This is not a long term fix. However It would likely cause our prices to moderatly decrease and Canadas to increase.

But our government does set the price of medication by not putting a limit on the price it's willing to pay. If the government is willing to pay any price, then there are no market forces for keeping the price down. Also, big pharma spends more on marketing than they do on R&D by a wide margin.

Precisely. 🙂

Price controls have never worked...

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
Let's be honest. Medicare will never be feasible so long as it's run as a payoff to big pharma. And Bush's threat to veto any cuts shows which side of the fence he's on. His plan pays pharmaceutical houses at America's expense.

Some changes can be made to Bush's Medicare debacle that will ease the costs immediately.

Bush's plan does not allow for the U.S. government to use its buying power to bargain for better prices. Who can agree with that? And Bush's plan doesn't allow for drugs, even drugs which are manufactured here in the USA and shipped to Canada for instance, to be re-imported at a lower price. Who can agree with that?

Get the best price from the manufacturers and allow imports.

If the pharmaceutical houses can sell their products for less in Canada I'm sure they can sell them for less here too. And Bush's excuse for not allowing re-importating drugs from Canada because we have to be sure they are safe is one of the best examples of flawed logic I have ever heard.

We're shipping many of those drugs to Canada in the first place. And I haven't read any stories of Canadians dropping dead in the streets from unsafe prescription medicatons manufactured in Canada either.

1. Our goverment does not need to set the price of medication. It would be easy to argue that taking the profit out of big phara would only slow future drug development. This is bad.

2. Drug imports from Canada. While I have no problem with drug imports from Canada, but Canada does. They have fixed price/amounts contracts with those big pharma, if they exceed their contract amounts, they will see higher amounts being charged. This is not a long term fix. However It would likely cause our prices to moderatly decrease and Canadas to increase.

But our government does set the price of medication by not putting a limit on the price it's willing to pay. If the government is willing to pay any price, then there are no market forces for keeping the price down. Also, big pharma spends more on marketing than they do on R&D by a wide margin.

Precisely. 🙂

Price controls have never worked...

When you walk onto a car dealer's lot do you pay sticker price?

I certainly hope not.

Negotiating the best price isn't "price controls". Failing to negotiate the best price, actually REFUSING BY LAW to even allow negotiating a price especially when you're the U.S. government is criminal, IMO.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
Let's be honest. Medicare will never be feasible so long as it's run as a payoff to big pharma. And Bush's threat to veto any cuts shows which side of the fence he's on. His plan pays pharmaceutical houses at America's expense.

Some changes can be made to Bush's Medicare debacle that will ease the costs immediately.

Bush's plan does not allow for the U.S. government to use its buying power to bargain for better prices. Who can agree with that? And Bush's plan doesn't allow for drugs, even drugs which are manufactured here in the USA and shipped to Canada for instance, to be re-imported at a lower price. Who can agree with that?

Get the best price from the manufacturers and allow imports.

If the pharmaceutical houses can sell their products for less in Canada I'm sure they can sell them for less here too. And Bush's excuse for not allowing re-importating drugs from Canada because we have to be sure they are safe is one of the best examples of flawed logic I have ever heard.

We're shipping many of those drugs to Canada in the first place. And I haven't read any stories of Canadians dropping dead in the streets from unsafe prescription medicatons manufactured in Canada either.

1. Our goverment does not need to set the price of medication. It would be easy to argue that taking the profit out of big phara would only slow future drug development. This is bad.

2. Drug imports from Canada. While I have no problem with drug imports from Canada, but Canada does. They have fixed price/amounts contracts with those big pharma, if they exceed their contract amounts, they will see higher amounts being charged. This is not a long term fix. However It would likely cause our prices to moderatly decrease and Canadas to increase.

But our government does set the price of medication by not putting a limit on the price it's willing to pay. If the government is willing to pay any price, then there are no market forces for keeping the price down. Also, big pharma spends more on marketing than they do on R&D by a wide margin.

Precisely. 🙂

Price controls have never worked...

When you walk onto a car dealer's lot do you pay sticker price?

I certainly hope not.

Negotiating the best price isn't "price controls". Failing to negotiate the best price, actually REFUSING BY LAW to even allow negotiating a price especially when you're the U.S. government is criminal, IMO.

But when the goverment walks in and says the top price for car x, iis y, that is price control.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
Let's be honest. Medicare will never be feasible so long as it's run as a payoff to big pharma. And Bush's threat to veto any cuts shows which side of the fence he's on. His plan pays pharmaceutical houses at America's expense.

Some changes can be made to Bush's Medicare debacle that will ease the costs immediately.

Bush's plan does not allow for the U.S. government to use its buying power to bargain for better prices. Who can agree with that? And Bush's plan doesn't allow for drugs, even drugs which are manufactured here in the USA and shipped to Canada for instance, to be re-imported at a lower price. Who can agree with that?

Get the best price from the manufacturers and allow imports.

If the pharmaceutical houses can sell their products for less in Canada I'm sure they can sell them for less here too. And Bush's excuse for not allowing re-importating drugs from Canada because we have to be sure they are safe is one of the best examples of flawed logic I have ever heard.

We're shipping many of those drugs to Canada in the first place. And I haven't read any stories of Canadians dropping dead in the streets from unsafe prescription medicatons manufactured in Canada either.

1. Our goverment does not need to set the price of medication. It would be easy to argue that taking the profit out of big phara would only slow future drug development. This is bad.

2. Drug imports from Canada. While I have no problem with drug imports from Canada, but Canada does. They have fixed price/amounts contracts with those big pharma, if they exceed their contract amounts, they will see higher amounts being charged. This is not a long term fix. However It would likely cause our prices to moderatly decrease and Canadas to increase.

But our government does set the price of medication by not putting a limit on the price it's willing to pay. If the government is willing to pay any price, then there are no market forces for keeping the price down. Also, big pharma spends more on marketing than they do on R&D by a wide margin.

Precisely. 🙂

Price controls have never worked...

When you walk onto a car dealer's lot do you pay sticker price?

I certainly hope not.

Negotiating the best price isn't "price controls". Failing to negotiate the best price, actually REFUSING BY LAW to even allow negotiating a price especially when you're the U.S. government is criminal, IMO.

But when the goverment walks in and says the top price for car x, iis y, that is price control.

At least the govt should have the flexibility to say, I'm prepared to pay Y for car X which is what they don;t have and thus the dealer can charge full sticker for the car. Bulk buying any commodity in any market drops the price so why should the govt be banned from following normal market rules when buying drugs which are way overpriced to begin with. That is giving the pharma co's a hefty payback while screwing the consumer and taxpayer.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
Let's be honest. Medicare will never be feasible so long as it's run as a payoff to big pharma. And Bush's threat to veto any cuts shows which side of the fence he's on. His plan pays pharmaceutical houses at America's expense.

Some changes can be made to Bush's Medicare debacle that will ease the costs immediately.

Bush's plan does not allow for the U.S. government to use its buying power to bargain for better prices. Who can agree with that? And Bush's plan doesn't allow for drugs, even drugs which are manufactured here in the USA and shipped to Canada for instance, to be re-imported at a lower price. Who can agree with that?

Get the best price from the manufacturers and allow imports.

If the pharmaceutical houses can sell their products for less in Canada I'm sure they can sell them for less here too. And Bush's excuse for not allowing re-importating drugs from Canada because we have to be sure they are safe is one of the best examples of flawed logic I have ever heard.

We're shipping many of those drugs to Canada in the first place. And I haven't read any stories of Canadians dropping dead in the streets from unsafe prescription medicatons manufactured in Canada either.

1. Our goverment does not need to set the price of medication. It would be easy to argue that taking the profit out of big phara would only slow future drug development. This is bad.

2. Drug imports from Canada. While I have no problem with drug imports from Canada, but Canada does. They have fixed price/amounts contracts with those big pharma, if they exceed their contract amounts, they will see higher amounts being charged. This is not a long term fix. However It would likely cause our prices to moderatly decrease and Canadas to increase.

But our government does set the price of medication by not putting a limit on the price it's willing to pay. If the government is willing to pay any price, then there are no market forces for keeping the price down. Also, big pharma spends more on marketing than they do on R&D by a wide margin.

Precisely. 🙂

Price controls have never worked...

When you walk onto a car dealer's lot do you pay sticker price?

I certainly hope not.

I certainly hope not too, because it means you have purchased a Saturn(junk) or a "luxury"/exotic vehicle.

CsG

 

[racebannon]

You simply argue that the govenment can't use its power as a consumer.

There has been no discussion of price control in the senate.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love it. The admin sells this pharma pork plan as a senior drug benefit, then tells us it'll cost twice as much as we'd been led to believe. And they want to partially privatize SS too, at some unspecified price tag that will likely double, as well.

So they've told us that we're already committed to spending ~$100B/yr more to feed pharma, and maybe $200B/yr to privatize SS. on top of the already incredible deficits that they're promising to cut in half over 5 years... and they want more taxcuts, too...

What they forget to mention is that we won't be able to pay for any of it when debt maintenance soars to 50% or more of actual revenues...

Belt tightening? huh. You ain't seen nothin' yet. And you won't, until they get the belt around your neck.