When FICA is repealed you can claim 1/2 the people pay no FEDERAL taxes. In the meantime, the GOP (that you apparently approve of) has been busy spending the money of future generations of American taxpayers.
And when FICA is repealed it will get worse as no one will have to pay for their SS benefits. But hey dont worry about SS, because it is based on taxing future generations and the democrats love that program.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Not anymore we're not. The Constitution was the last thing that kept us a republic and it is now a "living document" that can be changed according to the whims of the times and the majority.
No, we are a full-blown democracy right now, one step above mob rule and slipping. We are already well into Sir Alex's prediction and in fact much closer to fiscal disaster than you might think.
For example, why are you going to vote for 30? Because it will keep your school costs down right? Bingo.
Who will you vote for President in the fall? Whoever gives you what you want right? That's what most people will do even if you do vote with your conscience (which would then put you in the minority).
"We have met the enemy and they is us."
edit:
We have not kept it.
Think about it: the hottest issue on the 2000 ticket was something that the federal government doesn't even constitutional powers to.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Sorry, you might want to learn what a strawman is. I misrepresented nothing. You proposed price controls. I presented the inevitable outcome of price controls.
After all, the question was, "What is the public benefit of forbidding negotiating lower drug prices?"
The public benefit is continued research and development into newer and better drugs. Not that hard to figure out is it?
The real question should be, "Why does the government buy so many drugs for people?" but I'm fairly certain (from reading a few of your posts) that you don't want to hear that one.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
No, sorry. Your "inevitable outcome of price controls", i.e., drug companies are "prohibited from profiting from them" is the dishonest straw man. It is an absurd position, easy for you to attack, yet bearing no resemblance to my real position. No one is suggesting drug companies cannot profit. However, in accordance with the principles of capitalism and a free market, the government should be free to negotiate for the best possible price.
Indeed they should be required to do so because it is in the taxpayers' best interests (that's who the government works for, by the way). They do it for other government purchases. Why should drugs be any different? Just because they paid off Congress, big pharmaceuticals get to gouge the American public whatever they want, even while they charge dramatically lower prices in Canada and other countries? Screw that. If they need more money for research, spread the cost around. There is zero justification for making U.S. citizens pay disproportionately.
Most . . . nevermind . . . none of you have a clue how Big Pharma operates in America. Price controls will not cripple R&D and most of the "lifesaving therapies" from Big Pharma are being deserted (vaccines, antibiotics) in favor of "lifestyle" medications. As a physician I would say pharmacogenomics (learning how to give the right drug based on a persons genotype/phenotype) is a much better investment than the next generation erection pill. It's perfectly fine for the government to fund pharmacogenomic research much like it's funded Big Pharma through basic science research, graduate/post graduate training for scientists, and Medicare/Medicaid/VA.
How ridiculous has the system become? news
The best though was a statement by an executive at GlaxoSmithKlineBeecham who finally told the truth that every decent doctor has known since stumbling out of medical school . . . many if not MOST medications are insufficient as primary therapy. Despite having higher copays for office visits and medication . . . antipsychotics and antidepressants . . . as classes are the most effective drugs on the market. In the meantime, Americans spend MANY billions of dollars on medications that are providing nominal benefit. The most responsible party is the medical profession but the lazy, uncooperative, ill-informed patients, profit-driven drug company, and idiotic, duplicitous politicians are scarcely better.
In sum, the drugs we need most (better, more vaccines and better, more antibiotics) are not being made b/c there's not ENOUGH profit. The drugs that are less important (PDEIs . . . think one-eyed yogurt shooter) and less effective (AchEI . . . think Reagan) keep rolling out of Big Pharma's plants.
How ridiculous has the system become? news
Now in response to such an unambiguous iatrogenic effect . . . the drug company response . . .
Curiously, though Lilly has funded several intervention studies trying to prevent metabolic dysregulation secondary to olanzapine (Zyprexa). And the rumor mill is that Lilly will throw big money at researchers working on effective therapies. So a great drug for psychosis but a serious side effect. Ziprasidone (Geodon) is sold by the evil empire . . . others call them Pfizer. Not only is ziprasidone equally effective but it doesn't cause metabolic dysregulation in adults (but it makes kids fat . . . oh well). When ziprasidone was released the drug reps from some unnamed company . . . LILLY . . . would troll the hospitals, clinics, and offices telling MDs that ziprasidone was unsafe b/c it could potentially cause a fatal heart arrhythmia . . . which turned out to be as reliable as WMD stockpiles in Iraq. Pfizer is getting a decent share of the pie these days though; about $1.5-2B a year globally.
The best though was a statement by an executive at GlaxoSmithKlineBeecham who finally told the truth that every decent doctor has known since stumbling out of medical school . . . many if not MOST medications are insufficient as primary therapy. Despite having higher copays for office visits and medication . . . antipsychotics and antidepressants . . . as classes are the most effective drugs on the market. In the meantime, Americans spend MANY billions of dollars on medications that are providing nominal benefit. The most responsible party is the medical profession but the lazy, uncooperative, ill-informed patients, profit-driven drug company, and idiotic, duplicitous politicians are scarcely better.
In sum, the drugs we need most (better, more vaccines and better, more antibiotics) are not being made b/c there's not ENOUGH profit. The drugs that are less important (PDEIs . . . think one-eyed yogurt shooter) and less effective (AchEI . . . think Reagan) keep rolling out of Big Pharma's plants.
The Canadians are unGodly immoral heathens. We don't want their liberal drugs. Because true believers here in the States don't need no stinkin' scienmetific medicine, faith healing cures all!
Zephyr
1-30-2004 Ted Kennedy's health plan would cut competition, jobs
Ted Kennedy says, "If we're going to make real progress on health reform, someone has to take on drug company and insurance company profits, and clearly it's not George Bush."
Wow, let's lower stock prices, reduce new drug development, eliminate some companies so we will have less competition and reduce the number of employees at these companies.
Ted probably deserves more respect than I give him, but then I give him none at all.
David Long
Gainesville
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, the Stock prices, all the new High priced, no competition Drugs have done us fantastic now haven't they?
Ted Kennedy says, "If we're going to make real progress on health reform, someone has to take on drug company and insurance company profits, and clearly it's not George Bush."
Wow, let's lower stock prices, reduce new drug development, eliminate some companies so we will have less competition and reduce the number of employees at these companies.
Ted probably deserves more respect than I give him, but then I give him none at all.
David Long
Gainesville
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, the Stock prices, all the new High priced, no competition Drugs have done us fantastic now haven't they?
IIRC the problem started with that stupid law Clinton signed allowing commericals and ads for prescription drugs. So now companies spend 10x the money on ads that they spend on research. So don't give this whining about cheaper prices mean less research. And now stupid consumers go to their doctors and ask for a drug they saw on TV, the doctor prescribes it so he doesn't loose a patient. Half the commericals don't even say what the drug does, the only people recommending drugs should be doctors, not the TV.
Zephyr
Zephyr
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64627-2004Jan30?language=printer
Another Bush administration lie costing us hundreds of billions.
Another Bush administration lie costing us hundreds of billions.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
That's funny - the objection(inpart) from the left was that it didn't spend enough(cost enough). Now that this entitlement actually does cost/spend more - the left still isn't happy. How much bigger does it need to be to please them? Yes yes - we all know the whining about controlling pricing will come up but that is BS. It wouldn't be an issue if the damn entitlement would have been passed in the first place and the gov't doesn't need to get it's grubby paws on any more markets than it does now in regards to pricing regulation. The left has been trying to get prescription coverage for seniors passed for years and never delivered - now it seems like it's just sour grapes or that it was used as a partisan wedge issue by them
Either one seems to fit.This entitlement sucks - should be scaled back if not eliminated - and then restructure our WHOLE welfare type system. Set the rules - adjust for inflation - then quit whining. Seems they both want to bicker about it more than they actually want to solve our entitlment and welfare problems.
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That's funny - the objection(inpart) from the left was that it didn't spend enough(cost enough). Now that this entitlement actually does cost/spend more - the left still isn't happy. How much bigger does it need to be to please them? Yes yes - we all know the whining about controlling pricing will come up but that is BS. It wouldn't be an issue if the damn entitlement would have been passed in the first place and the gov't doesn't need to get it's grubby paws on any more markets than it does now in regards to pricing regulation. The left has been trying to get prescription coverage for seniors passed for years and never delivered - now it seems like it's just sour grapes or that it was used as a partisan wedge issue by them
This entitlement sucks - should be scaled back if not eliminated - and then restructure our WHOLE welfare type system. Set the rules - adjust for inflation - then quit whining. Seems they both want to bicker about it more than they actually want to solve our entitlment and welfare problems.
CkG
So does it suck or is it just sour grapes? It's hard to see where you Bush apologists are going. It's like you are stuck between apologizing for Bush's government explosion and trying to keep a straight face when you pretend to be fiscal concervatives.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That's funny - the objection(inpart) from the left was that it didn't spend enough(cost enough). Now that this entitlement actually does cost/spend more - the left still isn't happy. How much bigger does it need to be to please them? Yes yes - we all know the whining about controlling pricing will come up but that is BS. It wouldn't be an issue if the damn entitlement would have been passed in the first place and the gov't doesn't need to get it's grubby paws on any more markets than it does now in regards to pricing regulation. The left has been trying to get prescription coverage for seniors passed for years and never delivered - now it seems like it's just sour grapes or that it was used as a partisan wedge issue by them
This entitlement sucks - should be scaled back if not eliminated - and then restructure our WHOLE welfare type system. Set the rules - adjust for inflation - then quit whining. Seems they both want to bicker about it more than they actually want to solve our entitlment and welfare problems.
CkG
So does it suck or is it just sour grapes? It's hard to see where you Bush apologists are going. It's like you are stuck between apologizing for Bush's government explosion and trying to keep a straight face when you pretend to be fiscal concervatives.
No, the pretending is not coming from I.
I don't like more entitlements. The problem here is that it's been used as an issue of the left for so long that now that it actually was passed by someone other than them - they need to bad mouth it because of partisanship. Bush campaigned on this idea of prescription drug coverage. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. I really wish he would have just left the thing alone and let the "concerned" side of the aisle keep promising but never delivering. But anyway - yeah, it's hard to see where the left is going, or where they came from. According to dean - UHC has been on the platform since 1958? but the left has never delivered that....Hmmm I wonder why? Maybe because people don't want it, or don't want more gov't control of their lives.This legislation sucks because it is an entitlement - no more info is needed. It doesn't suck because of it's size, it doesn't suck because it's too small, it doesn't suck because it doesn't cap prices, it doesn't suck because it does this or that - it sucks because it is just one more entitlement that will bleed working Americans dry.
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That's funny - the objection(inpart) from the left was that it didn't spend enough(cost enough). Now that this entitlement actually does cost/spend more - the left still isn't happy. How much bigger does it need to be to please them? Yes yes - we all know the whining about controlling pricing will come up but that is BS. It wouldn't be an issue if the damn entitlement would have been passed in the first place and the gov't doesn't need to get it's grubby paws on any more markets than it does now in regards to pricing regulation. The left has been trying to get prescription coverage for seniors passed for years and never delivered - now it seems like it's just sour grapes or that it was used as a partisan wedge issue by them
This entitlement sucks - should be scaled back if not eliminated - and then restructure our WHOLE welfare type system. Set the rules - adjust for inflation - then quit whining. Seems they both want to bicker about it more than they actually want to solve our entitlment and welfare problems.
CkG
So does it suck or is it just sour grapes? It's hard to see where you Bush apologists are going. It's like you are stuck between apologizing for Bush's government explosion and trying to keep a straight face when you pretend to be fiscal concervatives.
No, the pretending is not coming from I.
This legislation sucks because it is an entitlement - no more info is needed. It doesn't suck because of it's size, it doesn't suck because it's too small, it doesn't suck because it doesn't cap prices, it doesn't suck because it does this or that - it sucks because it is just one more entitlement that will bleed working Americans dry.
CkG
So instead Bush set up a new system where the government has to pay monopoly prices for drugs without any price negotiation ability. This is going to explode, not unlike the CA energy crisis. If the government pays for things, it should have a right to negotiate prices, just like any other payer would.
If that's the case, why did Bush and GOP congress make this law? Do you think if a Democrat president brought this proposal to the GOP congress, it would have passed? If you want smaller government, you need to have split government. It's entirely obvious to me that the GOP cannot be trusted with the pursestrings.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter