Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[JMS]

1. This is true for every patent based industry smart phones, the PC industry, search engines, etc. You don't run around calling those things trust.

It's absolutely not true for other industries.

(1) Other industries don't have 90% of their research paid for by the US government.

(2) Other industries are more consumer driven unlike pharmaceutical industry which is more expert driven (doctors).

- this is important because the benifits of the inovations are judged by a market unlike pharma industry.

(3) Other industries don't have the perception of a life and death concequence over the product they monopolize.

2. There is competition, at the level as those other industries, drugs that have the similar or same affects that are not based on the same IP.

Drug companies don't compete. They monopolize... The underlying US Gov sponsored research is not given to a group of companies, only one company has the right to innovate on a promising new find.

There is no compeition in the system until the drugs go to generics and then they cease to be an important revenue stream for the large pharma companies.

Again fundimentally we've produced a system set up to provide profits for large companies in a rather obsene way, rather than services to the consumer at a reasonable price.

You saw this for a while with erectile dysfunction. There were several patent protected ED drugs on the market from different manufacturers (I believe now there are also generics, but there was a time when there were only different name brand options.)

I'll have to take your word for that, cause that's possible the only subject I've encountered on this board in which I feel unqualified to comment, having no personal experience with the subjectmater.

Edited July 2, 2012 by JMS

[NavyDave]

[PeterMP]

It's absolutely not true for other industries.

(1) Other industries don't have 90% of their research paid for by the US government.

(2) Other industries are more consumer driven unlike pharmaceutical industry which is more expert driven (doctors).

- this is important because the benifits of the inovations are judged by a market unlike pharma industry.

(3) Other industries don't have the perception of a life and death concequence over the product they monopolize.

1. I'd like to see a link for the drug industry vs. the agriculture industry (e.g. pesticides, fertilizer, and new seeds) vs. the computer science industry and how much money the put into research vs. the federal government into research that affects that industry (though I also think one way for us to affect health care costs that would be good would be to change what and how much health care related research we fund).

2 and 3. That has nothing to do w/ IP, and I think you might actually have a point. As I've already said, I don't think a free market can work in healthcare because it requires people to make good decisions and there is a lot of data that people don't make good decisions.

Though, I'm not sure if people actually make good decisions w/ respect to buying a computer either so your point might be off still.

But that isn't a lack of competition in the Pharma market issue. It is an issue with what is required for a free market and people being able to process/understand information.

Drug companies don't compete. They monopolize... The underlying US Gov sponsored research is not given to a group of companies, only one company has the right to innovate on a promising new find.

There is no compeition in the system until the drugs go to generics and then they cease to be an important revenue stream for the large pharma companies.

Again fundimentally we've produced a system set up to provide profits for large companies in a rather obsene way, rather than services to the consumer at a reasonable price.

I'll have to take your word for that, cause that's possible the only subject I've encountered on this board in which I feel unqualified to comment, having no personal experience with the subjectmater.

Except for in cases where a patent is produced, the research is actually "given" to everybody pretty openly. This is even becoming less of an issue with the internet and the government actually pushing for work the fund being published in "open" sources.

In the cases of patents, the drug companies have to buy the patent from the entity that has the patent. These tend to be non-profit and state insitutions so these help fund them and therefore higher education.

The fact of the matter is you could go out an buy one of these patents if you think they are undervalued based on what Pharma seems willing to pay.

And there is certainly competition to buy those patents.

Viagra came onto the market in 1998 by Pfizer. The US patent still hasn't expired (or just expired).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sildenafil

Cialis came onto the market in 2003. Its patent is still in effect in the US. It is made by Eli Lilly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadalafil

Levitra is offered by GSK and is till under patent protection in the US. Also approved in 2003

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vardenafil

So if you have ED, since 2003, you've had 3 different medicines, made by 3 different companies that you could buy.

But neither of them a generic.

Edited July 2, 2012 by PeterMP

[JMS]

1. I'd like to see a link for the drug industry vs. the agriculture industry.

With respect to my point #2, pharmaceuticals being an "expert" driven marketplace point above...

When was the last time you saw a headline like this about the agriculture or computer science industry?

7/2/2012 - 10 Minutes Ago..

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/story/2012-07-02/glaxosmithkline-pleads-guilty-3B-fine-illicit-promotion-prescription-drugs/55979616/1

Drug giant pleads guilty, fined $3B for drug marketing

GSK's sales force bribed physicians to prescribe GSK products using every imaginable form of high priced entertainment, from Hawaiian vacations to paying doctors millions of dollars to go on speaking tours to a European pheasant hunt to tickets to Madonna concerts, and this is just to name a few," said Carmin M. Ortiz, U.S. attorney in Massachusetts.

And while one would think penelties like this from the federal government would be a good thing, contained inside of this penelty is actually a pretty nice thing for the offending criminal pharmaceutical company. They cap'ed civil lawsuits as part of this, so evidently they've done an end run around the US judicial system to ensure the offending company's exposure was limited.

Makes me want to vomit in my own mouth. There is no limit to the dishonesty or the reach of the trusts which run our healthcare system... They are scum bags who make huge profits on consumers backs. Given the pain it took just to curb growth of the one leg of the healthcare trust ( insurance companies) looks like regulating the other legs is long off.

Edited July 2, 2012 by JMS

[PeterMP]

With respect to my point #2, pharmaceuticals being an "expert" driven marketplace point above...

When was the last time you saw a headline like this about the agriculture or computer science industry?

7/2/2012 - 10 Minutes Ago..

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/story/2012-07-02/glaxosmithkline-pleads-guilty-3B-fine-illicit-promotion-prescription-drugs/55979616/1

And while one would think penelties like this from the federal government would be a good thing, contained inside of this penelty is actually a pretty nice thing for the offending criminal pharmaceutical company. They cap'ed civil lawsuits as part of this, so evidently they've done an end run around the US judicial system to ensure the offending company's exposure was limited.

Makes me want to vomit in my own mouth. There is no limit to the dishonesty or the reach of the trusts which run our healthcare system... They are scum bags who make huge profits on consumers backs. Given the pain it took just to curb growth of the one leg of the healthcare trust ( insurance companies) looks like regulating the other legs is long off.

You aren't going to see a headline like this in other industries because no other industry is regulated like Pharma.

Go buy a computer from any store and when they start talking about software see if they don't push Microsoft Office and other non-free software. See if they even mention Open Office. They are going to push Microsoft office and other non-free software because the store takes a part of the cut if you buy Office there from them. The sales rep, if he's working on commission, gets a cut.

That's completely accepted in those industries.

If the sales rep was a doctor and the store a medical practice and computer software a drug, that all would be illegal, and you'd see big headlines like this.

(I actually think the solution to some of the issues in the above is criminal prosecutions. I'd like the see the laws and FDA approval processes rewritten to give the people at the top of the companies more criminal liability, and then those people gone after criminally.)

***EDIT**

My mom goes int a computer store and comes out w/ a computer w/ specs well beyond what she needs and a high end version of Office that she paid a bunch of money for, when Open Office would have worked just as well for her, nobody is going to bat an eye.

Edited July 2, 2012 by PeterMP

[ixcuincle]

[Jumbo]

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-offers-health-care-repeal-without-alternative-204054205.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans generally avoided talk of replacement measures on Tuesday as they mobilized for an election-season vote to repeal the health care law that stands as President Barack Obama's signature domestic accomplishment.

Instead, they lambasted the 2-year-old law as a threat to the nation's economic recovery and predicted some Democrats would join them in repudiating it. "This is nothing short of economic malpractice," said Rep. Nan Hayworth of New York, citing tax increases, government mandates and other items in the law. "We can and we must do better."

She did not elaborate, nor did any of the members of the leadership in their remarks to reporters after the meeting. Republican officials said the general reluctance to sketch any sort of alternative resulted from a desire to focus public attention on the health care law itself. It generally fares poorly in public polling, both nationally and in surveys of independent voters.

In addition, they said that while many Republicans ran on a slogan of "repeal and replace" in 2010, the rank and file is far from united around any precise alternative. Republicans in both houses have suggested numerous measures in recent years to remake parts of the sprawling health care system.

The last time the party offered a full-fledged legislative alternative was in 2009, meaning that none of the dozens of first-termers elected in 2010 were involved in its drafting.

<more at link>

Edited July 11, 2012 by Jumbo

[joe]

I just read much of this thread with interest. It was fun to read all the talk before the verdict, while the verdict was being reported (in some case wrongly) and afterwards. I did skip some in the middle and was really wondering how the thread got hijacked into a discussion of patent law. I had to go back a bit to see how that happened.

anyway, totally fascinating and I would like to thank everyone for giving me such an enjoyable morning. And, I don't care what anyone says, I am not buying a Nissan

Edited July 11, 2012 by joe

[Kilmer17]

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-offers-health-care-repeal-without-alternative-204054205.html

<more at link>

It's a pure political move. The thought is it will force some Dems in competetive districts to make an unpopular vote.

Politics at it's best (or worst).

[Jumbo]

It's a pure political move. The thought is it will force some Dems in competetive districts to make an unpopular vote.

Politics at it's best (or worst).

And more of the same

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/five-democrats-side-republicans-repeal-obamacare-201854863.html

Five House Democrats Wednesday bucked their party and voted with Republicans to repeal Obamacare. The vote, 244 to 185 with no Republicans voting against a repeal, was mostly symbolic, given that House Republicans have orchestrated at least 30 prior votes to fully or partially kill or defund the president's health care law. All passing efforts have died in the Democratic-controlled Senate and Wednesday's legislation will befall the same fate. But the vote did offer politically-vulnerable members a new opportunity to take sides on the president's health care law.

Larry Kissell and Mike McIntyre, both of North Carolina, were the only two Democrats to publicly announce prior to Wednesday's vote their plans to side with the Republicans and back a repeal. Both congressmen face difficult re-election bids in districts that have become markedly more Republican following the latest round of redistricting.

Additionally, Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren and Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, both of whom voted to fully repeal the law in 2011, voted the same way Wednesday. Both Democrats are retiring, which frees them from worrying about the electoral ramifications of their decisions. That leaves one surprise vote for repeal from Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah. Matheson had offered no firm confirmation of his position prior to the vote and did not vote for full repeal in Jan. 2011.

<more at link >

[Riggo-toni]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gop-to-the-uninsured-drop-dead/2012/07/10/gJQA4xZfbW_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriend

GOP to the uninsured: Drop dead

By Matt Miller, Published: July 10

The House is voting (again) Wednesday to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Meanwhile, six Republican governors (so far) say they won’t go along with the law’s planned Medicaid expansion for 4 million uninsured people in their states, even though the feds would pick up nearly all the tab.

...

You may have noticed that Republicans have been struggling to come up with a credible alternative to the Affordable Care Act once they repeal it. Why is it so hard? Because Obamacare WAS the Republican alternative. It was the conservative-designed mandate and subsidy approach. Republicans are in such an intellectual cul-de-sac on this issue that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) actually blasted Obamacare for being a sop to the president’s “cronies” in the insurance industry. Oy!

I feel like a broken record, but some truths bear repeating. Only in America could a Democratic president pass Mitt Romney’s health plan and fund it partly through John McCain’s best idea from the last campaign (taxing some employer-provided plans) and be branded a “socialist.”

more at link

[JMS]

It's a pure political move. The thought is it will force some Dems in competetive districts to make an unpopular vote.

Politics at it's best (or worst).

I agree it's pure politics... But is it really an unpopular vote? It was 2 years ago, it was 1 year ago.. But I'm not so sure now. After the supreme court folks are starting to warm up to the Affordable care act. This is most likely because the opposition groups aren't spending tens of millions to bash it anylonger.

Edited July 12, 2012 by JMS

[nonniey]

I agree it's pure politics... But is it really an unpopular vote? It was 2 years ago, it was 1 year ago.. But I'm not so sure now. After the supreme court folks are starting to warm up to the Affordable care act. This is most likely because the opposition groups aren't spending tens of millions to bash it anylonger.

Yeah it is still an unpopular program actually I believe it has gotten even more unpopular once the projected healthcare costs exceeded what the US citizens had been paying under no plan.

[NoVaO]

Actually it's not what I would call unpopular anymore. The country is split it on. An equal number of people support and oppose the law. But keep in mind about 10% of those who oppose the law do so on liberal grounds, wanting the bill to have gone further. In addition, there is a clear majority of Americans who are tired of this debate and would like to Congress to move on. That said, there are obviously some Congressional districts where the law actually is unpopular, and where there is a Dem representatives. The vote for repeal was made especially for those members.

---------- Post added July-12th-2012 at 04:00 AM ----------

Yeah it is still an unpopular program actually I believe it has gotten even more unpopular once the projected healthcare costs exceeded what the US citizens had been paying under no plan.

The plan, other than a few important, but smaller provisions, isn't even in place yet, so how could healthcare costs exceed a plan not yet in existence?

[AsburySkinsFan]

The plan, other than a few important, but smaller provisions, isn't even in place yet, so how could healthcare costs exceed a plan not yet in existence?

:secret: The person you are responding to is and will respond ideologically...not necessarily with actual logic and sound reason.

[JMS]

Yeah it is still an unpopular program actually I believe it has gotten even more unpopular once the projected healthcare costs exceeded what the US citizens had been paying under no plan.

It's hard for me to believe this. Yesterday's vote was congresses 33rd vote to repeal the ACA. It's really difficult to believe that's not overkill by republicans trying to "exploit" the AFA's "unpopularity", given they haven't been able to pass a budget in 3 years or take care of other important work for the american people.

This is like the 3rd bridge in "operation market garden", This is too much; they are overplaying their hand.

[joe]

This is like the 3rd bridge in "operation market garden", This is too much; they are overplaying their hand.

Great reference. Didn't they do a survey recently where there was at least 51% support for each essential provision of the plan (with some like no pre-existing conditions being as high as 80%) but the precentage of support for the bill overall was less than 50%? That just does not make sense to me. Could it be that people are (and I know this is a shocking concept) not actually reading the provisions of the health care law that they are opposing?

[nonniey]

Actually it's not what I would call unpopular anymore. The country is split it on. An equal number of people support and oppose the law. But keep in mind about 10% of those who oppose the law do so on liberal grounds, wanting the bill to have gone further. In addition, there is a clear majority of Americans who are tired of this debate and would like to Congress to move on. That said, there are obviously some Congressional districts where the law actually is unpopular, and where there is a Dem representatives. The vote for repeal was made especially for those members.

---------- Post added July-12th-2012 at 04:00 AM ----------

The plan, other than a few important, but smaller provisions, isn't even in place yet, so how could healthcare costs exceed a plan not yet in existence?

Look up the word projected in the dictionary. (Is that logical enough for your Asbury?)

[JMS]

Look up the word projected in the dictionary. (Is that logical enough for your Asbury?)

Projected is a great word.... So is non-partisan. So is gold standard for forcasting budgetary issues.... Now let's put them all together..

The Congressional Budget office, the gold standard for forecasting budgetary issues projects the Affordable Care Act, will:

• Insure 30 million additional people
  
• Cost of 1/3rd of the cost of tax cuts Romney is proposing extending
  
• Is fully paid for, with an explicit combination of tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere.
  
• Will end pre-existing conditions in 2014.
  

What was and is really striking about the anti-reformers is their cruelty. It would be one thing if, at any point, they had offered any hint of an alternative proposal to help Americans with pre-existing conditions, Americans who simply can't afford expensive individual insurance, Americans who lose coverage along with their jobs. But it has long been obvious that the opposition's goal is simply to kill reform, never mind the human consequences.

Edited July 12, 2012 by JMS

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's hard for me to believe this. Yesterday's vote was congresses 33rd vote to repeal the ACA. It's really difficult to believe that's not overkill by republicans trying to "exploit" the AFA's "unpopularity", given they haven't been able to pass a budget in 3 years or take care of other important work for the american people.

This is like the 3rd bridge in "operation market garden", This is too much; they are overplaying their hand.

Are you saying that Republicans have not been able to pass a Budget?

[Teller]

budjitary?

[JMS]

Are you saying that Republicans have not been able to pass a Budget?

Yes, we haven't passed a budget in 3 years, but have been running the government on a series of continuing resolutions leading up to January 2013 Taxmageddon; when The bush Tax cuts, Obama's stimulus, and the annual patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax all come to a head; – leading to a tax increase of approximately $500 billion in 2013, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation; wich the FED and CBO have said would push the economy back into recession.

---------- Post added July-12th-2012 at 01:21 PM ----------

budjitary?

Edited July 12, 2012 by JMS

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes, we haven't passed a budget in 3 years, but have been running the government on a series of continuing resolutions leading up to January 2013 Taxmageddon; when The bush Tax cuts, Obama's stimulus, and the annual patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax all come to a head; – leading to a tax increase of approximately $500 billion in 2013, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation; wich the FED and CBO have said would push the economy back into recession.

---------- Post added July-12th-2012 at 01:21 PM ----------

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_171/pollack.gif

I know and understand all of that but I don't know how you would say that it is because of the GOP? The GOP could get a budget passed in the House tomorrow but it never comes to a vote in the Senate. That, to me, is the problem. I don't think that's on the GOP. There is a lot you can say is the fault of the GOP but I don't think that's one of them.

[JMS]

I know and understand all of that but I don't know how you would say that it is because of the GOP? The GOP could get a budget passed in the House tomorrow but it never comes to a vote in the Senate. That, to me, is the problem. I don't think that's on the GOP. There is a lot you can say is the fault of the GOP but I don't think that's one of them.

It's the house's "responsibility" to pass a budget it is one of their primary roles under our constitution. They are the lead body of government tasked with that role, but not the exclusive body. Since the Republicans are in control on the house, it's the Republicans failure primarily for failing to pass a budget. That they can pass budgets with no hope of getting passed teh senete is irrelivent. Our system requires them to comprimise, as every house class has had to compromise going back to George Washington's time.

This Congressial majority has a fundimental problem with comprimise; partially because they have adopted an ideology where they pledged not to negotiate, not to be reasonable, but to stick to their guns on taxes. Which means they have a fundimental problem being effective and can not accomplish their primary task as congressmen. Which makes them the issue.

Edited July 12, 2012 by JMS

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's the house's "responsibility" to pass a budget it is one of their primary roles under our constitution. They are the lead body of government tasked with that role, but not the exclusive body. Since the Republicans are in control on the house, it's the Republicans failure primarily for failing to pass a budget. That they can pass budgets with no hope of getting passed teh senete is irrelivent. Our system requires them to comprimise, as every house class has had to compromise going back to George Washington's time.

This Congressial majority has a fundimental problem with comprimise; partially because they have adopted an ideology where they pledged not to negotiate, not to be reasonable, but to stick to their guns on taxes. Which means they have a fundimental problem being effective and can not accomplish their primary task as congressmen. Which makes them the issue.

BS. Show me where it states this in the Constitution or in Law. The House has passed budgets for consideration but Harry Reid has yet to bring any one of them to the floor for a vote. It's not even a case where they were voted down. They have never seen the light of the floor in the Senate. That's not on the GOP. That's on the Senate.