A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Adder
He is a mod. Spanky couldn't have had him on ignore.

not true. if you want to ignore a mod (as opposed to an admin), ask one of the admins to change your ignore list. but you won't be able to change it after the mod is added without admin assistance.

admins are the only ones you are not allowed to ignore.

people must have enjoyed hearing you whine about penske a lot not to have pointed this out to you before.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
(rather like calling someone pro-abortion).

Shut it: I like the term anti-choice.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Apparently you've had Penske on ignore until today.

FTR smarty-pants, amongst other things, I agree with Nancy Pelosi regaridng a constitutional amendment against flag burning, i.e. we are both against such an amendment.

Also, I may have gotten high with one of her daughters (it was either one of hers or one of Boxers-I was stoned so my memoury is a bit off), although I am not sure we would find anything to agree about on that, but it potentially closes our degrees of separation.

Finally, given some commonality in familial names, we could be related, so I give her some benefit of the doubt there......

Apology please?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
He's a D. See, unlike you people, we are not incapable of criticizing our own.


Or are you suggesting that Republican prosecutors are infallible?

Was Guiliani a prosecutor?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sorry - I haven't been paying attention but I have a question. I just got this email from a lobbyist.

Hi Spanky ,

We've met a few times in the past at Republican events, and worked together on other issues when I went by the name of (pushy lobbyist). I hope you are doing well!

My firm is working to gather support to oppose Medicare reform legislation that is sponsored by Rep. Pelosi. Last week, the House voted to pass HR 4 legislation that would change the current successful Medicare program that was implemented in 2003. Essentially this legislation would result in government price controls for prescription drugs. The legislation was part Pelosi's 100 hours of reform legislation, legislation that was pushed through without much debate. I've attached some additional information on the measure in hopes that you would take a position opposing the measure, which could have a significantly negative impact on California's seniors and taxpayers.

Thanks in advance for your consideration on this issue and I look forward to hearing from you!"
__________________________________________________

It was my understanding that one of the biggest problems with the Republican Medicare "reform" was that it prevented the federal government from negotiating the best prices for drugs. In other words, the Federal government could not use its massive purchasing power to negotiate volume discounts. It was also my understanding that the Democrat legislation fixes this problem. In other words it actually forces the Government to negotiate thereby saving taxpayer money.

So this lobbyist is full of it when they are saying that the Democrat fix is a "price control" and that the Democrat fix will cost the taxpayer money.

But before I told the lobbyist I would not support them, I just wanted to make sure I had the right information. Am I wrong?

The phramaceutical benefit industry would rather that the negotiating power be in their hands than in Medicare's hands. They argue that their competitiveness will keep drug costs down and if Medicare is negotiating prices, then there's no point in Medicare part D, because essentially the hard work is done by the government instead of the benefit companies. I wholeheartedly agree with them.

BTW, someone on NPR was tsking the President this morning for going off script and saying "Democrat majority" live rather than the "Democratic majority" that was on his teleprompter and the speech that was handed out to reporters before it started. Didn't really foster the feeling of bipartisanship.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes, generally. Although it could be considered a price control in that the government will be forcing sales, at least on a large share of purchases, at a price it concludes is reasonable. While it will save tax dollars, it could reduce investment in drug research and innovation.

As usual, the talking points the lobbyists use overly simplify the issue.

Speaking of which, Pfizer is laying off people because Lipitor is about to go out of patent, and they don't have anything remotely that successful hitting the market anytime soon.

My question: Shouldn't have Pfizer been reinvesting the cash cow that was Lipitor into R&D and/or does this debunk the "if the pharma companies don't make gobs of money then we'll never be able to cure cancer" theory? Lord knows that Pfizer made a killing with Lipitor.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I am all for the negotiating by the government on this, but I think one counter-argument is that if the government and the drug company can't reach an agreement as to price, the drug will be dropped from the approved list and subsidized coverage of that drug will then not be available to the senior. (This is probably where "hurts California's seniors" comes from in the email.)

The VA is the most cited example on both sides. The pharma benefit companies like to point out that the VA doesn't offer all of the drugs available under their plan because of those impasses.

I like to point out that Medicare part B doesn't cover all of the doctor visits out there. In both cases, it's possible and acceptable to encourage supplemental insurance for the gaps.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Speaking of which, Pfizer is laying off people because Lipitor is about to go out of patent, and they don't have anything remotely that successful hitting the market anytime soon.

My question: Shouldn't have Pfizer been reinvesting the cash cow that was Lipitor into R&D and/or does this debunk the "if the pharma companies don't make gobs of money then we'll never be able to cure cancer" theory? Lord knows that Pfizer made a killing with Lipitor.

Maybe they were reinvesting the cash cow, but kept hitting dry wells. Now that the cash is running out, they can't afford the same level of R&D. That's the only way the two can be connected, unless pfizer has a lot of people making the pills themselves, and they don't have other pills to set them to making.

ETA: Oops. Salesforce--no profits to make, so no way to support the salesforce and their swank dinners.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Speaking of which, Pfizer is laying off people because Lipitor is about to go out of patent, and they don't have anything remotely that successful hitting the market anytime soon.

My question: Shouldn't have Pfizer been reinvesting the cash cow that was Lipitor into R&D and/or does this debunk the "if the pharma companies don't make gobs of money then we'll never be able to cure cancer" theory? Lord knows that Pfizer made a killing with Lipitor.

Not necessarily. They might have invested in failed. Actually, wasn't there recent news about something of theirs that they were counting on but that didn't pan out?

Of course, one could wonder why they have no line extensions for Lipitor itself...

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Maybe they were reinvesting the cash cow, but kept hitting dry wells. Now that the cash is running out, they can't afford the same level of R&D. That's the only way the two can be connected, unless pfizer has a lot of people making the pills themselves, and they don't have other pills to set them to making.

of course, there is also the fact that the r&d argument is a tad misleading given that much of the initial research is government funded.

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
people must have enjoyed hearing you whine about penske a lot not to have pointed this out to you before.

Way to spoil one's enjoyment of a fine, full-bodied whine.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Come, on, Spanky, don't you think it's time to cross the aisle? As I said before the election, the Democrats are now the party of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and American values, the Republicans the party of big, intrusive government favoring special interests.

If the Democrats try and out do Bush by pushing for more troops in Iraq than he is (and demanding that we stay as long as it takes to succeed), give Bush fast track trade authority and drastically slash domestic spending - then we can talk.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ironweed
Way to spoil one's enjoyment of a fine, full-bodied whine.

Criticise away, there is no disputing I give good wine recommendations.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
If the Democrats try and out do Bush by pushing for more troops in Iraq than he is (and demanding that we stay as long as it takes to succeed), give Bush fast track trade authority and drastically slash domestic spending - then we can talk.

What if President Clinton negotiates a diplomatic solution in Iraq, gets her own fast track authority, and gets us back to a balanced budget?

No one's giving Bush new toys when he hasn't shown us he can handle the ones he has.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
What if President Clinton.... gets us back to a balanced budget?

the massive tax increases would result in a more disastrous 1 term presidency than Bush I's, but would probably also result in a massive tax code overhaul in the first 100 days of Jeb's first term in 2013. Maybe post-card style flat tax.......