The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why is this true? I always hear about how delicate the rainforests are, and when you destroy them it takes a hundred years for the stuff to grow back. The Tundra refreezes every winter and there are no trees that have to grow back.

The rainforests would be fine if clearing them did not involve ripping out every piece of vegetation and burning what was left. The tundra is more delicate because extreme environments tend to be that way.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
The rainforests would be fine if clearing them did not involve ripping out every piece of vegetation and burning what was left. The tundra is more delicate because extreme environments tend to be that way.

It seems to me that Spanky is conflating turning rainforests into cropland (as we all know, very very hard on the environment, since it changes the nature of the land from forest into plains) with drilling for oil in jungles (not sure how hard this is on the land, but it seems like you could leave a lot of vegetation in place), and thus potentially overestimating the amount of damage caused by the drilling in New Guinea that was remediated by Chevron.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's strange, but as much as we argue about the UMC, it seems more and more that we are very much alike in our thinking on many subjects.

Not that I want to start the argument, but I think to not provide medical care for those who can't afford it is a violation of the UMC.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. I don't like subsidies either. But subsidizing a massive, inefficient system which seeks to monitor what millions of people get at the point of purchase is just a foolish waste of money better devoted to a program which would lower the price of drugs, thus removing the need for the inefficient program. My thinking is simple - easier to fund and monitor companies than to develop, implement and oversee millions of people's purchase of drugs. You think the waste and damage due to fraud and lobbying for subsidies would outweight the waste and damage caused by a massive impossible-to-administer program which consumers can never hope to understand?

I think there are two issues here. I think the drug companies have plenty of a profit motive to come up with drugs that help people. The drug companys will continue to do their research and find cures. In addition, subsidizing drug companys will make the drugs cheaper for both rich and poor people. The rich don't need any help. They can pay full price for the drugs.

The second issues is providing drugs for those who can't afford them. No matter how much you subsidize the drug companys, they will charge money for their drugs and there will be people that can't afford them. The market works well in providing the consumers that have money with what they want. No need to mess with the market there. What the market does not take care of (no matter how efficient it is) is providing poor people with what they need. That is where the government steps in. Yes, setting up a huge wasteful bureacratic system to provide drugs to the needy is a drain on tax dollars, but it is a necessary drain. Yes there will be tons of fraud and waste. But that is the only way to do it. A big wasteful fraudulent bueracracy that provides drugs to poor people is better than having the poor people not get the drugs they need.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield Like federal funding for overpriced drugs isn't a subsidization...

This is where Ty and I also get into arguments. Yes providing poor people with drugs is a subsidy, but you are not messing with an efficient market. There is no market to provide drugs to poor people, and that is something the government has to do, so the government steps in. But when it comes to a market (like the drug market) that is running efficiently the government does not need to step in to pick winners and loser, and decide which companys get money. The government should let the market weed out the inefficient producers and reward the efficient producers. Let the free market do what it does best.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield We're arguing 6 versus half a dozen here. You like a ground-up model, I prefer going from top down. Either way, the money reaches the same drug company pockets. I think mine is a better model because its administration costs are smaller, and it can be monitoroed much more closely. I'm advocating the same safety net, I'm just throwing it differently.

Not really, because your system focuses on the companys and mine focuses on the poor people. The poor people are the ones that need help, not the drug companys. And if a drug company is going out of business, let it go out of business. But if someone is going to die if they don't get certain drugs, you give them the drugs.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
But when it comes to a market (like the drug market) that is running efficiently the government does not need to step in to pick winners and loser, and decide which companys get money. The government should let the market weed out the inefficient producers and reward the efficient producers. Let the free market do what it does best.

The problem is that it's not a free market for the rich either. Very few people pay full price for drugs. Generally only medicare recipients (until this year). Most people have insurance coverage to pay for them. If they don't, they can't afford the drugs. The drug companies set really high prices hoping a couple people will pay it, knowing that for the most part they'll discount the price 75-90% for insurance. It's also not free because most of the buyers are price insensitive, for two reasons. First, they're not paying, or they pay a co-pay. Second, if you need drugs, you pay for it. While the second is part of a free market (think gasoline)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

fuck drugs. I am very surprised the S. Ct. upheld Oregon's death with dignity act.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
fuck drugs. I am very surprised the S. Ct. upheld Oregon's death with dignity act.

Wow. That is extraordinary.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) Subsidizing corporations is never a good idea. Who gets to choose which drug companies get the subsidies? The one who bribes abrahamoff will. In other words it will have nothing to do with merit.

2) If people can not pay for medical care themselves you need to provide it for them. Same goes for medicine. Especially if it is lifesaving. Only souless sociopaths argue for the dismantling of the safety net.

How much medical care and at what quality? Who decides these questions?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Wow. That is extraordinary.

Looks like it was a statutory interpretation resolution. So I suspect there will be a bill introduced in the next few weeks to clarify that the authority extends to allow this. Not sure it will pass, but I bet one gets introduced.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Looks like it was a statutory interpretation resolution. So I suspect there will be a bill introduced in the next few weeks to clarify that the authority extends to allow this. Not sure it will pass, but I bet one gets introduced.

I think that the most interesting thing about this case is that it looks like Kennedy is assserting his new position as the swing vote on the Supreme Court. That opening paragraph seems like a sign to the Executive branch that he's the one that they're going to have to convince from here on out, not O'Connor.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The problem is that it's not a free market for the rich either. Very few people pay full price for drugs. Generally only medicare recipients (until this year). Most people have insurance coverage to pay for them. If they don't, they can't afford the drugs. The drug companies set really high prices hoping a couple people will pay it, knowing that for the most part they'll discount the price 75-90% for insurance. It's also not free because most of the buyers are price insensitive, for two reasons. First, they're not paying, or they pay a co-pay. Second, if you need drugs, you pay for it. While the second is part of a free market (think gasoline)

Though, many generics are actually surprisingly cheap. Sometimes less than a health plan's copay. There is an issue that doctors sometimes prescribe (or patients ask for) the latest new drug when an older, now available in generic drug may be equally or more effective. Yay advertising!

Also, did you finish this post? It seems like it cuts off in the middle.

[SlaveNoMore]

Did anyone else notice how the Hollywood Foreign Press last night awarded best foreign film to the country of "Palestine"

I guess they already have their own country. So fuck 'em.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The problem is that it's not a free market for the rich either. Very few people pay full price for drugs. Generally only medicare recipients (until this year). Most people have insurance coverage to pay for them. If they don't, they can't afford the drugs. The drug companies set really high prices hoping a couple people will pay it, knowing that for the most part they'll discount the price 75-90% for insurance. It's also not free because most of the buyers are price insensitive, for two reasons. First, they're not paying, or they pay a co-pay. Second, if you need drugs, you pay for it. While the second is part of a free market (think gasoline)

I don't know why, for purposes of dealing with insurers, docs and drug makers don't just drop their rates to meet the actual price per unit they're getting from the insurers. Seems so much easier than the game they play with insurance companies.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't know why, for purposes of dealing with insurers, docs and drug makers don't just drop their rates to meet the actual price per unit they're getting from the insurers. Seems so much easier than the game they play with insurance companies.

There's not just one price for insurers. All over the board. I think you are out of your depth, sweet pea.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Did anyone else notice how the Hollywood Foreign Press last night awarded best foreign film to the country of "Palestine"

I guess they already have their own country. So fuck 'em.

You would have awarded a film made by Palestinians to Israel? Taiwan to China?