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

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Helping with the marketing materials at work?

Not that kind of death. The regular people kind of death. Death in that kind of death is not really as much of a "shit happens" thing. Cancer is a "shit happens" thing.

BTW, I won the fight. Yay!

ETA Die, motherfuckers, die! I say that for no particular reason.

[Spanky]

This may have already been discussed and I missed it, but I was talking to Lew Butler, who was the undersecretary of HEW under Nixon, and he told me that they considered the prescriptoin drug option but decided it was just a boondoggle for the drug companys.

He told me, and I don't know if it is correct, that under the new prescription drug deal it is illegal for the US Government to buy drugs wholesale from drug companies. Kaiser can buy drugs wholesale, but the one entity with the greatest purchasing power in the world can't bargain to buy the drugs.

I would call that an example of the government not taking advantage of the benefits of the free market.

This policy would make Lenin proud.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
This may have already been discussed and I missed it, but I was talking to Lew Butler, who was the undersecretary of HEW under Nixon, and he told me that they considered the prescriptoin drug option but decided it was just a boondoggle for the drug companys.

He told me, and I don't know if it is correct, that under the new prescription drug deal it is illegal for the US Government to buy drugs wholesale from drug companies. Kaiser can buy drugs wholesale, but the one entity with the greatest purchasing power in the world can't bargain to buy the drugs.

I would call that an example of the government not taking advantage of the benefits of the free market.

This policy would make Lenin proud.

Wholesale vs. not wholesale isn't the issue -- what *is* wholesale, anyway? Basically, yes -- Kaiser and BCBS and Medco (on behalf of clients, generally) can bargain, based on their bulk buying power, to get lower prices. But this isn't permitted under Medicare Part D (prescription drug benefit).

Though, I think that people covered by Medicare Part D have to enroll in plans, which may be able to bargain with the drug companies to get lower prices.

RT can probably explain better, but probably not tonight.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Wholesale vs. not wholesale isn't the issue -- what *is* wholesale, anyway? Basically, yes -- Kaiser and BCBS and Medco (on behalf of clients, generally) can bargain, based on their bulk buying power, to get lower prices. But this isn't permitted under Medicare Part D (prescription drug benefit).

Though, I think that people covered by Medicare Part D have to enroll in plans, which may be able to bargain with the drug companies to get lower prices.

RT can probably explain better, but probably not tonight.

could you summarize the opt in/out provisions added by the '98 amendments please?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
This may have already been discussed and I missed it, but I was talking to Lew Butler,

* * *

He told me, and I don't know if it is correct, that under the new prescription drug deal it is illegal for the US Government to buy drugs wholesale from drug companies. Kaiser can buy drugs wholesale, but the one entity with the greatest purchasing power in the world can't bargain to buy the drugs.

I would call that an example of the government not taking advantage of the benefits of the free market.

This policy would make Lenin proud.

That is absolutely correct. That provision was the work of some very fancy lobbying by drug companies -- including the new head of PHRMA -- good old Billy Tauzin (or did he get the job just after the bill passed)? They argued that the givernment's negotiating power would distort the market.

The provision was the subject of some criticism from the Democratic side of the aisle. A GOP President and Congress passed the bill with that kind of corporate welfare provision -- remarkable, isn't it?

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That is absolutely correct. That provision was the work of some very fancy lobbying by drug companies -- including the new head of PHRMA -- good old Billy Tauzin (or did he get the job just after the bill passed)? They argued that the givernment's negotiating power would distort the market.

The provision was the subject of some criticism from the Democratic side of the aisle. A GOP President and Congress passed the bill with that kind of corporate welfare provision -- remarkable, isn't it?

S_A_M

Not to be on the side of the GOP, but are the entities that Part D beneficiaries have to sign up with to get the benefit permitted to bargain? Not that they could get as good a deal as something that combined the buying power of EVERYONE eligible for Part D benefits, but it does at least mean that taxpayers aren't paying wholesale for the drugs.

I'm sure RT can educate us on how it works under the VA system versus Medicare Part D. Veterans get free drugs -- pretty cool -- and I think that the VA system uses it's huge buying power to get very low prices.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
This may have already been discussed and I missed it, but I was talking to Lew Butler, who was the undersecretary of HEW under Nixon, and he told me that they considered the prescriptoin drug option but decided it was just a boondoggle for the drug companys.

He told me, and I don't know if it is correct, that under the new prescription drug deal it is illegal for the US Government to buy drugs wholesale from drug companies. Kaiser can buy drugs wholesale, but the one entity with the greatest purchasing power in the world can't bargain to buy the drugs.

I would call that an example of the government not taking advantage of the benefits of the free market.

This policy would make Lenin proud.

This kind of crap makes me feel better about having registered as a Libertarian out of sheer disgust.

I still can't get my hands around why states can't buy drugs from Canada. People should be able to buy what they want if they're willing to sign a waiver agreeing to take on reasonable risks associated with purchasing on an unregulated global market.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
He told me, and I don't know if it is correct, that under the new prescription drug deal it is illegal for the US Government to buy drugs wholesale from drug companies. Kaiser can buy drugs wholesale, but the one entity with the greatest purchasing power in the world can't bargain to buy the drugs.

I would call that an example of the government not taking advantage of the benefits of the free market.

This policy would make Lenin proud.

Yes it's true under Medicare Part D, no it's not true under other government healthcare programs, most notably the VA, which pays about 40 percent less for prescription drugs than Medicare Part D plans.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Yes it's true under Medicare Part D, no it's not true under other government healthcare programs, most notably the VA, which pays about 40 percent less for prescription drugs than Medicare Part D plans.

So he was right. This should be the Democrats motto for the next election.

corporate welfare = socialism

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

You just cannot make this stuff up. Never mind about the guy in the ICU - is the VP all right?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
You just cannot make this stuff up. Never mind about the guy in the ICU - is the VP all right?

(a) The amount of attention being paid to this is ridiculous.

(b) Even more ridiculous is the reason offered by Scott McC on why neither the VP's office nor the WH issued a statement on the shooting earlier -- something to the effect of "they were focused on more important things, like the health of [whatever shot guy's name is]. Cheney visited him in the hospital." That is so pathetically lame. Yeah, everyone on his staff and the White House staff was working toward the health of shot guy, and so they weren't available to issue a statement.

eta (c) that said, I wish that there'd been something on NPR this morning other than Scott McC's lame-ass explanation and descriptions of the heart attack.

[Raggedy Ann Coulter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
(a) The amount of attention being paid to this is ridiculous.

(b) Even more ridiculous is the reason offered by Scott McC on why neither the VP's office nor the WH issued a statement on the shooting earlier -- something to the effect of "they were focused on more important things, like the health of [whatever shot guy's name is]. Cheney visited him in the hospital." That is so pathetically lame. Yeah, everyone on his staff and the White House staff was working toward the health of shot guy, and so they weren't available to issue a statement.

eta (c) that said, I wish that there'd been something on NPR this morning other than Scott McC's lame-ass explanation and descriptions of the heart attack.

How long did it take Billary Rodham to report the suicide of Vincent Foster?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
People should be able to buy what they want if they're willing to sign a waiver agreeing to take on reasonable risks associated with purchasing on an unregulated global market.

Why not make the same argument about any drugs? So long as you waive, you can take it?

I'm not saying I like the rule, but the issues are a lot more complex because with many drugs intellectual property is implicated. Drug companies like the cross-border bans because they can price based on the local market realities, without the arbitrage risk. If they had to price globally, prices would increase significantly in some countries other than the U.S. As a result those governments might decide not to recognize the IP rights, and allow generic production of the patented compound. At which point incentives for drug development would decline significantly. Of course there are good arguments against that point, but the argument is not trivial.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Raggedy Ann Coulter
How long did it take Billary Rodham to report the suicide of Vincent Foster?

for that to be a sensible question, the word suicide should appear in quotes.

But I think the answer is, more quickly than the shooting accident. I think it was reported the next morning, if not sooner.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
(a) The amount of attention being paid to this is ridiculous.

(b) Even more ridiculous is the reason offered by Scott McC on why neither the VP's office nor the WH issued a statement on the shooting earlier -- something to the effect of "they were focused on more important things, like the health of [whatever shot guy's name is]. Cheney visited him in the hospital." That is so pathetically lame. Yeah, everyone on his staff and the White House staff was working toward the health of shot guy, and so they weren't available to issue a statement.

eta (c) that said, I wish that there'd been something on NPR this morning other than Scott McC's lame-ass explanation and descriptions of the heart attack.

On a, true unless the guy dies.

On b, Russert made teh interesting point that cheney's constituency is 1, Bush, since he's not running for election in 2008. He can give everyone the finger, basically. Of course, that may cost Bush, but it doesn't cost Cheney, at least until Bush cuts him loose, which he won't because that looks even worse than letting him continue to fuck around (and I say that's true even if Scooter Libby implicates him in open court on Plame).

on c, listening to his explanations is good theatre. Sebby's description of him (it was more articulate than "fat fuck", but not too different) is still straight on. The guy is a hack who is really poor at explaining a bad situation. While he's not been blessed by spinnable stories, most people with that job still find a way.