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

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky

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?

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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?

You are exactly right. She should change her name again to hide her shame.

But, then, maybe you should ask yourself, why do you hate America? By calling her on her factual inaccuracies, aren't you giving succor to the enemy? Next thing you know, Spanky, you'll be worried about whether everything might not be peachy keen in Baghdad.

[Penske_Account]

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?

If Pelosi is for it, I am against it.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
An emotional Senator John F. Kerry today said he will not run in the 2008 presidential race and vowed to use his Senate perch to hasten an end to the war in Iraq, saying he would work with lawmakers from both parties to reverse President Bush's troop "surge" and force him to withdraw virtually all troops from Iraq by early next year.

That sucks. What a lovely first African-American first lady we'd have had.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Although it could be considered a price control in that the government will be forcing sales, at least on a large share of purchases,

Well, they don't have to sell to the government if they don't want to. Do they?

I know this won't last long, but at least legislatively I like everything the Dems have done so far, my only criticism is that on the ethics stuff on and on the oil subsidies they didn't go far enough.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
That sucks. What a lovely first African-American first lady we'd have had.

Yes, we really dropped the ball on that one......

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well, they don't have to sell to the government if they don't want to. Do they?

I know this won't last long, but at least legislatively I like everything the Dems have done so far, my only criticism is that on the ethics stuff on and on the oil subsidies they didn't go far enough.

And we'll see what gets through the Senate.

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.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well, they don't have to sell to the government if they don't want to. Do they?

I know this won't last long, but at least legislatively I like everything the Dems have done so far, my only criticism is that on the ethics stuff on and on the oil subsidies they didn't go far enough.

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.)

I don't actually know exactly how Part D works; possibly they could do something like regular health plans do where drugs are subsidized at different rates (e.g., I pay 10% of cost for generics, 20% of cost for drugs on a list of approved drugs, and 40% of cost for all other drugs; sometimes the copay differs instead, with higher copays for less-favored drugs).

I would think it might end up working like how the VA system works, but I don't know if there are a bunch of drugs not available under that system.

RT may have more insight.

[Adder]

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?

I have not followed it closely, but my impression was the same as yours.

Of course, calling government negotiated prices "price controls" seems like pretty standard political fair (rather like calling someone pro-abortion).

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If true. It's odd that some of the people who were sure that the charges Nifong brought were unfounded are now equally sure that the charges against him are sound.

Sure -- but there aren't many good explanations for why the exculpatory evidence was not turned over.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
If Pelosi is for it, I am against it.

You can't be serious about this.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
You can't be serious about this.

Apparently you've had Penske on ignore until today.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Remind me, is he an R or a D?

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?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
You can't be serious about this.

I'm not, I was just testing to see if you had me on ignore.

You passed.

eta: Merde! Double merde! STP!!

[Adder]

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

He is a mod. Spanky couldn't have had him on ignore.