Ukraine
- haresfur - May 12, 2024 - 8:39pm
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- haresfur - May 12, 2024 - 8:32pm
Israel
- haresfur - May 12, 2024 - 8:31pm
Trump
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 3:35pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - May 12, 2024 - 12:55pm
NY Times Strands
- maryte - May 12, 2024 - 12:33pm
NYTimes Connections
- maryte - May 12, 2024 - 12:27pm
Wordle - daily game
- maryte - May 12, 2024 - 12:16pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- black321 - May 12, 2024 - 11:35am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - May 12, 2024 - 11:32am
Those Lovable Policemen
- R_P - May 12, 2024 - 11:31am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - May 12, 2024 - 10:33am
What can you hear right now?
- oldviolin - May 12, 2024 - 10:31am
Podcast recommendations???
- R_P - May 12, 2024 - 10:25am
Things You Thought Today
- oldviolin - May 12, 2024 - 10:22am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - May 12, 2024 - 9:16am
The All-Things Beatles Forum
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 9:04am
Baseball, anyone?
- Red_Dragon - May 12, 2024 - 6:52am
Poetry Forum
- ScottN - May 12, 2024 - 6:32am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - May 12, 2024 - 6:26am
The Obituary Page
- Proclivities - May 12, 2024 - 5:40am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- miamizsun - May 11, 2024 - 10:37am
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - May 11, 2024 - 8:47am
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- oldviolin - May 11, 2024 - 8:43am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 11, 2024 - 7:29am
What Did You See Today?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 11, 2024 - 7:24am
2024 Elections!
- black321 - May 11, 2024 - 6:35am
Joe Biden
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 9:46pm
Beer
- ScottFromWyoming - May 10, 2024 - 8:58pm
It's the economy stupid.
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 3:21pm
Oh dear god, BEES!
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 3:11pm
Tornado!
- miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
The 1960s
- kcar - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
Climate Change
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 10:08am
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - May 10, 2024 - 9:35am
Marko Haavisto & Poutahaukat
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 7:57am
Artificial Intelligence
- miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 6:51am
Living in America
- Proclivities - May 10, 2024 - 6:45am
Virginia News
- Red_Dragon - May 10, 2024 - 5:42am
China
- miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 5:30am
Outstanding Covers
- Steely_D - May 10, 2024 - 12:56am
Democratic Party
- R_P - May 9, 2024 - 3:06pm
RP on HomePod mini
- RPnate1 - May 9, 2024 - 10:52am
Interesting Words
- Proclivities - May 9, 2024 - 10:22am
Surfing!
- oldviolin - May 9, 2024 - 9:21am
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests
- islander - May 9, 2024 - 7:21am
Breaking News
- maryte - May 9, 2024 - 7:17am
Guns
- Red_Dragon - May 9, 2024 - 6:16am
Spambags on RP
- Steely_D - May 8, 2024 - 2:30pm
Suggestion for new RP Channel: Modern / Family
- Ruuddie - May 8, 2024 - 11:46am
Gaming, Shopping, and More? Samsung's Metaverse Plans for...
- alexhoxdson - May 8, 2024 - 7:00am
SLOVENIA
- novitibo - May 8, 2024 - 1:38am
Reviews and Pix from your concerts and shows you couldn't...
- haresfur - May 7, 2024 - 10:46pm
Eclectic Sound-Drops
- Manbird - May 7, 2024 - 10:18pm
Farts!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 7, 2024 - 9:53pm
The RP YouTube (Google) Group
- oldviolin - May 7, 2024 - 8:46pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - May 7, 2024 - 8:35pm
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- Manbird - May 7, 2024 - 7:55pm
Russia
- R_P - May 7, 2024 - 1:59am
Mixtape Culture Club
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 6, 2024 - 8:51pm
Politically Uncorrect News
- oldviolin - May 6, 2024 - 2:15pm
Other Medical Stuff
- kurtster - May 6, 2024 - 1:04pm
Rock Mix not up to same audio quality as Main and Mellow?
- rp567 - May 6, 2024 - 12:06pm
Music Requests
- black321 - May 6, 2024 - 11:57am
NASA & other news from space
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 6, 2024 - 11:37am
Global Warming
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 6, 2024 - 9:29am
Tales from the RAFT
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 6, 2024 - 9:19am
Food
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 6, 2024 - 4:17am
The Abortion Wars
- thisbody - May 5, 2024 - 3:27pm
volcano!
- geoff_morphini - May 5, 2024 - 9:55am
Tesla (motors, batteries, etc)
- miamizsun - May 5, 2024 - 6:16am
Favorite Quotes
- Isabeau - May 4, 2024 - 5:21pm
Anti-War
- R_P - May 4, 2024 - 3:24pm
Iran
- Red_Dragon - May 4, 2024 - 12:03pm
Live Music
- oldviolin - May 4, 2024 - 11:18am
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Trump
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 975, 976, 977 ... 1147, 1148, 1149 Next |
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 20, 2017 - 11:14am |
|
We stand at the doorstep of a new millennium.Our obligation is to reduceour bloated government...but at the same time,restore its creative power...to reinvigorate our society...
We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow. Also this, which won't embed.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jan 20, 2017 - 10:40am |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: Listening to Obama's and Bush2's ethics lawyers on NPR yesterday, they both agree that the instant he took the oath of office, he's in violation of the emoluments clause and several federal laws. I think 4 years is not likely.
I agree, but I'm just exercising the "turn about is fair play" doctrine here.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 20, 2017 - 10:37am |
|
Red_Dragon wrote: Listening to Obama's and Bush2's ethics lawyers on NPR yesterday, they both agree that the instant he took the oath of office, he's in violation of the emoluments clause* and several federal laws. I think 4 years is not likely. *So often mis-typed as emollients that I always think of Mr. Trump's tiny hands when I hear that.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jan 20, 2017 - 10:34am |
|
|
|
Skydog
|
Posted:
Jan 20, 2017 - 10:31am |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jan 20, 2017 - 10:18am |
|
Proclivities wrote: Oddly, it hasn't been brought up much, but he's the oldest person to assume the Presidency. Almost a year older than Reagan was on his inauguration. It doesn't really matter in light of his other aspects, just a side-note.
I hear you.
|
|
Proclivities
Location: Paris of the Piedmont Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 20, 2017 - 10:18am |
|
Red_Dragon wrote: Oddly, it hasn't been brought up much, but he's the oldest person to assume the Presidency. Almost a year older than Reagan was on his inauguration. It doesn't really matter, especially in light of his other aspects, just a side-note.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jan 20, 2017 - 10:14am |
|
|
|
kcar
|
Posted:
Jan 19, 2017 - 8:05pm |
|
kurtster wrote: True that but Trump will. One of his goals ... to negotiate drug prices for government purchases such as for Medicare, Medicaid. Obama gave Big Pharma a wet kiss in April 2009, if you might remember. It was his first sell out of us common people.
"Obama gave Big Pharma a wet kiss in April 2009, if you might remember. It was his first sell out of us common people."
Welcome to politics, kurtster! I assume you're referring to Obama's decision to not seek legislation allowing re-importation of cheaper drugs from Canada and negotiating authority for Medicare regarding Part D drug prices. Obama and his team came to believe that without that concession to pharmaceutical companies, the ACA bill would not have their support and might very well not pass. Politics is the art of compromise; at times one side has to give up some of its goals to get the rest of them.
Obama Was Pushed by Drug Industry, E-Mails Suggest Just like that, Mr. Obama’s staff signaled a willingness to put aside support for the reimportation of prescription medicines at lower prices and by doing so solidified a compact with an industry the president had vilified on the campaign trail. Central to Mr. Obama’s drive to remake the nation’s health care system was an unlikely collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry that forced unappealing trade-offs.
...
But the bargain was one that the president deemed necessary to forestall industry opposition that had thwarted efforts to cover the uninsured for generations. Without the deal, in which the industry agreed to provide $80 billion to expand coverage in exchange for protection from policies that would cost more, Mr. Obama calculated he might get nowhere.
Obama's abandonment of his goal to gain negotiating power over drug prices was necessary to pass the ACA, which helped tens of millions gain insurance coverage. Overall, I'd say he didn't sell out "us common people"—in fact, he worked his butt off for them and got them a huge win. You also might remember that Billy Tauzin was the GOP Congressman who stuck it to "us common people" in favor of pharmaceutical companies...and then quit Congress to head up PhRMA , a trade group representing pharmaceutical companies.
The Legacy of Billy Tauzin: The White House-PhRMA Deal...PhRMA president, CEO and top lobbyist Billy Tauzin, a longtime Democratic member of Congress who switched party affiliations after Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994. By switching parties Tauzin was able to maintain his influence and even rose to be Chairman of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. Tauzin became the poster child of Washington’s mercenary culture. He crafted a bill to provide prescription drug access to Medicare recipients, one that provided major concessions to the pharmaceutical industry. Medicare would not be able to negotiate for lower prescription drug costs and reimportation of drugs from first world countries would not be allowed. A few months after the bill passed, Tauzin announced that he was retiring from Congress and would be taking a job helming PhRMA for a salary of $2 million.
Finally, kurtster, in response to my words " If you're worried about medical costs and prices, don't expect the Republicans to help you."you wrote "True that but Trump will. One of his goals ... to negotiate drug prices for government purchases such as for Medicare, Medicaid."
No disrespect, but how exactly are we supposed to know Trump's goals when 1. he lies all the time 2. he changes his position on issues all the time 3. he offers nothing but the vaguest of promises 4. he has no health care reform plan?
|
|
R_P
Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 19, 2017 - 3:04pm |
|
Trump Taps Anti-Gay, Anti-Catholic, Anti-Mormon Pastor Robert Jeffress For Prayer Service | Right Wing Watch(...)Jeffress made waves in the last presidential election when, after endorsing Rick Perry, he told Christians that they shouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney because of his Mormon faith, which wasn’t too surprising since he once blasted Mormonism as “a cult” from “the pit of hell.” Jeffress has similarly stated that Satan created Roman Catholicism, declared that Jews, Mormons, Muslims and gay people are all destined for hell and maintained that President Obama “is paving the way for the future reign of the Antichrist.” No fan of the gay community, Jeffress believes that gays and lesbians are “perverse” people who are either pedophiles or likely to abuse children in the future; compared homosexuality to bestiality and called it “a miserable lifestyle”; accused gay people of using “brainwashing techniques” to have homosexuality “crammed down our throats”; said that gay people “are engaged in the most detestable, unclean, abominable acts you can imagine”; predicted that the gay rights movement “will pave the way for that future world dictator, the Antichrist”; and labeled homosexuality a “filthy practice” that will lead to the “implosion of our country.”
In a statement to CNN, Trump’s inauguration committee stated that “Pastor Jeffress is figure representing a diverse spectrum of Americans” and criticized “any attempt to vilify this religious leader” as “deeply disappointing and misplaced.”
|
|
rhahl
|
Posted:
Jan 19, 2017 - 11:11am |
|
R_P wrote: It seems he might have lit himself on fire and then put it out before the help came. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127340084.html
|
|
R_P
Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 19, 2017 - 10:57am |
|
|
|
rhahl
|
Posted:
Jan 19, 2017 - 6:48am |
|
kurtster wrote:True that but Trump will. One of his goals ... to negotiate drug prices for government purchases such as for Medicare, Medicaid. Obama gave Big Pharma a wet kiss in April 2009, if you might remember. It was his first sell out of us common people. I think so too, but my main hope is that progressive voters will refuse to support the Democrats until they start making themselves useful. If the Dem's loose, and loose, and then loose some more, the old ones might be replaced by politicians who actually are what they say they are. Yes that is a long shot but it is the only thing I see which could help fix this problem. It is not just about money. High drug prices are a strategic tool of foreign policy, which is why the neocons are all for it no matter how it hurts ordinary citizens. I think the result of the last presidential election was basically random. It showed what happens when both parties nominate a candidate who can't win. I honestly could not decide which of them was the lesser evil, so I abstained. Don't blame me, I voted for Bernie (TM).
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 19, 2017 - 1:13am |
|
kcar wrote: rhahl wrote:"The disturbing escalation of DMT prices in the United States is clearly related to the political prohibition of US Medicare to negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical industry. What has happened defies common sense, logic, and the expected rules of the marketplace." That was a largely GOP decision, wasn't it? If you're worried about medical costs and prices, don't expect the Republicans to help you. True that but Trump will. One of his goals ... to negotiate drug prices for government purchases such as for Medicare, Medicaid. Obama gave Big Pharma a wet kiss in April 2009, if you might remember. It was his first sell out of us common people.
|
|
haresfur
Location: The Golden Triangle Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 18, 2017 - 9:02pm |
|
rhahl wrote:Well if a drug price is exorbitant it doesn't matter how old you are. In the case of multiple sclerosis, see "Escalating MS drug costs in the US - Puzzling, troubling, and suspicious"; Neurology 2015; 84:2105–2106; T. Jock Murray, MD.. I totally agree but the issue is being able to separate out the exorbitant from the reasonable. Even if you could cut out the profiteering, you will still have to come up with a system that pays for the costs of the aging population without destroying the livelihood of younger people. You can't do it through payroll tax unless you start taxing the rich and businesses more.
|
|
kcar
|
Posted:
Jan 18, 2017 - 8:00pm |
|
rhahl wrote:"The disturbing escalation of DMT prices in the United States is clearly related to the political prohibition of US Medicare to negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical industry. What has happened defies common sense, logic, and the expected rules of the marketplace." That was a largely GOP decision, wasn't it? If you're worried about medical costs and prices, don't expect the Republicans to help you.
|
|
kcar
|
Posted:
Jan 18, 2017 - 7:55pm |
|
haresfur wrote: The US medical system and rising costs seem totally outrageous to me. However, the aging population should be considered in this. All you old farts are costing a lot. It would be interesting to see how much more different age groups are paying per person.
The US healthcare system is far more expensive than other the systems of other comparably developed nations. The ACA was not going to dramatically alter that trend within a few years of its implementation, and any suggestion in this thread that the ACA is a failure because health care costs are still rising (albeit more slowly) is uninformed and/or misleading. The ACA before Trump's election was a work in progress: it needed to strengthen the insurance mandate to bring young, healthy adults into the risk pool, increase subsidies to individuals and to provide more federal compensation to insurers as compensation for unforeseen costs of covering new customers who demanded more healthcare than predicted (this apparently was a bigger problem in smaller states with a smaller pool of customers. A public option may have been able to compensate for the pullout of insurance providers from some areas of the country. But the ACA was definitely fixable. There is no credible Republican alternative at this time and likely won't be by the time the ACA is repealed. Many of the Republican healthcare reform plans (like Paul Ryan's) may provide lower premiums to individuals but offer less coverage. These plans tend to favor the young and healthy and indirectly allow insurance companies to decrease coverage of people with pre-existing conditions. Depending on the proposed plan and analyses of any plan, an estimated 3-21 million people will lose coverage. As for costs... The growth in annual per-capita health care costs began slowing before the the ACA was enacted, due to the recession and slow recovery as well as declines in the cost of obtaining some classes of drugs due to the market arrival of generic alternatives. The Council of Economic Advisors also claims that the ACA's reduction in federal Medicare payments had a "significant" impact on the growth of healthcare costs, although other groups claim that the ACA had minimal impact on that growth. http://www.factcheck.org/2014/02/aca-impact-on-per-capita-cost-of-health-care/This Atlantic.com piece has some good observations and charts that show how the growth in healthcare spending has declined: With slowly growing prices, even rising demand for healthcare has led to less-than-projected spending, in just about every category. (To be clear: This doesn't mean healthcare is getting cheaper; it means healthcare is getting more expensive slower than we anticipated.) The government is casually saving hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare thanks to both direct cuts and other reforms. Insurance companies, despite a rough year due to the arrival of some expensive new drugs, have been spending less than the actuaries projected in 2010. Even with growth in high-deductible plans, out-of-pocket spending is actually coming in below projections from five years ago.Forecasts of medical spending have undergone round after round of major surgery. Six years ago, the Urban Institute projected that the country would spend $23 trillion between 2014 and 2019. After Obamacare became law, it raised its forecast by half-a-trillion dollars. But the latest projections, published this month, are lighter by $2 trillion and $2.5 trillion, respectively.
|
|
rhahl
|
Posted:
Jan 18, 2017 - 6:45pm |
|
haresfur wrote:The US medical system and rising costs seem totally outrageous to me. However, the aging population should be considered in this. All you old farts are costing a lot. It would be interesting to see how much more different age groups are paying per person. Well if a drug price is exorbitant it doesn't matter how old you are. In the case of multiple sclerosis, see "Escalating MS drug costs in the US - Puzzling, troubling, and suspicious"; Neurology 2015; 84:2105–2106; T. Jock Murray, MD.. "When the first disease-modifying therapy (DMT) appeared in 1993, everything changed for patients with MS, their families, and their neurologists. ... "The disturbing escalation of DMT prices in the United States is clearly related to the political prohibition of US Medicare to negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical industry. What has happened defies common sense, logic, and the expected rules of the marketplace. Since Food andDrug Administration approval, and with increasingproduct competition, Betaseron has gone from $11,532 to $61,529, Avonex from $8,723 to $62,394, glatiramer acetate from $8,292 to $59,158, and Rebif from $15,262 to $66,394. These price increases, and emerging evidence that long-term outcomes are less than anticipated, undermine the cost-effectiveness of MS DMTs. These counterintuitive increases suggest the possibility of collusion among the manufacturers, but the authors say they do not have evidence. "What justification does the pharmaceutical industry in the United States offer for the remarkable increase in the costs of these drugs? Well, they do not have to explain, as they are allowed to set prices in a black box, based on the business ethic of maximizing profit, supported by a bizarre law that prevents US Medicare (the US federal government social insurance program) from negotiating prices directly with the pharmaceutical industry. That this is arbitrary and “just because they can” is shown by comparisons with other countries, such as Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, where the costs of the same drugs are one-half to one-third as much. What is even more striking is the contrast within the United States, where the same drug covered by Medicaid (insurance programs funded by the federal and state governments and administered by the states) may be 2 to over 4 times higher than to the federal VA system (for armed service veterans), which is permitted to negotiate prices (Betaseron is $49,146 via Medicaid, but $10,583 via US VA).
|
|
haresfur
Location: The Golden Triangle Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 18, 2017 - 5:04pm |
|
rhahl wrote: The CPI does not count medical costs as 18% of the inflation rate, it's more like 6 - 8 %. Funny that.
The US medical system and rising costs seem totally outrageous to me. However, the aging population should be considered in this. All you old farts are costing a lot. It would be interesting to see how much more different age groups are paying per person.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 18, 2017 - 4:27pm |
|
Steely_D wrote:Yes. Yes she does.
|
|
|