For Dems only.

[Balta1701]

You just have to wonder how many pockets are lined in Congress with health care money from lobbyists.

A better question is...are there any that aren't?

[Texsox]

You just have to wonder how many pockets are lined in Congress with health care money from lobbyists.

 

If you say all of them, I suspect you'll be right waaaaay more times than wrong.

[kapkomet]

And on a different topic...this one is one I really like. One of the things that really annoys me about our healthcare system is that the priorities of the drug companies are completely screwed up. The biggest profit for them can be had in making a drug which doesn't cure people, but which people take to treat a symptom. In other words, if you actually were to produce a vaccine that killed the AIDS virus, it would eat into your profits significantly compared with having people need to take drugs for the rest of their life to manage the disease, and therefore, the for-profit structure drives research dollars away from many of the drugs that would be most useful to society, and on top of that, companies spend billions of other research dollars trying to develop slightly newer versions of older drugs that do nothing except allow the company to get around the generic drug competition. And then beyond that, companies spend tens of billions more on advertising trying to get you to take a drug that is to some extent optional (like Viagra), because if you don't take the drug the profit margin goes down.

 

This bill, if it's structured right, could go a long way towards fixing that problem. Bernie Sanders of VT has put forward a bill that would establish basically a government sponsored, $80 billion/year fund through which companies that develop drugs would be reimbursed if they produce a drug useful to society. So, if you wanted to get the biggest profit in the drug industry, you wouldn't waste tens of billions on advertising and on sneaking around the generic drug laws, you'd get the biggest profit by developing actual new drugs that cure things. A system like this has the potential to dramatically improve the way the drug industry behaves, by putting all of the profit in the drug industry exactly where it should be; developing new drugs that help people.

Oh boy. Here we go.

 

For those of you so in favor of this, but against the other post I just read about Mitt Romney, tell me exactly what the difference is. Who has the right to say which drug is better then another one? Who is going to the the police on which drug benefits society more? Just like you folks who were so quick to call Romney a douche bag for structuring a need program for college based on "society differentiators", this is pretty much the same dictate, but in a different area.

 

I'll start with those questions. I will only say that I do realize there's a problem, but I certainly don't want my government telling me which drugs are more "beneficial" then another one.

[Texsox]

Oh boy. Here we go.

 

For those of you so in favor of this, but against the other post I just read about Mitt Romney, tell me exactly what the difference is. Who has the right to say which drug is better then another one? Who is going to the the police on which drug benefits society more?

 

I'll start with those questions. I will only say that I do realize there's a problem, but I certainly don't want my government telling me which drugs are more "beneficial" then another one.

 

Some of these are easy, for example, not getting the disease versus treating the symptoms of the disease.

 

Too bad you live in a country with such a stupid government. You may wish to move by me. We have actual thinking people that work in our government.

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh boy. Here we go.

 

For those of you so in favor of this, but against the other post I just read about Mitt Romney, tell me exactly what the difference is. Who has the right to say which drug is better then another one? Who is going to the the police on which drug benefits society more? Just like you folks who were so quick to call Romney a douche bag for structuring a need program for college based on "society differentiators", this is pretty much the same dictate, but in a different area.

 

I'll start with those questions. I will only say that I do realize there's a problem, but I certainly don't want my government telling me which drugs are more "beneficial" then another one.

A drug that cures or immunizes against a disease which hurts or kills people is, unequivocally, good for society. No deadly disease is good.

 

Whether a degree in Social Work is better for society than one in Education, on the other hand, is highly subjective.

 

The two suggestions are apples and oranges. One can be easily delineated in a non-partisan fashion, the other cannot.

 

[kapkomet]

Some of these are easy, for example, not getting the disease versus treating the symptoms of the disease.

 

Too bad you live in a country with such a stupid government. You may wish to move by me. We have actual thinking people that work in our government.

The government's not stupid. It's corrupt. There's a difference.

 

As far as your first statement, that part I can agree on. But, I still don't want them telling me what is more important.

 

Example 1:

 

A drug can contain the symptom with little side effects of X disease.

 

B drug can actually eliminate X disease but have enourmous side effects.

 

B drug gets "fast-tracked" or whatever you want to call it, people die, but the argument that "elimination" over "contaiment" now gets clouded.

 

Example 2:

 

A drug treats acne

 

B drug treats blood pressure.

 

A drug to a teenager is very important, but let's face it, A drug is cosmetic and yet can have a powerful impact on the positive manner of which a teenager conducts their lives. Now, A drug will get no dollars to do r&d on, but yet, it is VERY important to some people out there. Who is the government to tell me which drugs are more important?

 

To further example 2:

A drug has been out for years, and they reformulate with less side effects. OH BUT WAIT! According to Balta, it's just to avoid the generic bugaboo. That's not true all the time. But the government could see it that way. I think it's bulls***.

 

 

[kapkomet]

A drug that cures or immunizes against a disease which hurts or kills people is, unequivocally, good for society. No deadly disease is good.

 

Whether a degree in Social Work is better for society than one in Education, on the other hand, is highly subjective.

 

The two suggestions are apples and oranges. One can be easily delineated in a non-partisan fashion, the other cannot.

Not necessarily. I think lobby money is going to dictate which delination is going to occur. BTW, what about competing drugs that do the same thing? Which gets preference?

[NorthSideSox72]

Not necessarily. I think lobby money is going to dictate which delination is going to occur. BTW, what about competing drugs that do the same thing? Which gets preference?

That, obviously, would be bad (bolded). Has nothing to do with the principle, that's just bad execution.

 

[kapkomet]

That, obviously, would be bad (bolded). Has nothing to do with the principle, that's just bad execution.

Agreed. But again, what about competing drugs?

[NorthSideSox72]

Agreed. But again, what about competing drugs?

Sorry, hit the add reply too soon.

 

Do you mean competing drugs that do the same thing? I don't know, split it or something. Not really a bad problem to have.

 

Or do you mean different targets? Cancer, AIDS, major diseases will always be bad. Anything to cure or immunize anything in that territory will always be useful to society, and virtually no one would argue that. If you have to choose between curing hepatitis and curing a type of cancer, well, just split the pot. Its not as if there will be tens of thousands of drugs in that territory in a given year - more like a small handful if any.

 

[Texsox]

The government's not stupid. It's corrupt. There's a difference.

 

No sir. There may be a few corrupt individuals in our government, the government as a whole, is not corrupt. When was the last time you paid a bribe to get a driver's license? Building permit? When was the last time a cop shook you down?

 

Sorry Kap, I have to call a crap on that one.

[kapkomet]

No sir. There may be a few corrupt individuals in our government, the government as a whole, is not corrupt. When was the last time you paid a bribe to get a driver's license? Building permit? When was the last time a cop shook you down?

 

Sorry Kap, I have to call a crap on that one.

It's corrupt in different ways. People are paying bribes all the time. Tell me why it is you have to make a $1000 campaign contribution as a business (read: PAC) to get access to the government officials? Think about it. You pay to gain the proper access. It's not blatent corruption, but it is corrupt none the less.

[kapkomet]

Sorry, hit the add reply too soon.

 

Do you mean competing drugs that do the same thing? I don't know, split it or something. Not really a bad problem to have.

 

Or do you mean different targets? Cancer, AIDS, major diseases will always be bad. Anything to cure or immunize anything in that territory will always be useful to society, and virtually no one would argue that. If you have to choose between curing hepatitis and curing a type of cancer, well, just split the pot. Its not as if there will be tens of thousands of drugs in that territory in a given year - more like a small handful if any.

Interesting thoughts. But I just get the feeling that it's not as easy as "split it". There's too much influence and power when it comes to this sort of stuff. If you have time go back and read my examples. This is a very slippery slope, IMO.

[NorthSideSox72]

Interesting thoughts. But I just get the feeling that it's not as easy as "split it". There's too much influence and power when it comes to this sort of stuff. If you have time go back and read my examples. This is a very slippery slope, IMO.

I am sure it is not as complete a difference (between this and the education thing) as I am making it, but... I do think there is a big difference there, and I think that the education funding one has a much greater potential for subjective, political B.S. to screw a lot more people, as opposed to a small number of awards for definite good things like the drugs we are talking about.

 

[Texsox]

It's corrupt in different ways. People are paying bribes all the time. Tell me why it is you have to make a $1000 campaign contribution as a business (read: PAC) to get access to the government officials? Think about it. You pay to gain the proper access. It's not blatent corruption, but it is corrupt none the less.

 

Look around the globe. Look at Mexico ten years ago. The UN. To call a government corrupt, IMHO, illegal transactions would be the norm, not the exception. People would not be convicted, let alone, charged for bribery, etc. The public would somewhat accept the officials as dishonest. You start walking the halls from congress to your local school board and pass out bribes. I'll bet a tiny percentage would accept them.

 

It is not as clean as anyone would like, but it falls way short of what I would call corrupt.

[YASNY]

TPTB in Washingtom aren't stupid enough ... with the exception of a certain Louisiana congressman ... to accept cash from somebody walking through the halls of the Capitol building. They have things set up so they can get their money from PAC's or whatever and have it be legal. I'm sorry but 95% of them bastards are crooked as a dog's hind leg.

[kapkomet]

Look around the globe. Look at Mexico ten years ago. The UN. To call a government corrupt, IMHO, illegal transactions would be the norm, not the exception. People would not be convicted, let alone, charged for bribery, etc. The public would somewhat accept the officials as dishonest. You start walking the halls from congress to your local school board and pass out bribes. I'll bet a tiny percentage would accept them.

 

It is not as clean as anyone would like, but it falls way short of what I would call corrupt.

Again, it's corrupt, but corrupt in a different way (not like Mexico or other places where the mafia mentality seems to run wild). However, you do have to have influence and power (read: money) to obtain access to our representatives.

[Balta1701]

To further example 2:

A drug has been out for years, and they reformulate with less side effects. OH BUT WAIT! According to Balta, it's just to avoid the generic bugaboo. That's not true all the time. But the government could see it that way. I think it's bulls***.

This is clearly not the example I'm discussing. In this case, there's some validity to the new research. But this isn't what happens today, at least not in all cases. Much of the reformulation of drugs is done not because it reduces side effects. In fact, in more than a few cases, drugs have been put onto the market that do a worse job with more side effects in all cases, but they are heavily marketed and often used because the newer drug has not yet gone generic. Somewhere in this thread I'm pretty sure I actually stuck a link with the evidence on that, but the search function is offline and I'm lazy. A non-trivial amount of research dollars, in the billions, is spent producing drugs that do the same job or a worse job than drugs that already exist, with more side effects than drugs that already exist, and those drugs are put onto market solely because the older, more effective drugs have already gone generic.

[BigSqwert]

My favorite user comment of the day (so far) from the Trib's Swamp blog. Was in the thread about Bush threatening to veto the new child's health care bill passed in the House:

 

This is how King George "reaches across the aisle"?

 

In other words Congress... give him what he wants and only what he wants or he will veto it.

 

Some "Uniter".

 

[Balta1701]

You just can't help but laugh at this one.

FEMA has truly learned the lessons of Katrina. Even its handling of the media has improved dramatically. For example, as the California wildfires raged Tuesday, Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson, the deputy administrator, had a 1 p.m. news briefing.

 

Reporters were given only 15 minutes' notice of the briefing, making it unlikely many could show up at FEMA's Southwest D.C. offices. They were given an 800 number to call in, though it was a "listen only" line, the notice said -- no questions. Parts of the briefing were carried live on Fox News, MSNBC and other outlets.

 

Johnson stood behind a lectern and began with an overview before saying he would take a few questions. The first questions were about the "commodities" being shipped to Southern California and how officials are dealing with people who refuse to evacuate. He responded eloquently.

 

He was apparently quite familiar with the reporters -- in one case, he appears to say "Mike" and points to a reporter -- and was asked an oddly in-house question about "what it means to have an emergency declaration as opposed to a major disaster declaration" signed by the president. He once again explained smoothly.

 

FEMA press secretary Aaron Walker interrupted at one point to caution he'd allow just "two more questions." Later, he called for a "last question."

 

"Are you happy with FEMA's response so far?" a reporter asked. Another asked about "lessons learned from Katrina."

 

"I'm very happy with FEMA's response so far," Johnson said, hailing "a very smoothly, very efficiently performing team."

 

"And so I think what you're really seeing here is the benefit of experience, the benefit of good leadership and the benefit of good partnership," Johnson said, "none of which were present in Katrina." (Wasn't Michael Chertoff DHS chief then?) Very smooth, very professional. But something didn't seem right. The reporters were lobbing too many softballs. No one asked about trailers with formaldehyde for those made homeless by the fires. And the media seemed to be giving Johnson all day to wax on and on about FEMA's greatness.

 

Of course, that could be because the questions were asked by FEMA staffers playing reporters.

[kapkomet]

This is clearly not the example I'm discussing. In this case, there's some validity to the new research. But this isn't what happens today, at least not in all cases. Much of the reformulation of drugs is done not because it reduces side effects. In fact, in more than a few cases, drugs have been put onto the market that do a worse job with more side effects in all cases, but they are heavily marketed and often used because the newer drug has not yet gone generic. Somewhere in this thread I'm pretty sure I actually stuck a link with the evidence on that, but the search function is offline and I'm lazy. A non-trivial amount of research dollars, in the billions, is spent producing drugs that do the same job or a worse job than drugs that already exist, with more side effects than drugs that already exist, and those drugs are put onto market solely because the older, more effective drugs have already gone generic.

There is some of that, and I agree that in that case, it's a bad thing.

 

I have some other examples though that still makes me come down on the side of disagreeing with this. Hopefully I can articulate them later.

 

[Texsox]

You just can't help but laugh at this one.

Nice try. Next time he should just use different voices.

[Balta1701]

Signs that John Stewart truly has taken over the world:

 

 

Those are Dick Cheney's dogs.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Balta1701

[longshot7]

I couldn't get my dog to keep his cape on.

[Balta1701]

ABC

In his book, officially cleared for publication, Tenet confirms how the CIA outsourced al Libi's interrogation. He said he was sent to a third country (inadvertently named in another part of the book as Egypt) for "further debriefing."

 

The Bush administration has said that terrorists are trained to invent tales of torture.

 

Yet, on this occasion, the CIA believed al Libi's tales of torture -- an account that has proved to be one of the most serious indictments of the agency's practice of extraordinary rendition: sending suspected Islamic terrorists into the hands of foreign jailers without legal process.

 

In a CIA sub-station close to al Libi's jail cell, the CIA's "debriefers," who had been talking to al Libi for days after his return from Cairo, were typing out a series of operational cables to be sent Feb. 4 and Feb. 5 to the CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va. In the view of some insiders, these cables provide the "smoking gun" on the whole rendition program -- a convincing account of how the rendition program was, they say, illegally sending prisoners into the hands of torturers.

 

Under torture after his rendition to Egypt, al Libi had provided a confession of how Saddam Hussein had been training al Qaeda in chemical weapons. This evidence was used by Colin Powell at the United Nations a year earlier (February 2003) to justify the war in Iraq. ("I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these [chemical and biological] weapons to al Qaeda," Powell said. "Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story.")

 

But now, hearing how the information was obtained, the CIA was soon to retract all this intelligence. A Feb. 5 cable records that al Libi was told by a "foreign government service" (Egypt) that: "the next topic was al-Qa'ida's connections with Iraq...This was a subject about which he said he knew nothing and had difficulty even coming up with a story."

 

Al Libi indicated that his interrogators did not like his responses and then "placed him in a small box approximately 50cm X 50cm [20 inches x 20 inches]." He claimed he was held in the box for approximately 17 hours. When he was let out of the box, al Libi claims that he was given a last opportunity to "tell the truth." When al Libi did not satisfy the interrogator, al Libi claimed that "he was knocked over with an arm thrust across his chest and he fell on his back." Al Libi told CIA debriefers that he then "was punched for 15 minutes." (Sourced to CIA cable, Feb. 5, 2004).

 

Here was a cable then that informed Washington that one of the key pieces of evidence for the Iraq war -- the al Qaeda/Iraq link -- was not only false but extracted by effectively burying a prisoner alive.