Has Bush found out you can't be all things?
- Thread starter aspen1964
- Start date
- Status
IMHO, it was spending and domestic issues that got him. Earmarks, prescription drugs, border security. He gave his own base and party no reason to support him outside of foreign policy and lots of people are souring on his foreign policy.
Principles are great, but it you are going to make them a certerpiece, you had better be consistent.
Principles are great, but it you are going to make them a certerpiece, you had better be consistent.
RealGun
Member
Interesting to note that if you are going to steal some of the Democrat's thunder, you have to spend money for domestic benefits. Then when you do, you are damned for it and allow the real experts at spending money and taxing people a pass to return to power. It's just a ping pong game with no real changes.
The cost of a prescription drug program may simply be a step to making it clear that the cost of prescription drugs needs to be controlled. A major obstacle is that drug company stocks are among the top performers on the stock market.
The cost of a prescription drug program may simply be a step to making it clear that the cost of prescription drugs needs to be controlled. A major obstacle is that drug company stocks are among the top performers on the stock market.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
"...the cost of prescription drugs needs to be controlled."
By government? That's one way to create a shortage of prescription drugs. Why would a company do the R&D, if they can't make a profit? For all that folks talk about the high profits, what are the P/E ratios of the drug companies? Do they pay dividends? If so, what %?
How about, "The cost of guns needs to be controlled."? Does that not segue into "Guns must be controlled."?
I've said many times that Bush is not a conservative in the old-days sense. He's statist, and his domestic poliicies showed it. The public at large doesn't like vast expansions of ineffective programs. The results of the post-combat strategy in Iraq has not been anywhere near the expectations the administration had and spoke of--and our society is not geared for long-haul efforts of that sort.
Art
By government? That's one way to create a shortage of prescription drugs. Why would a company do the R&D, if they can't make a profit? For all that folks talk about the high profits, what are the P/E ratios of the drug companies? Do they pay dividends? If so, what %?
How about, "The cost of guns needs to be controlled."? Does that not segue into "Guns must be controlled."?
I've said many times that Bush is not a conservative in the old-days sense. He's statist, and his domestic poliicies showed it. The public at large doesn't like vast expansions of ineffective programs. The results of the post-combat strategy in Iraq has not been anywhere near the expectations the administration had and spoke of--and our society is not geared for long-haul efforts of that sort.
Art
The most corrupt Administration since the Teapot Dome destroyed our worldwide reputation and destroyed our most precious liberties in order to give itself supreme, unassailable unchecked power. It catered to the very rich and waged total war against the middle class. At the same time it did everything possible to insulate itself from even the smell of reality.
Yeah, it had trouble satisfying all of its ideals - irresponsibility, plutocratic abandon, and theocratic idiocy. And I can't muster but a single tear for them. Must be a character flaw.
Yeah, it had trouble satisfying all of its ideals - irresponsibility, plutocratic abandon, and theocratic idiocy. And I can't muster but a single tear for them. Must be a character flaw.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Ah, but Tellner! It was such a bi-partisan effort!
, Art
, ArtJohnBT
Member
A character flaw, you? Who would have thought.
Personally, I don't think the current administration is the most corrupt since the Teapot Dome scandal.
John
Personally, I don't think the current administration is the most corrupt since the Teapot Dome scandal.
John
Art is absolutely right. Many people don't take into account what it costs the drug companies to develop these new medications. The Democrats I'm sure would love to control the price of prescription drugs as a way of buying votes. In the short run the prices would come down, but unless the government was willing to underwrite research costs - which is unlikely - there would be far fewer new medications down the line. Look around the world and see where most of the new inovations come from.
Cowboybootnut
Member
tellner,
If this administration is so corrupt and has destroyed our most precious liberties, take your proof to the now-Democratic Congress and demand impeachment proceedings and criminal investigations against Rove, Cheney, etal. Lets try to hang them at the same time they hang Sadam, in fact, forget about hanging Sadam, just hang this administration, they are more evil, corrupt and more dangerous than Sadam was.
If this administration is so corrupt and has destroyed our most precious liberties, take your proof to the now-Democratic Congress and demand impeachment proceedings and criminal investigations against Rove, Cheney, etal. Lets try to hang them at the same time they hang Sadam, in fact, forget about hanging Sadam, just hang this administration, they are more evil, corrupt and more dangerous than Sadam was.
The only insulation from realty is demonstrated in the quoted section. If you want to talk about destroying liberty and achieving power, spend some time reviewing FDR's history. Search terms like "court packing" and "commerce clause" should weigh heavily on your mind as you do. As for pandering to the rich, take a few minutes and look at the tax breaks codified into law for decades that lets various individuals and companies pay minimal taxes. You'll find that most of them (all?) came about during times Congress had Democratic majorities.
As for "total war," yes, as a middle class individual, I've absolutely hated the last few years. How dare that evil Bush let me keep some of my money to use on buying a house, property, the stock market? How dare he try and let me keep some of the money that will be lost in the Social Security welfare funnel, just so I can try and provide for my own retirement?
Oh, thank you Dems for promising to take that money back, yay verily, for promising to take even more money. I don't need the money; the voting block you are pandering to today deserves it. I don't need to worry about retirement; Alpo tastes great.
Should we add in Reid's influence peddling that's recently come to light, as well as the sweet heart deals Haliburton got during the Clinton Administration, and Jefferson's bribery scandal (which seems to have gone away)? What about Enron's close contacts with the Clinton Administration that provided cover from the SEC?
Or is it only corruption when Republicans do it?
Cowboybootnut
Member
Ah! Those wonderful Clinton years. How I miss those years. France loved us, North Korea loved us, Iran loved us, China loved us. We all got along.
When we had a terrorist attack on the WTC, or USS Cole, or American Embassies, we would actually talk tough and maybe lob a couple missles at Sadam, and warn the world how Sadam had WMDs, and then wait for the next terrorist attack.
Maybe if Hillary wins in 2008, we can return to those magnificant years when everything was done right.
When we had a terrorist attack on the WTC, or USS Cole, or American Embassies, we would actually talk tough and maybe lob a couple missles at Sadam, and warn the world how Sadam had WMDs, and then wait for the next terrorist attack.
Maybe if Hillary wins in 2008, we can return to those magnificant years when everything was done right.
RealGun
Member
"The government" can actually change the depreciation schedule for development costs or even provide other tax incentives to prevent some development costs from being passed to the consumer.
That's odd... Canada has such strict controls on the costs of medications that Americans have long been going up there to buy their meds. I must have missed all the reports of how all the pharmaceutical companies are going to halt sales to Canadian pharmacies because they're losing so much money...
When you limit the influence the lobbyists have on Congress, you may be able to rein in the high cost of medical care in America. Of course, this won't happen until the baby boomers start to grow old, and retire, and see their own health care costs skyrocketing while they're living on a fixed income. Suddenly there will be a great hue and cry for "Social Security reform"...
What's the testing criteria for new drugs in Candad? Do they require nearly a decade of testing like the FDA, much of it duplicative of tests in Europe? Do they take the results of European tests and accept them? Is it possible it's just less expensive to get the drugs to market in Canada, than it is in the US, where a lot of time and expense is involved? How's the liability outlook in Canada? If the companies pass the Canadian tests but something goes wrong later, are they likely to be sued or not?
The US is the market where drug companies make up a lot of the difference in what they sell in other areas, including the free/cheap drugs the gov't requires them to provide to other nations.
What difference could testing costs possibly make?
Comparing apples to apples... if a product here costs 60% more than the SAME product (manufactured by the SAME pharmaceutical company, in the SAME factory) would cost in a neighboring country, what does that tell you? It tells me that American citizens are paying to subsidize cheap Canadian drugs.
link to report
Comparing apples to apples... if a product here costs 60% more than the SAME product (manufactured by the SAME pharmaceutical company, in the SAME factory) would cost in a neighboring country, what does that tell you? It tells me that American citizens are paying to subsidize cheap Canadian drugs.
link to report
Testing comes into play because it is far more expensive and time consuming to bring a drug to market in the US, than it is elsewhere in the world. The FDA puts various roadblocks in the path to introduction, many of which are duplicative of tests done in Europe. Many drugs sold around the world can't be sold here because it didn't pass the FDA tests. Those that do, cost more.
There are many items sold in Asia that cost more than the identical items in the US (i.e. cars). The reason is the testing process for import into the country adds considerable to the cost of importing the vehicle. This is almost the reverse case: the company can sell drugs for less in the Canadian market because the price of entry into the market was so much less. They have to make up the price of entry into the US market so it makes sense to pass those costs onto consumers in the US market.
There are many items sold in Asia that cost more than the identical items in the US (i.e. cars). The reason is the testing process for import into the country adds considerable to the cost of importing the vehicle. This is almost the reverse case: the company can sell drugs for less in the Canadian market because the price of entry into the market was so much less. They have to make up the price of entry into the US market so it makes sense to pass those costs onto consumers in the US market.
Right. And the pharmaceutical companies have no past experience to go by... so they have no idea what it costs to bring a drug into the US market... and they have no way to forecast the sales of a particular drug... so they have no idea how to amortize the cost of R&D over a certain time period...
And I have some nice land down here in Florida I can make you a good price on...
Drugs cost less in Canada because the Canadian government is the sole (or perhaps largest) purchaser of drugs IN Canada, and they have negotiated preferred pricing for themselves. It's the same thing our government could do for us, if they weren't bought out by the lobbyists.
Instead, the lobbyists pay the politicians, the politicians roll over, and the pharmaceutical companies make a ton more money than they would otherwise make. It's all done "for the stockholders".
And I have some nice land down here in Florida I can make you a good price on...
Drugs cost less in Canada because the Canadian government is the sole (or perhaps largest) purchaser of drugs IN Canada, and they have negotiated preferred pricing for themselves. It's the same thing our government could do for us, if they weren't bought out by the lobbyists.
Instead, the lobbyists pay the politicians, the politicians roll over, and the pharmaceutical companies make a ton more money than they would otherwise make. It's all done "for the stockholders".
Yes, they can amortize them over the life of the patent. Once the generic comes out, they loose their ability to control much of their own market.
Ah, the benefits of socialized medicine. Please disregard the fact that those costs can be negotiated so low because there is another market available to make up the difference.
Yup. It's all a vast conspiracy (would that be left wing, right wing, or whole bird since the Dems and the Reps both have to play into it?). I bet the FDA even sets up the tests just so the drug companies can have cover.
About the Iraq war... I read Clancy one time.. there was that unification of Iran/Iraq
and I remember guessing three years back..
that it's gonna be a disaster.. and that Iran is going to get invited to set things straight.
'Cause it's the only normal country there. They are religious fanatics.. but unlike Arabs.. Persians (Iranians) are hard working, smart, and they mean business. Don't just blab.
(I had an Iranian roommate.. a student of the Czech Nuclear Engineering institute..
don't worry.. he is specializing as a radiation therapist. A kind of M.D. I only hated him for calling home and going on for hours in machinegun Farsi.. )
*they aren't incompetent in technology. They try hard.
SA on the other hand is positively medieval.
Well, before believing the words of some guy with an axe to grind in a Czech newspaper, perhaps you should visit the northwest corner of San Diego, California ("Biotech Beach"), where a lot of that research is actually done, and see for yourself.
And university research is often funded by the pharma industry, too.
I'm pretty anti-drug (I'm against the legal kind most of the time) but to say that the pharma industry isn't into R&D because it capitalizes on basic science research and has a fat advertising budget is silly.
Toyota's advertising budget worldwide is enormous. That doesn't mean they don't design any cars.
All of that said, Americans over 50 are addicted to drugs. Many people take 10 kinds of pills daily, when a decent diet and regular exercise would help most of them. Hell, AFAIK eating a few almonds daily is as effective as some cholesterol drugs. The pharmaceutical industry, and the insurance and government programs that insulate the customer from the market, are all completely dysfunctional.
I'm glad that drugs for acute diseases exist. But the use of drugs here is excessive. Baby Boomers will likely make the problem even worse.
Ahhhh..... Now we're getting somewhere. We agree that the costs of medications in Canada is artificially kept low, and we're paying for it with higher costs in our country.
And you're okay with this?
I don't know how vast it is, but it's not much of a conspiracy. I mean, c'mon... which of our highest legislators actually owns hospitals and benefits from higher health-care costs?
Don't know how much of a pharmaceutical's budget is in R&D vs. advertising. I don't know either how much R&D is actually done in research and teaching hospitals, but I'd bet it's quite a bit...
JohnBT
Member
"Maybe if Hillary wins in 2008, we can return to those magnificant years when everything was done right."
- Status
