Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

Jeff said about my question of negotiating drug prices, Medicare v. Medicaid, I said Medicare didn't negotiate prices, or couldn't.

Good article, but no light on the subject.

I think you are right here. My goal in linking to the article in my original post was to illuminate how Medicare, particularly part D (drug coverage) got to where it is today. As well, under Medicare, there actually are processes in place that result in downward pressure on drug pricing for Medicare beneficiaries. The linked article in my original post discusses those as well as processes in the pipeline via CMMI (the CMS pilot program branch) to insure affordable drug pricing.

Medicaid is a federally mandated state insurance program for the poor. The Feds provide block funding. The Medicaid program has a statutory mechanism of price controls. That mechanism involves setting upper limits for the price of a drug. The upper limits are not static.

In 1991, over strong criticism from the states about unfunded mandates for Medicaid beneficiaries, congress implemented a second level of indirect price controls involving a requirement for drug manufactures to offer rebates for their drugs to appear on the Medicaid formulary.

To answer your question, why can the government negotiate prices for Medicaid but not Medicare, the simple answer is that they are different programs with a different statutory basis for each of them.

Interestingly, there have been proposals to bring Medicare part D coverage for drugs in line with Medicaid's. The article I've linked to below, for those interested in the complexities involved in doing something like this and the alternatives, explains them. Something I did learn in finding this article is that imposing price controls on Medicare drugs puts upward pressure on drug pricing for beneficiaries not eligible for Medicare. Since most private insurance is provided by employers, you can imagine there has been considerable pressure from the business community not to consider proposals like this.

http://www.amcp.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=11226

[Dr. Strangelove]

If Trump has as much success as Scott Brown, then I'm okay with that

[hack]

Well, I gave historical examples of norms that were not only broken by the Dems, but shattered. How about you listing some norm shattering done by the Rs? I'd be interested in any list you might come up with.

I'd also like any example of Trump's alleged racism. I just haven't seen it. Just because it is repeated in alt-left news sources doesn't make it so. What has Trump said or done that is racist? Evidence please.



If you want to destroy a constitutional republic, just have a chief executive who tells the enforcement arm of the government to allow totally unchecked immigration into our country (contrary to the express wording of the properly passed laws of the US). These undocumented Democrats would then cement Democrat control of the country permanently. This was a President who hated the constitution in most everything he did. He called the Constitution "negative rights".

This recent election was greatly similar to the Senate election in Massachusetts after Teddy Kennedy's death (2010). You might recall that Obamacare was going to be passed and the Dems had the 60 votes needed for cloture. Kennedy's death left them at 59, but a new senator was to be elected. MA voters elected Scott Brown, because even the most liberal state in the country knew that the ACA was socialism, and destructive of what America stands for. So Reid, against norms as usual, passed Obamacare under a budget resolution where he needed only a simple majority.

Obama"s executive action on immigration and Reid's "the rules be damned" attitude in passing the ACA are precisely what destroying a constitutional republic looks like in real life.

From Talent's, NR post:

It is this sense that the game is rigged ? that norms are made for suckers by the connected ? that fuels Trump. In this context, appealing to norms of civility (whether by Republicans who were reticent to discuss the downsides of Iraq or by elites of both parties who wanted comprehensive immigration reform without a lot of lip from the plebes) sounds like what Martin Gurri called ?cries of anguish from a broken monopoly startled and unnerved by the success of a politician who had slipped the leash.?

I think that ``evidence you've seen/things you're willing to admit'' is no basis for a discussion. Too much backtracking.

[Da Geezer]

Jeff:

...Something I did learn in finding this article is that imposing price controls on Medicare drugs puts upward pressure on drug pricing for beneficiaries not eligible for Medicare...

That makes good sense. I had never thought of that. Thanks.

DSL: This is not about Sen. Brown. It is about the liberal voters of Massachusetts doing all they could to stop the passage of Obamacare. And it is about Hack's point that somehow Trump's election will harm the republic. Never forget that Obamacare never had majority support from the populace in the US. It was a vast overreach and was obviously un-American. The working folks of the US reacted to Hillary in 2016 the same way the voters of MA did in 2010; they did what they could to stop the doctrinaire elites from imposing socialism on the country.

[Da Geezer]

Hack:

I think that ``evidence you've seen/things you're willing to admit'' is no basis for a discussion. Too much backtracking.

You see, you can't come up with historical examples of the Republicans violating significant political norms. I can't think of any, but your inability to think of any is reassuring. Then don't post some nonsense that McConnell is somehow a part of the erosion of norms in the Senate.

I rejected your "evidence" from Buzzfeed. OK. I just didn't think it was credible, and I still don't. But you yourself have told me that you rely on "experts" to analyze data and tell you what to think. You know, just because sources like Buzzfeed tell you that Trump is a racist does not make it so. For as widespread as that meme is, how about any of you Progs posting a video of Trump saying something racist.

Progs use the term "racist" as a synonym for "opponent", just as Thomas Sowell said. If you want to analyze the meltdown of the left post-election, start with many of them actually believing the garbage that was printed about Trump. Their angst is their own fault because they completely lack any critical thinking ability, and that goes to our educational system, at least in part.

[hack]

You can read the thread for yourself and join in the discussion of norms, if you want. You'll find what you're asking for.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Refusing to hold confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court justice nominee?

[entropy]

[Dr. Strangelove]

Jeff:

That makes good sense. I had never thought of that. Thanks.

DSL: This is not about Sen. Brown. It is about the liberal voters of Massachusetts doing all they could to stop the passage of Obamacare. And it is about Hack's point that somehow Trump's election will harm the republic. Never forget that Obamacare never had majority support from the populace in the US. It was a vast overreach and was obviously un-American. The working folks of the US reacted to Hillary in 2016 the same way the voters of MA did in 2010; they did what they could to stop the doctrinaire elites from imposing socialism on the country.

The voters of Massachusetts replaced Scott Brown with Elizabeth Warren. Strange actions for a population disgusted with the appalling un-American liberalism that's held sway for 120 years in this oppressed nation.

Brown had a excellent 3 year run in the Senate, though, by all accounts. Still looking for work in Mass, New Hampshire, ANY New England state, or the editorial board at Playgirl at this point.

[CGVT]

Does shutting down the government because the couldn't get their way through normal channels count?

Refusing to consider a sitting President's Supreme Court Justice nominee because the President is in his last year?

Gee, I can't think of any either.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Refusing to hold confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court justice nominee?

Refusing to even meet or speak to a Supreme Court nominee for 10 months because:

1) In an election year, Congress is too busy campaigning to deal with this
2) 10 months is not enough time to consider the nomination. Now let's rubber stamp all of Trump's people in 3 days or blast the Dems for stonewalling.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ame]https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/820291541872746497[/ame]

[ame]https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/820308364278173697[/ame]

I'd also add that D'Souza, a proclaimed true Christian and creator of a number of hyper-conservative 'documentaries', is a confessed adulterer, was convicted of campaign finance fraud, and was fired by a Christian college for his marital infidelities.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ame]https://twitter.com/CharlesPPierce/status/820275277834108928[/ame]

[ame]https://twitter.com/CharlesPPierce/status/820322478845214720[/ame]

[ame]https://twitter.com/CharlesPPierce/status/820325315658579970[/ame]

[Da Geezer]

SLF:

Refusing to hold confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court justice nominee?

Yup, that's a fair example. it was a break in norms. It has been done before by both parties during the last year of a presidency, but it is certainly out of the historical mainstream. And Garland was not a 40-year-old lefty either.

I've been thinking about Trump and racism, and I think being a birther certainly is an example of racism. I don't think a white guy raised by CPUSA grandparents would have been attacked in that way. Blame the Hillary 2008 campaign, which Trump supported.

[CGVT]

Administration Nominee Date Nominated Date Confirmed
Ronald Reagan Anthony Kennedy November 30, 1987 February 3, 1988
Franklin Roosevelt Frank Murphy January 4, 1940 January 16, 1940
Herbert Hoover Benjamin Cardozo February 15, 1932 February 24, 1932
Woodrow Wilson John Clarke July 14, 1916 July 24, 1916
Woodrow Wilson Louis Brandeis January 28, 1916 June 1, 1916
William Taft Mahlon Pitney February 19, 1912 March 13, 1912