Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

Damn those liberals for marching, protesting and agitating for things like civil rights and voting rights.

[The Oracle]

God, literally the biggest fucking moron I've seen. Whatever, this site is bout done anyway, Da Dumbfuck a reason why. No time for dumb fuckery. Oh well.

[iam416]

John Locke's small "l" liberalism is what Geezer is claiming. More or less, folks are have natural rights and government should (a) do its best to guarantee those rights and (b) when enacting laws, minimize infringement of those rights.

Big "L" liberalism is, of course, associated with political parties.

Libertarianism remains the single best party expression of liberal views and John Locke, dead for over 4 centuries, remains more viable than any libertarian presidential candidate.

[Da Geezer]

Correct. and being called a liberal in the 1960's did not imply favoring expanded government intervention in the ordinary lives of citizens.

That is why Entropy's Thomas Sowell quote is so poignant. Something like "I was called a radical in the 60s, a liberal in the 80s, and a racist today."

[Da Geezer]

Jeff:

Since our discussion of Medicare/Medicaid, I've been reading up on the subject.

Medicare part D is the prescription plan, passed in 2003. It went into place in 2007. It encouraged private companies to issue Rx insurance. Since 2007, Part D has come in at roughly half the projected (CBO) cost from 2003. Costs per recipient have not risen substantially since inception.

http://galen.org/2015/medicare-part-d-a-model-for-future-entitlement-reform/

I heard an interview with this woman this morning, and she actually seemed non-partisan. Her basic point was that hundreds of individual, private, companies have driven Rx costs much lower than has the Federal government negotiating with Big Pharma as in Medicaid. I've changed my mind. Now I think it to be more logical for Medicaid to follow Medicare's formula if that formula results in lower Rx costs. This also is in line with your point that price controls result in higher costs. Price controls resulting in higher cost and lessened supply is a basic postulate in economics.

[froot loops]

If you are against socialism, you shouldn't be for Medicare or Medicaid at all. Pssst, that's socialism.

[Da Geezer]

God, literally the biggest fucking moron I've seen. Whatever, this site is bout done anyway, Da Dumbfuck a reason why. No time for dumb fuckery. Oh well.

Yup. This stuff is way over your head.

I noticed that the final tally has Hillary winning CA by 4.3 million votes, which, of course, means that her 2.8 million vote win in the popular vote was because she carried CA overwhelmingly. It would be best for everyone for CA to separate from the US.

[Da Geezer]

If you are against socialism, you shouldn't be for Medicare or Medicaid at all. Pssst, that's socialism.

"Rich man's cat. Poor man's baby." Always the fundamental tension in a pure market economy. That is one reason why what I believe is called "supply-side" economics.

[entropy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine/what-an-uncensored-letter-to-mlk-reveals.html?_r=0

MLK and the FBI..

[Jeff Buchanan]

Some clarification.......

Medicaid has price controls in the form of (1) Preferred Drug Lists (PDLs), (2) Drug Rebate programs - The more of a rebate a given pharmaceutical company gives the more likely the drug will appear on the PDL - (3) cost sharing - beneficiaries, through enrollment in a 3 tiered benefit program - pay a copay; the higher the copay, the more drugs you have access to and (4) access limitations (e.g., not on the PDL so, you can't get it via Medicaid).

Medicaid is a state administered, partially federally funded program.

The VA and DOD use limited formularies (much like a PDL) with both agencies allowed to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for the best price after a statutory 24% rebate is applied to the lowest price the drug is sold for nation wide.

Medicare Part D (the part that pays for a beneficiaries RXs) - a federal program from top to bottom - is executed through the insurance industry who offer Part D plans (e.g., Medicare Advantage Plans and other commercial plans). The more you pay for a plan (actually from nothing to something), the more drugs and the lower the co-pay for them are available to you. The insurance companies who issue policies to cover the RXs of a Medicare Beneficiary, negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for pricing of drugs that are on each plan's formulary. There is some degree of competitive pricing in the Medicare Part D programs but it is complex and varies widely from state to state based on the regulatory environment of that state's insurance industry

Watch out what you wish for, Geezer. If Medicare Part D adopted price control and/or competitive strategies similar to those of State Medicaid programs, the VA or DOD, both federal programs, It would more likely increase prices for drugs for non-Medicare Part D beneficiaries which in turn, would have commercial insurance companies both charging more for coverage and limiting access to a greater degree than they already do. Not a big deal for run of the mill diabetic and blood pressure drugs but a huge deal for specialty drugs saving the lives of small population groups (e.g, Chemotherapeutic drugs for cancer treatment, among many others). This demonstrates why appropriately affecting the price of a drug by either implementing price controls or broadly introducing market forces is so tricky.

A really shitty thing that happens on the regular, about which something could be done, is that companies in the Pharmaceutical business acquire the production rights for a critical generic drug with a low price, a small patient population and only one manufacturer (e.g. Epinephrine injectors for allergic reactions or injectible vaccines). Then they hike the price of the newly acquired product and wait for profits to soar (See Mylan Pharmaceuticals for Epi Pen, and Merck for MMR). Because of the small patient population and the high cost of gaining approval to sell a generic drug, the market cannot easily support two firms?even if one is making obscene profits.

The FDA currently has the power in times of drug scarcity to allow select foreign manufacturers in countries with similar drug safety regimes to export to the U.S. The Executive could empower the FDA to consider high generic drug prices as a ?shortage? and take the necessary steps to ensure supply (inject competition), thus eliminating incentives for generic firms to implement huge price spikes.

[froot loops]

Good stuff on the epipen problem, I didn't understand why all of a sudden it has become such a big proce gouge.

[entropy]

jeff..

You read reports or hear "experts" talk about how the US pays for cost of drug development and the rest of the world benefits. From your perspective, is that true? Seems logical based upon what you just wrote. Basically, big pharma is going to get their money from someone.. so if one area squeezes, the balloon expands someplace else.

[UMStan White]

"And Geez, I used to think you were a troll or ignorant. Now I'm starting to think you lack the intellectual horsepower to consider new evidence in light of your preexisting misconceptions."

Nailed it!

meanwhile 8 people are worth more than 50% of the worldwide poor population. Eight people! And one of the eight's claim to fame is he developed a social media system that lets people post more drivle than Geezer does here!

[UMStan White]

And we are so good as a group of chasing out other posters but we can't get rid of that infectous disease.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Priebus demands Obama order Democrats to stop calling Trump illegitimate. Denies and gets angry when Steph. keeps pointing out that Trump attacked Obama's legitimacy for years.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/priebus-claims-republicans-never-questioned-obama-legitimacy