snark is always needed, lol

btw, did anyone watch Glenn Beck today to see if his head exploded?

I'm watchin a lil bit of Hannity to see if he at least has an anneurism

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 9:06 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2010 8:42:58 PM

Quote :

"Who is to say that a private entity couldn't do as well if not better than the FDA? Is not UL an effective organization?"

History. Look at the history of why the FDA was founded in the first place. It is actually pretty simple. Private entities don't shut themselves down if they don't meet quality standards. Take a look at the melamine issue, peanut butter recently (where the private corporation knowingly released contaminated peanut butter), Diethylene-glycol contamination recently that killed hundreds of babies, I could go on. The issues I listed were all within the last few years and they all occured because producers wanted to save money by using contaminated products. Whether you agree with it or not there is plenty of evidence even today. Furthermore, do you have any experience actually working IN the pharma industry? Does anybody in this thread? I'm just curious.

Quote :

"Bullshit. If his argument is that the FDA is unConstitutional, then no law passed by Congress would ever change such a fact."

Burden of proof, etc etc. Also Congress can update the Constitution... so yeah, a law could be passed to change it if it is indeed unconstituational. But now we're in the realm of meaningless conversation.


[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 9:43 PM. Reason : ed]

3/22/2010 9:41:59 PM

haha.... maybe there should be a "private option" to compete with the FDA.

3/22/2010 9:53:23 PM

Oddly enough, there kind of is. Remember, the FDA is just regulatory oversite. They don't inspect every lot of product or anything like that. So each company has the first-line responsiblity for enforcing their quality requirements.

The thing is it doesn't end with the FDA. Virtually all pharma companies are global now. So it isn't just the FDA we have to comply with. We have to comply with the EU regulatory body, the Japanese regulatory, Canada, etc. and not to mention all of the ICH guidelines. Even if the FDA was repealed or whatever, all of those other countries would still require the same type of approval process for new drugs that is already in place.

So for drug companies abolishing the FDA is irrelevent. We'd still have to comply with all of the other countries to do business.

[Edited on March 22, 2010 at 10:07 PM. Reason : ed]

3/22/2010 9:58:08 PM

so, you argue that the UL is not effective?

Quote :

"Also Congress can update the Constitution..."

umm.... no. you just failed 9th grade civics

3/22/2010 10:08:52 PM

do you base your buying decisions based on an item being approved by UL?

do you think a UL like company would have that much of a different approval process than what is already in place. Most consumers aren't going to want to use a drug that hasn't gone through a rigorous approval process even if there wasn't an FDA

3/22/2010 10:12:35 PM

I don't know much about the UL so I will abstain from making a comment. Sorry. I try not to comment on things I don't know about

And yeah yeah, states still need to ratify amendments to the constitution. Stop being so detail oriented. It still has to get past both houses

3/22/2010 10:20:27 PM

Quote :

"do you base your buying decisions based on an item being approved by UL?"

I have, yes. When I noticed that a device did not have the UL seal, I grabbed a more expensive one that did.

A housefire is not worth $2.

3/22/2010 10:21:57 PM

I might not base every purchase on an item being UL listed, but on important purchases, I do look from time to time. And generally if I am looking at something and it isn't listed, I don't get it. You can be damned sure I'd do the same with medicines.

reputation means a lot with companies. How many people are going out and buying Toyotas right now? Not too many. The argument that people will die otherwise is moot. The FDA isn't preventing it right now. If anything, their collusion causes more harm than good.

3/22/2010 10:22:40 PM

How is the FDA not preventing deaths? They stopped shipments of products contaminated with melamine from going to the market and saved lives. That is just one example.

Quote :

"If anything, their collusion causes more harm than good."

Please stop making statements like this. It is intellectually dishonest and quite a statement to throw out. Can you prove that the FDA does more harm than good?

3/22/2010 10:26:45 PM

thats the thing though. anything that's approved by this "UL like organization" is going to be more expensive. testing and standards exist to provide consumer piece of mind. what makes you think that a UL like org wouldn't cause drugs to take just as long or be just as expensive.

and there again you use the assumption that this UL of drugs wouldn't be open to collusion

3/22/2010 10:28:50 PM

Quote :

"Sorry. I try not to comment on things I don't know about"

If everyone posted by that guidance, there wouldn't be a Soap Box.

3/22/2010 10:35:31 PM

and the moment people stopped trusting the UL, they would move to the UL's competitor. the UL would value its status, though, as that could be taken away. the FDA will never have a competitor.

3/22/2010 10:43:20 PM

Quote :

"The Health-Care Wars Are Only Beginning Fred Barnes We only have to look at Great Britain to get a glimpse of the future. The National Health Service—socialized medicine—was created in 1946 and touted as the envy of the world. It's been a contentious issue ever since. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes ObamaCare would have a more congenial fate—that it will become as popular as Social Security and Medicare with voters. She's kidding herself. Social Security and Medicare were popular from the start and passed with bipartisan support. ObamaCare is unpopular and partisan. It's extremely controversial. Its passage is far more likely to spark a political explosion than a wave of acceptance. ObamaCare wouldn't go into effect fully until 2013. This fact alone would make the health-care plan a paramount issue in the 2012 presidential race, regardless of whether Mr. Obama is on the ballot. As long as he's president, Mr. Obama would surely veto legislation to repeal or gut ObamaCare. With a Republican in the White House things would be different. Republicans might be successful in dismantling the program. But Democrats wouldn't give up. Having gone to great lengths to enact ObamaCare, they'd go all out to protect it or revive it. Mrs. Pelosi is already talking about expanding ObamaCare. She favors adding a "public option" to compete with private insurers. "Once we kick through this door [and pass it], there'll be more legislation to follow," she told liberal bloggers on Monday."

The war has only begun. Unlike "Waterloo" there are no permanent victories or defeats in American politics.

3/22/2010 10:50:30 PM

interesting how the narrative has now changed

3/22/2010 10:52:44 PM

^^Yeah, its only a waterloo when the dems lose. Just keep whistling past the GOP graves until Nov.

The first half of this lists a lot of the kick in dates for various aspects of the legislation:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

3/22/2010 10:54:59 PM

Hey Supp...be careful what you wish for.

The admitted ultimate goal of Obama is gov't-run single payer. It's been the wet-dream for liberals for a long time.

So let's say it eventually comes. Insurance companies finally fold and disappear as the premium caps prevent them from recouping the massive losses which will come from imposed coverage of pre-existing conditions. Since insurance rates will keep going up, people will choose to pay the lower gov't fine instead. Everyone gets fed up and begs for single-payer.

Now your health care is at the whim of politicians. What happens when republicans get their turn at running the country? Now they get to decide on your health care. And let's say they aren't too eager to help those 'perverted' homosexuals. Might not be overt..maybe just a subtle extra wait time for AIDS treatment. Who knows what creative tyrannies they can come up with.

And now you're stuck. You can't opt out of the gov't program. Doctors take their orders from Washington.

This plan may look great to you now...but look down the road.

3/22/2010 11:33:46 PM

^only, if you look to to great britain, as your article suggested, you'd find that you have private options as well.

3/22/2010 11:49:16 PM

I demand attention! Are these points true given the current bill:
1. Preexisting conditions are no longer grounds to deny insurance coverage
2. People are free to go without insurance
3. People without insurance will pay a fine to the IRS
4. This fine will be used to subsidize the insurance that is purchased by others

If this is the case, then the market should be encouraged (or even expected) to work thusly:
A. healthy individuals and employers should drop their insurance, pay the fine
B. Healthy individuals pay out of pocket for all healthcare services, shopping around to do so
C. Healthcare providers, faced with a majority of cost-conscious customers, compete vigorously to lower costs for everyone
D. Sick individuals get insurance at their earliest convenience and therefore limitless free-market care

If this is how the system works out, then by God, we have fixed the healthcare system!!! Bravo!!! Cost sensitivity will increase as insurance rates drop from 80% to 40% and the price of insurance doubles.

3/23/2010 12:15:19 AM

except you missed the point. the fines lower the costs.

[Edited on March 23, 2010 at 12:22 AM. Reason : thats the failproof]

3/23/2010 12:22:30 AM

^^ employers with payrolls of $500k or more have to pay a hefty $2000/employee fine if they don't subsidize insurance.

And the first year of fines for individuals is cheap... like $95 or 1% of your income, whichever is more.


[Edited on March 23, 2010 at 12:24 AM. Reason : ]

3/23/2010 12:23:11 AM

$2000/employee fine... per year? Well that fucking sucks. Maybe they can find a loophole to let their employees pay the individual fines instead...such as giving their insurance subsidy to their workers, which then decide themselves to not buy insurance. If we can get this to work, then as the price of insurance shoots up, the fines remain relatively low, and competition drives down the cost of care and thus drives down the percent of GDP going towards medical care.

[Edited on March 23, 2010 at 12:46 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/23/2010 12:44:38 AM

The only problem with that approach is that the insurance companies will be fucked in the butt if people don't buy insurance until the shit hits the fan, then they aren't allowed to be denied or charged a ton.

and then if the private insurance companies go under...

3/23/2010 1:23:39 AM

Not at all. Does the law impose a rate freeze? No one goes bankrupt as long as they are free to raise rates. That said, the system would be stable either way. As old companies trapped in the rate freeze go under, new firms will be started at rates high enough that they wont need raising. Rinse/repeat.

3/23/2010 2:02:17 AM

The goal of the dems is to destroy the insurance industry so people will clamor for single-payer. They will do nothing to help these companies survive. Democrats will both impose premium caps as well as force them to take in every pre-existing case. You cannot make it with that kind of model. Viola! Single-Payer!

3/23/2010 2:31:26 AM

The goal of the dems is to screw up so that people will support the dems even more. You really think that is their secret plan to fight inflation?







[Edited on March 23, 2010 at 2:50 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2010 2:44:09 AM

Quote :

"The bill also would raise the threshold for deducting unreimbursed medical expenses from 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income to 10 percent. The bill also would limit the amount of money you can put in a flexible spending account to pay medical expenses to $2,500 starting in 2013."

WTF? I thought this bill was supposed to make health care more affordable, not less.

Quote :

"employers with payrolls of $500k or more have to pay a hefty $2000/employee fine if they don't subsidize insurance. "

Is that $2000/employee per year or per month? If it's per year, that's considerably cheaper than most PPO type plans that companies offer.

3/23/2010 7:36:36 AM

i just started reading where i left off yesterday, but i had to respond to these because they're hilarious

Quote :

"Throw out patents on prescription drugs. It's bullshit that someone can come out with a drug that treats X, and no one can make a generic version for a number of years. Old people are literally dying because they can't afford prescription drugs, and name-brand drugs can be thousands of dollars for a 90 day supply. The market isn't being allowed to work."

REALLY? the MARKET isn't being allowed to work? you mean that market where companies that spend millions on R&D (on those drugs that actually work and those that don't and are scrapped) are allowed to protect their intellectual property?

wtf?

Quote :

"Abolish the FDA. They've proven time and time again that they ban useful substances and approve harmful substances. Let individuals decide what kind of treatment they want, and what they want to put in their body."

haha, you have no idea what you're talking about, do you? the FDA is far from perfect, but the idea that we should have no system in place to regulate drugs (more specifically, drug claims and risks) is absolutely retarded

jeebus

3/23/2010 8:23:54 AM

Quote :

" The goal of the dems is to destroy the insurance industry so people will clamor for single-payer. They will do nothing to help these companies survive. Democrats will both impose premium caps as well as force them to take in every pre-existing case. You cannot make it with that kind of model. Viola! Single-Payer!"

Hey, that's not a bad plan. Sounds a lot like the Repub agenda from the last 50 or so years. Bring Gov't to a grinding halt periodically, fill government agencies with people ideologically opposed to the purpose of that agency, and then turn around and scream about how government doesn't work!

Brilliant! And it's about time the Dem Party figured out how to use the strategy as well.

3/23/2010 10:24:04 AM

Quote :

"The goal of the dems is to destroy the insurance industry so people will clamor for single-payer. They will do nothing to help these companies survive. Democrats will both impose premium caps as well as force them to take in every pre-existing case. You cannot make it with that kind of model. Viola! Single-Payer!"

I seem to recall you predicting doom and gloom from the bailouts and stimulus too, whatever happened to that...?

3/23/2010 10:37:32 AM

well we went from a handful huge banks to like 3 huge banks, they still aren't lending to anyone because they can print money for free, and there hasn't been any apparent changes from either the bailouts or the stimulus, aside from our increased deficit.

So i guess yea, they've been doing great!

Insurance as a means to subsidize healthcare is only a good idea in the minds of idiots and those pandering for votes.

3/23/2010 10:42:28 AM

^ your assertions don't comport with reality. You are willfully deluding yourself for one reason or another.

3/23/2010 11:04:51 AM

Quote :

"well we went from a handful huge banks to like 3 huge banks"

wasn't the major complain of the bailouts that we need to "let them fail"?

Quote :

"and there hasn't been any apparent changes from either the bailouts or the stimulus, aside from our increased deficit"

A lot of the stimulus had been paid back and DJIA is over 10k again.

3/23/2010 11:18:32 AM

Quote :

"wasn't the major complain of the bailouts that we need to "let them fail"?"

The number of banks did not get smaller because they were allowed to fail, they got smaller because the government propped up the failing banks and used tax payer money buy up bad assets so that the failing banks had enough shine on their turd to be taken over by larger banks, whose mergers were then approved by the very government who just spent months telling us how "these evil giant uber banks were the cause of all our evils, and how if the market hadn't been deregulated and these uber banks allowed to grow so, then we wouldn't be in this position"

3/23/2010 1:03:58 PM

Quote :

"The number of banks did not get smaller because they were allowed to fail"

A number of banks did fail and were forced to sell their assets, so then they did "let them fail", correct?

Quote :

"if the market hadn't been deregulated and these uber banks allowed to grow so, then we wouldn't be in this position""

I don't think people complained about the size of the banks, they complained about the lack of regulation around mortgage ratings.

3/23/2010 1:30:42 PM

i find it funny that biden dropped the f bomb

3/23/2010 1:38:57 PM

[Edited on March 23, 2010 at 3:27 PM. Reason : ]

3/23/2010 3:26:55 PM

Quote :

"Opinions turn favorable on health care plan WASHINGTON — Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm

Bill Clinton was right. Watch for Obama's numbers to spike.

3/23/2010 3:41:54 PM

Quote :

"A number of banks did fail and were forced to sell their assets, so then they did "let them fail", correct "

Right. They let some banks fail and then gave favored banks money to buy up the good assets from the failed banks. Its like if they had let GM die and then gave Ford money to buy GM's Chevy stuff.

They should have let them all fail. All the bailouts did was consolidate the market into the favored banks and only encourage them to continue shady lending practices in the future.

3/23/2010 3:57:37 PM

When you reward size, size is what you will get.

It is clear to me that shareholder owned public banks lack the necessary incentives to avoid such blunders. As such, allowing them to go bankrupt would have allowed the nation's numerous bank partnerships to expand and take their place in the market.

3/23/2010 4:05:55 PM

Quote :

"They let some banks fail and then gave favored banks money to buy up the good assets from the failed banks."

Proof? I believe most any bank or credit union could get money traded for troubled assets.

Quote :

"They should have let them all fail."

That would have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote :

"All the bailouts did was consolidate the market into the favored banks and only encourage them to continue shady lending practices in the future."

You've yet to show any evidence that they were "favored", but if we would have let more fail then we would have simply consolidated the market further. The only way to stop the shady lending practices is further regulation and oversight.

Quote :

"It is clear to me that shareholder owned public banks lack the necessary incentives to avoid such blunders."

I agree with you, what I don't agree with is that letting them fail or not would in any way deter this same thing from happening again.

3/23/2010 5:57:00 PM

I had one lady without insurance tell me maybe she would get some of that new free insurance.

She didnt like my response.

3/23/2010 6:31:48 PM

Quote :

"Bill Clinton was right. Watch for Obama's numbers to spike."

when/where did he say this?

3/23/2010 6:51:25 PM

i wonder if old tom jefferson is rolling over in his grave

3/23/2010 7:03:03 PM

Quote :

""They let some banks fail and then gave favored banks money to buy up the good assets from the failed banks." Proof? I believe most any bank or credit union could get money traded for troubled assets."

Lehman Bros. / Bear Stearns

3/23/2010 7:24:13 PM

Quote :

"i wonder if old tom jefferson is rolling over in his grave"

Considering even he didn't stay true to his ideals once in office, I wouldn't expect so. Then again, his errors were pretty benign compared to almost everything the federal government has done in the last 150 years.

3/23/2010 7:42:10 PM

Quote :

"The Medicare payroll tax will increase from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married filing jointly above $250,000."

No No No

Should the medicare tax not be increased for those who actually will be requiring medicare after 65+. Average Joe pays more now for increased benefits later. While i can maybe swallow some of the garbage income redistribution elements our society creates, i still do not understand elements like this.

Perhaps my company should start taking larger health insurance deductions out of my mangers, my department head's, and my plant manager's paycheck to subsidize the health insurance for every operator.

3/23/2010 9:20:39 PM

Quote :

"I agree with you, what I don't agree with is that letting them fail or not would in any way deter this same thing from happening again."

It would deter the use of shareholder banks as an organizational structure in the marketplace, to the favor of partnership banks, which demonstrated their ability to avoid the form of strategic stupidity that just rocked the system.

[Edited on March 23, 2010 at 10:54 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/23/2010 10:53:03 PM

Quote :

"impose premium caps as well as force them to take in every pre-existing case. You cannot make it with that kind of model. Viola! Single-Payer!"

you're forgetting about the mandate. millions of new subsidized customers of insurance. hooray corporatism.

and why do you have to bring stringed instruments into this?

3/23/2010 10:57:34 PM

I miss bill clinton

3/23/2010 11:07:20 PM