That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Max Peck wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:51 am Wow, two whole people have floated the idea? I guess both sides are equally lawless after all.
Bothsidesism is not a great take on this one.pr0ner wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:43 am It's always good to see both sides are up for trampling on Constitutional rights whenever it suits their policy goals.
I'm going to go both sides super meta and both sides you in the middle of the both sides discussion! You and pr0ner BOTH have good points here. It's true that both sides are not equally lawless re: the constitution, and what Harris is saying here has a ways to go before it can be considered mainstream democratic policy.Max Peck wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:51 am Wow, two whole people have floated the idea? I guess both sides are equally lawless after all.
Shit. I didn’t know that. That sucks.pr0ner wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:11 amButtigieg has espoused the same views.Max Peck wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:50 am Well, there have always people on all sides with fringe views, but I'm not sure that you can point to Harris on this issue and say that "both sides" have no respect for the Constitution any more than you can point to Gabbard and say that "both sides" are abject Putin-fellating russophiles.
This is the best info I've been able to dig up on the issue.Kurth wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:20 amShit. I didn’t know that. That sucks.pr0ner wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:11 amButtigieg has espoused the same views.Max Peck wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:50 am Well, there have always people on all sides with fringe views, but I'm not sure that you can point to Harris on this issue and say that "both sides" have no respect for the Constitution any more than you can point to Gabbard and say that "both sides" are abject Putin-fellating russophiles.
How Kamala Harris would address rising drug pricesThe government would be empowered to negotiate prices, starting with the most expensive medicines and those that are much cheaper overseas. Medicines for diabetes, asthma, arthritis, HIV and cancer would be prioritized.
The Department of Health and Human Services would use four criteria to negotiate: the benefit offered by the drug, the cost of bringing the medicine to the market, the costs of treating the disease the drug addresses, and international prices charged for similar drugs.
Pharmaceutical companies that refuse to negotiate or don’t reach an agreement with the government will pay a 65 percent tax on the company’s gross sales of the drug. The tax will increase by 10 percent each quarter the company is out of compliance, until it reaches 95 percent.
The federal government could revoke a company’s patent rights and let others make a drug at an affordable price if the manufacturer refuses to lower the price or in cases of a natural disaster or public health emergency.
Monthly out-of-pocket drugs costs would be capped at $200 for seniors and at $250 for public option enrollees. Low-income patients in government plans would pay nothing for generics and biosimilars, copycats of complex biologic drugs.
To increase access to low-cost generic drugs, Buttigieg would ban “pay-for-delay” deals, in which a brand drug company pays a generic drug company to keep competition off the market. He also would stop brand drug companies from withholding samples that generic makers need to get a copycat medicine approved.
I will leave it to those more qualified than myself to determine whether any of this actually amounts to wiping their ass with the Constitution, a la Trump.If elected president, Harris said she would have the Department of Health and Human Services set a “fair price” for any prescription drug whose price increases annually by more than the cost of inflation — or which is sold for less money in any comparable country in the 36-member Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Any profits pharmaceutical companies make from selling a drug above that set price in the United States would be taxed at a rate of 100 percent, with proceeds going directly to consumers as rebates.
Harris said she would also work to close a tax loophole for pharmaceutical companies’ direct-to-consumer advertising expenses.
Harris said that if Congress does not act on her proposal within 100 days of taking office, she would take executive action to investigate price gauging and would appoint an attorney general who will prioritize investigations of abusive drug pricing.
She said the Department of Health and Human Services could also import drugs from Canada or other countries directly if they are available more cheaply there.
In egregious cases and if other efforts to control prices fail, Harris said she would use the government’s “march-in” rights to license a drug company’s patent to a lower-cost competitor.
Harris’ proposal is in line with what many Democrats in Congress and in the presidential primary campaign have floated.
Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker, among others, support international reference pricing. In addition, Warren has proposed creating a government-run pharmaceutical manufacturer to produce generic drugs in cases where the free market is determined to have failed.
The Bayh–Dole Act or Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (Pub. L. 96-517, December 12, 1980) is United States legislation dealing with inventions arising from federal government-funded research. Sponsored by two senators, Birch Bayh of Indiana and Bob Dole of Kansas, the Act was adopted in 1980, is codified at 94 Stat. 3015, and in 35 U.S.C. § 200–212, and is implemented by 37 C.F.R. 401 for federal funding agreements with contractors and 37 C.F.R 404 for licensing of inventions owned by the federal government.
That appears to limit its application to cases where the patented drug was developed from federally-funded research.The government's march-in right is one of the most contentious provisions in Bayh-Dole. It allows the funding agency, on its own initiative or at the request of a third party, to effectively ignore the exclusivity of a patent awarded under the act and grant additional licenses to other "reasonable applicants". This right is strictly limited and can only be exercised if the agency determines, following an investigation, that one of four criteria is met. The most important of these is a failure by the contractor to take "effective steps to achieve practical application of the subject invention" or a failure to satisfy "health and safety needs" of consumers.
Though this right is, in theory, quite powerful, it has not proven so in terms of its practical application—as of January, 2015, no federal agency has exercised its march-in rights. Five march-in petitions have been made to the National Institutes of Health.
This is setting aside drugs that aren't under patent at all - like insulin, albuterol, or epinephrine. Where people literally die when they have to ration or skip doses, because the price has been artificially inflated.And unfortunately, while patenting is an important mechanism for incentivizing and rewarding invention, pharmaceutical companies have figured out how to game the system—prolonging monopolies, claiming newness where there often is none, and taking patients on a ride they can barely afford.
[...]
Instead of going to new medicines, the study finds that 74 percent of new patents during the decade went to drugs that already existed. It found that 80 percent of the nearly 100 best-selling drugs extended their exclusivity protections at least once, and 50 percent extended their patents more than once—with the effect of prolonging the time before generics could reach the market as drug prices continued to rise.
The strategy is called “evergreening”: drug makers add on new patents to prolong a drug’s exclusivity, even when the additions aren’t fundamentally new, non-obvious, and useful as the law requires.
Just hours after the filing deadline had passed, Mahony announced on Nov. 12 that he was dropping out of the race due to family health concerns.
*Hours* after the deadline. Is there an explanation for that that doesn't involve shenanigans?Defiant wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:09 pm No Democratic candidate for 2020 Arkansas U.S. Senate race, party officials announce
Just hours after the filing deadline had passed, Mahony announced on Nov. 12 that he was dropping out of the race due to family health concerns.
Mahony could be a fucking dumbass. Reading about the whole thing...it feels like this is the best explanation. Though possible someone had kompromat on him. Who knows but I can't imagine it would have been all that competitive, right? Cotton isn't super popular but he isn't unpopular with folks there.El Guapo wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:22 pm*Hours* after the deadline. Is there an explanation for that that doesn't involve shenanigans?Defiant wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:09 pm No Democratic candidate for 2020 Arkansas U.S. Senate race, party officials announce
Just hours after the filing deadline had passed, Mahony announced on Nov. 12 that he was dropping out of the race due to family health concerns.
Yeah, I mean the expected value of a Democratic Senate candidate in Arkansas is pretty low, and if there were someone who had a plausible shot, they would've been running regardless of any shenanigans here. But still, there's some value to having *a* candidate, as at least then there's a remote chance of catching lightning in a bottle, or some sea change that suddenly causes the race to be competitive (say, the Republican candidate turns out to be a pedophile).malchior wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:24 pmMahony could be a fucking dumbass. Reading about the whole thing...it feels like this is the best explanation. Though possible someone had kompromat on him. Who knows but I can't imagine it would have been all that competitive, right? Cotton isn't super popular but he isn't unpopular with folks there.El Guapo wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:22 pm*Hours* after the deadline. Is there an explanation for that that doesn't involve shenanigans?Defiant wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:09 pm No Democratic candidate for 2020 Arkansas U.S. Senate race, party officials announce
Just hours after the filing deadline had passed, Mahony announced on Nov. 12 that he was dropping out of the race due to family health concerns.
Or at least force the state GOP to spend some money and manpower, however little, on the race. Don't give them a freebie.El Guapo wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:27 pmYeah, I mean the expected value of a Democratic Senate candidate in Arkansas is pretty low, and if there were someone who had a plausible shot, they would've been running regardless of any shenanigans here. But still, there's some value to having *a* candidate, as at least then there's a remote chance of catching lightning in a bottle, or some sea change that suddenly causes the race to be competitive (say, the Republican candidate turns out to be a pedophile).malchior wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:24 pmMahony could be a fucking dumbass. Reading about the whole thing...it feels like this is the best explanation. Though possible someone had kompromat on him. Who knows but I can't imagine it would have been all that competitive, right? Cotton isn't super popular but he isn't unpopular with folks there.El Guapo wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:22 pm*Hours* after the deadline. Is there an explanation for that that doesn't involve shenanigans?Defiant wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:09 pm No Democratic candidate for 2020 Arkansas U.S. Senate race, party officials announce
Just hours after the filing deadline had passed, Mahony announced on Nov. 12 that he was dropping out of the race due to family health concerns.
I haven't seen anything on the (D) front that would suggest Trump is in trouble. If Joe Biden is truly the best answer they have? Get ready to see red hats for another 4 years. I want to believe otherwise and that the silent majority will vote him out, but in my heart I just don't.Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:57 pm But I am worried that Trump still might overcome all and win
Biden's weakness is the reason Bloomberg and Patrick jumped in. Not that I think Democrats want a billionaire capitalist, but the big money establishment types have no confidence that Biden is their man. There is no killer centrist, and both Warren and Sanders threaten TPTB.Smoove_B wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:22 amI haven't seen anything on the (D) front that would suggest Trump is in trouble. If Joe Biden is truly the best answer they have? Get ready to see red hats for another 4 years. I want to believe otherwise and that the silent majority will vote him out, but in my heart I just don't.Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:57 pm But I am worried that Trump still might overcome all and win
On the surface, it might seem like it would make sense for Bloomberg to just start a PAC to buy ads instead of going through the trouble of running for president.
But for a billionaire who plans to spend exorbitant amounts of money shaping the 2020 race, filing to run as a candidate and pay for ads through a campaign instead of simply starting a political action committee carries some significant financial advantages.
The Sunlight Foundation said in 2016 that the price of airing TV ads varied significantly by media market, but it's almost always cheaper to buy ads as a political candidate than it is for PACs and super PACs — which can spend unlimited sums of money on electioneering.
Federal Communication Commission regulations require TV stations and networks to offer a price referred to as the "lowest unit rate" possible to presidential candidates based on the timing of their ad spot and how likely it is to be "pre-empted" or bumped by a higher-paying advertiser during "political protection" periods, which take place 45 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election, according to the veteran TV sales rep Mike Fuhram.
But none of those considerations apply to PACs' and super PACs' ad purchases, meaning stations can charge virtually as much as they want to PACs and aren't required to offer them the lowest price possible in the weeks leading up to an election.
For someone, like Bloomberg, who plans to purchase a lot of anti-Trump ads, this means he could save a lot of money by buying ads as a presidential candidate instead of through a PAC.
I have no doubt it's a factor. I mean it took us until the actions of president sociopath to have a photo op of women praising him forthe centennial coin act to commemorate women's suffrage. No president before him was capable of such a thing.Smoove_B wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:38 am I'm probably just retreating into cynicism, but my gut feeling is that Warren's popularity is dropping because she's a woman.
It is definitely a part of it. Her performance on M4A was pretty bad though and I don't think you can discount it. It didn't help that everyone including Bernie were willing to knife her over it either. The downsides of a clown car primary. Whoever is near the top gets clobbered. Though Joe's staying power is definitely old white man because he should be sunk.Smoove_B wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:38 am I'm probably just retreating into cynicism, but my gut feeling is that Warren's popularity is dropping because she's a woman. The fact that old white men continue to surge in popularity tells me we're still not there yet as a society, accepting a woman being in charge. That's not me lamenting PC culture or the ethics in gaming either, I'm just saying at the end of the day no one is agonizing over policy stump speeches while standing behind the voting booth curtain. My gut is that people are (1) voting single issues and/or (2) voting for the person they think embodies what a President of the United States should look like. And apparently it's still overwhelming old white man.
It's because she's way left. The more she talks the more obvious it is. Hillary Clinton was WAY more unpopular that Warren and she came very close to winning the presidency.Smoove_B wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:38 am I'm probably just retreating into cynicism, but my gut feeling is that Warren's popularity is dropping because she's a woman.
If she was the only candidate, I'm sure people would vote for her over the flaming death spiral. But they have other options, and those other options aren't up there saying they're going to abolish your private health insurance.Smoove_B wrote:I just find it incredibly hard to believe people are or are not voting for Warren over her position on healthcare. Is the healthcare issue in the United States important? Absolutely. But we're on fire and in a death spiral right now.
That's because the far left has had a candidate for the last 6 years. There's a reason that AOC endorsed him and not Warren.Smoove_B wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:16 am And yet we're still talking about Bernie Goddamn Sanders running for President in 2020.
YellowKing wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:13 am
If she was the only candidate, I'm sure people would vote for her over the flaming death spiral.
Defiant wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:26 am For me, single payer that bans private insurance would be a huge change to a large section of our economy into a system that's untested, and I would rather see the country transition into a hybrid system along the lines that Germany has, because a) plenty of countries have successful hybrid systems that deliver universal healthcare and b) the german system is probably the closest to our own, and so would be the easiest to transition to.
Totally agree with YK here. I don't love my insurance, but my company has somehow worked it out the past two years that they pay for it entirely. So in order for another system to be better for me, it would have to give me all the same benefits and PAY me lol. I'm guessing that's not going to happen.YellowKing wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:13 amIf she was the only candidate, I'm sure people would vote for her over the flaming death spiral. But they have other options, and those other options aren't up there saying they're going to abolish your private health insurance.Smoove_B wrote:I just find it incredibly hard to believe people are or are not voting for Warren over her position on healthcare. Is the healthcare issue in the United States important? Absolutely. But we're on fire and in a death spiral right now.
I'm all for health care overhaul, but I have REALLY good insurance through my job. I have ZERO faith the government could swoop in, take it away, and replace it with something better. I'm all for helping people with no insurance get insurance. I'm all for helping people with overpriced insurance get affordable insurance. I draw the line, however, at fucking up my good insurance to achieve those goals. It's not that I'm unwilling to make sacrifices for the greater good; it's that I think there are other ways to accomplish those goals without breaking half the country to do so.