Magox

Of course there are solutions to help bring down drug prices while maintaining free market principles, your focus is too narrow. Too often people believe there are silver bullet solutions to problems, where in reality it requires a confluence of factors to address them.

You aren't going to have other countries change their core tenet of how they control their costs simply because it is affecting our healthcare system. I'm interested in real solutions, not unrealistic temper tantrums.

So how are you going to force them to stop price fixing?

In other words, you just made it up. Out of curiosity how would you have them pay for the R&D performed by American pharmaceuticals? It is quite possible that within the patent period they would go up. What is certain is that when the patent period ends, the generic makers come in and they drop by 50-60%.

Tell me how I'm condoning the fixed markets? Specifics please

If there is an upgrade to be made, go for it but don't reach and overpay. Also, I'd look to get Gilmore under a long-term contract and possibly front load his a little more than Cordy's. T.T, I hate to say it as good as he was last year, I think we need to see how he progresses throughout the first half of the season, if it looks like he's continuing to get better, then pull the trigger and sign him to a fair starting QB contract.

That too. You would think this would be a pretty big scandal. They are openly and actively lying about the Iran deal, which has huge potential ramifications and to make things worse they think they are so above the law that they can go on record and gloat how they deceived the American public. With the Jonathan Gruber Obamacare issue, they could at least say he was contracted and somehow try to pass off the blame to some unauthorized dude, but this guy is one of the main centerpieces of their FP team. Disgusting.

Of course they would, they just got conned.

The answer is on average between 12-15 years. Second point, I understand very well that the cost of R&D includes all the failures that go through their pipeline. The problem here Nanker is that many people are so programmed to go against anything that sounds counter to free markets, Conservatism etc that there is an immediate assumption that the person making the argument against your position must be of some liberal bent or what not. I think I've shown myself here over the years that I am a huge proponent of the free markets and many economic Conservative ideals, I would think that I have the benefit of the doubt that I'm not taking a position that unfairly demonizes any industry as you alluded to. I love big profits, my argument isn't that since they have big profits lets go ahead and even out the playing field somehow. If you guys had been paying attention to my argument its that the Patent lengths do increase the price of drugs and they do discourage the entrance of new Generic makers. These are undeniable facts, not opinion but facts. There is a very sound argument to be made that the way the patent system is structured is not what a healthy free market should look like. You have Drug makers that are monopolizing markets and paying off generic producers to push out their generics or drop their patent lawsuits so that they can continue to profit at the expense of thousands of consumers. That in my view is an abuse of the free markets. If there was a tight or even average profit margin of other fortune 500 companies, then I'd say "you know what, there really isn't too much slack and if you lessen their patent lengths, it will most likely come at the expense of R&D". But that's not the case. After their massive R&D and advertising budgets they still have these gains, which is at the top of just about any sector in the US aside from the financials. What if the patent period was 25 years, I have little doubt that you would still be making the same argument and siding with the pharmaceutical companies. Why? Because many people are programmed to automatically defend anything that appears contrary to their preferred orthodoxy. I look at this, put the factual research together and conclude that the existing patent system we have runs counter to what a proper free market should look like and that some of these companies are trying to buy additional time by paying off Generic producers to gain even more profits at the expense of consumers. I love free markets, I love huge profits but what I don't like are rigged markets. This is a rigged market.

Here here here and here Pay for Delay Studies showing that it adds billions of dollars to consumers and more As far as profit margins are concerned, Pharmaceuticals are right there near the top. My arguments are sound and backed with data.

You're going to have to do better than that, Nanker

I don't get too pissed about many things but this infuriates me. I've always known and have communicated with my father that Obama's foreign policy team cared more about the public perception of their actions than the actual results. This is yet another example that validates my suspicions. His team is made up of a bunch of cocky inexperienced under 40's who thought they had all the worlds answers back when they were still at their Ivy league Universities. Couldn't he have at least have waited to gloat about in a book how he lied and manipulated the media lapdogs sometime after Obama was out of office? Nope, this kid had to try impress his upper east side Manhattanites and progressive buddies by bragging how he pulled a fast one to advance Obama's agenda in helping provide him one of his self-perceived greatest "achievements". Pathetic.

I think it's pretty clear, what I'm saying is that I don't subscribe to hurling out arbitrary figures. Patents for the drug makers are 20 years, after they go through all the red tape with the US Food & Drug administration they have about 12-15 years. This is what we do know. What we also know is that Big Pharma has one of the largest profit margins in the U.S, despite their huge costs in R&D and advertising. This tells me that there is some slack in reducing the time period drug makers have with their patents without taking away their R&D capabilities. Health Insurers get vilified yet their profit margin is around 5%, Big Pharma is close to quadruple that. I'm not talking about some sort of socialist scheme here where the government should try to push for price controls or to punish them for their large profits, I love large profits. What I'm saying is that a significant way to push down drug costs is to lessen the period for patents, which would lead to Generic makers entering into the equation much quicker than they are today. Another problem is that there aren't that many Generic drug makers and the ones that are there typically engage in the "pay for delay" deals struck with Big Pharma. Big Pharma pays off the generics in many cases to delay their potential entry into the market so that they could continue to monopolize the drug market with the drug in question. They say it's more of a legal settlement issue, due to the patent challenges that the generic makers slap on Big pharma. Either way, the crux of it all are the patent lengths. It's crystal clear to me that if there are some meaningful reforms on drug patents you could see more generic makers entering into the equation due to better market conditions, which would lead to lower drug prices with a negligible effect on R&D, while still maintaining huge profit margins. The bottom line is allowing A) generic drug makers into the process sooner than they have been and B) increasing competition among generic makers. If there is a more "creative" way to address and achieve this then by all means I'd be for it.

Requiring an ID to vote should be mandatory, because it's the right thing to do. Gerrymandering districts is something that isn't specially akin to just one party.

Only a dumb ass would throw out an arbitrary figure without sufficient research behind making such a projection.

It should have been pretty clear that is what I was saying. And yes it could be changed, just need to have a presidential candidate make that a campaign issue, win an election and make that as one of his priorities once elected while he/she has some political capital. Right now they have 20 years, and big Pharma is making gobs of dollars, I don't know how much it should be reduced just that it should be.

Damn "establishment", always rolling over for Obama.

Trump is a vehicle for the dissatisfaction of the country. He appeals to white working class folks, and his ascendancy isn't because of the "establishment", it's because people believe that many middle class paying jobs are no longer available to them, they blame trade, they blame immigrants and they blame politicians for promising them that they could fix these issues when in reality there were no fixes. Globalism was going to happen no matter what, people can either adapt to that reality or just sit back B word and complain about it. It's not about "moderation", it's about accepting the reality that this country is made up of right wingers, right leaners, middle moderate, left leaners and left wingers. A government in my view should represent the wishes of the people (as long as it falls under the constitution), not some sub sect of the population. If you want to preserve your views of government in the country, then you are going to have to be a little smarter about it. That means that: A) You aren't going to have to accept that we aren't going to have a government that has nearly everything you want B) Choose your battles wisely C) Realize that this is a diverse country and in order to preserve or enact the sort of government you desire you need to WIN elections. You may not be a Trump supporter, but you justify his ascendancy. This mentality that they are "teaching a lesson" to the "establishment" (whoever they are) is backwards thinking. They aren't teaching anyone a lesson, all that they are doing is helping elect another progressive who is going to do things that they hate for the next 4-8 years. You are fooling yourself, she is more unpopular than any Democratic nominee since Carter plus she was running on Obama's third term, which is very difficult to achieve in itself. There were 2-3 candidates who could have beat her and they weren't nominated. The Conservative media hucksters. You can add Rush, Ingraham and Levin to that group as well. They all are conning their listeners for $$$. It's never been about Conservatism, but more so about a blood sport battle with progressives and clicks. That and the trade deals and his immigration push. Lets face it, there are a lot of white working class people that resent immigrants. Not just illegal immigrants but legal ones as well. I don't care what anyone on this board says, that is a damn fact!

1) Taken a stand with Cruz? Please!!!! He did it for himself and his brand and for no other reason than that. Everyone knew it was destined to fail everyone except for the right wing media hucksters who were helping push this narrative so that they could fool a bunch of gullible listeners and viewers. 2) You wanted them to take a more aggressive stand against Immigration? I won't even argue the merits of the law, but the last I recall the house didn't even take it up. Case closed, they shut it down. 3) Like what? specifics 4) Obama's agenda? You mean like gun control? Ever since the Obama administration has lost the House and Senate, name me one piece of significant legislation that he has been able to pass? 5) And I believe that Republicans aren't "moderate" enough. So I guess we are in a stalemate. Because its not founded on reality.

Specifics please. And what "amnesty" are you referring to? I don't ever remember a plan for amnesty. If you are referring to the Bill that passed the senate, that wasn't amnesty and even if I were to concede that it was which it wasn't, the House never took it up. So again, please provide specifics to where the "establishment" didn't fight the "attempts from the administration.". Also, those who say that this is a lesson being shown to the "establishment". Well, I gotta say that is the most Ass backwards logic I think I've heard in quite a while. So you are going to punish the "establishment" because they supposedly didn't fight hard enough, so you are going to nominate a guy who is not only going to lose the presidency but the Senate and a decent bit of house seats and then you are going to help elect someone who is going to have a very similar agenda as the last 8 years for the next 4-8 years. Genius!!! End result, you are going to only strengthen the "establishments" (whoever the !@#$ they are) hand by showing what a colossal !@#$up this was.

Specifics please

Maybe I'll consider it, depending on who is nominated.

So what could the "establishment" have done differently over the past eight years to have saved us from this "lesson"?

Apathy is not giving a !@#$, I don't fall under that category.

The voter ID law that is opposed by Democrats is a canard to motivate African Americans to the polls. Nothing more.