Magox

Price fixing plays a role, at least that is what studies show but is that what we want to do? Of course not, because it dampens innovation. That's the crux of that particular issue, how do you reduce R&D without reducing the effectiveness of research? The most viable market based solution I see is to reform the patent laws, if you reduce the time then I believe you will see an increase in generic makers.

I understand, but that alone doesn't explain the huge disparity between drug prices in the U.S and abroad. If somehow you were able to reduce the cost of R&D to levels that wouldn't include subsidization of other countries prescriptions (not sure how you could do that), that still wouldn't reduce the prices to levels seen abroad. I rarely advocate for silver bullet solutions to complex problems and this is no different. I believe that the reforms necessary to bring down drug prices would need to include a multi-thronged approach, which would have to include the reduction of time for drug patents, and somehow promote more competition, specially with generics. Reducing the patent time in itself would probably bring out more producers of generics. Unfortunately Big Pharma has got a strangle hold of congress and that relationship between the two would need to sever in order for these reforms to come through.

Apparently that was the takeaway from some GOP voters.

He pulled a Rubio, got frustrated a little desperate and went after Trump personally. Apparently, only Trump in a GOP primary is able to get away with that.

Prescriptions plays a role in rising medical costs, medical devices not so much. Its hard to know Trump's positions because he changes them sometimes in mid sentence. But if you were to look at his position on healthcare going back 20 years and some of the things he has said on the campaign trail, I think its fair to say that he'd probably look to keep the expansion of medicaid and most of Obamacare in place with some additional fixes. He certainly is a proponent of heavy government involvement when it comes to healthcare. That's not quite true. Yes, R & D is becoming increasing expensive and is contributing to the cost of prescriptions but it certainly isn't the main factor to rising prescription costs in the US and subsidizing R & D for the rest of the world? Not sure how you come to the conclusion that this is a major factor, please explain. Patent laws, lack of generic makers and competition along with R & D and some would argue lack of price controls are the primary culprits to rising prescription costs. What he said was that "he likes the mandate" and then he went on to make an Obama argument " he doesn't want people to die in the streets and we gotta take care of people who can't afford it", very similar to throw grandma off the Cliff argument that Democrats were making. In other words make a Moral plea when to sell your idea of government mandating things from its citizens.

Ted's limited appeal was on full display over the past 3 weeks. Outside of very conservative and Constitutionalist wing of the party, he just doesn't resonate. He'll be back for 2020 as will Rubio and they will both be near the top from the onset. It will be very interesting to see if Ted continues on with his shtick of being the "only true conservative" who is willing to try to shut down the government to continue building this brand he has or does he try to build a few relationships with leadership and try to expand his appeal?

I am going to so enjoy the next 6 months.

I am 99% sure that I am not misremembering this. You may have a new found theory on polling but that doesn't take away the fact that you have indeed cited polling data in the past to help bolster your case.

I remember a time when you use to cite polling data to back some of your claims.

Who cares about the Hispanic vote? Where do you clowns come from? It's this sort of mentality that is holding the conservative movement from becoming a party that can compete at the presidential level.

That's because when we talk about GDP growth it's a very abstract concept for most voters, they know it should be higher but don't really feel it impact their lives. However, "73 straight months of job growth" is more easily witnessed by the average voter. Democrats offer simpler solutions, free or subsidized healthcare, more money for unemployment insurance, more money for welfare assistance, punish banks for ripping you off (so they think), etc etc. It's tough to compete against that when you are dealing with a largely apathetic and ignorant population. Then again, elements of the other side aren't too much better, build wall keep "invaders" out, transgenders potentially could threaten our kids in bathrooms, just lower taxes and cut spending and watch the economy boom.

On his best day he's a pragmatist, typically he's just an opportunistic demagogue.

I'm just thinking it would be nearly logistically impossible.

Too bad for the GOP that the only person who defeats her isn't even running. I plan on doing it.

I don't believe he could do that. Each state approves the rate hikes, not sure how he could tell them to delay it. Not to mention you'd most likely see a decent bit of carriers abruptly drop out. However, I wonder if he could somehow insert the risk corridor via executive action.

The Conservative media hucksters. Don't forget about Levin, he certainly is anti Trump now, but when Cruz and Trump were playing kissy face back last year Levin wouldn't lay a glove on him. Levin helped prop him up, the only reason why he turned on Trump is because he went after his precious Cruz.

What should have Boehner and McConnell achieved with the House and Senate under their control?

Cruz was able to successfully build a brand, but that brand comes with a lot of baggage. You can not understate how detrimental it is to him not having hardly any support of the "establishment". I think it says a lot that just about everyone who has worked with him, can't stand him.

I wouldn't be surprised that he gets over 10% of the vote.

People often underestimate the power of government from the local and state level, where Obama has been the single greatest asset for the GOP. Over 60% of the states are under GOP control, from state and senate houses to Governorships all across the country, where in many cases meaningful and successful reforms have been put in place. Not to mention control of the house and senate. Obama's greatest "achievements" are Dodd & Frank and Obamacare and both are turning out to be a drag on the economy. It is the job of the minority party to block what they view as an over expansionist regime. Trump is simply a vehicle for the frustration that lies with some of these disaffected voters, they view the GOP as an impotent party that was unable to stop Obama's overreach on his executive actions on immigration, stances on social issues and the ramming through of Obamacare. Somehow, unreasonably these voters believe that this could have been stopped, which of course it couldn't have. I hear it all the time, "I don't agree with much of what Trump says, but he's not going to get bullied and he'll play dirty to win" *sigh* Well, I won't get into the flawed rationale but that's what you hear.

Yes yes yes! I've been hoping for him for about the last month, I think he may even be worth a "reach" in the 3rd round.

From my perspective, at some point the year before last I knew he wasn't starting NFL material. But, I have to agree that the Jags game did indeed seal his fate. It was horrific

If that's the implication, then it's very short-sighted.

If Trump wins Indiana it's over.