skins Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Republicans also freed the slaves, which I think out weighs making your grand pappy have the DT's. You say that Bush is spending more than any President since LBJ, well that is probably true. However, it is a product of the times we are in. LBJ and Bush have one thing in common that affects the spending, and that is we are fighting a war you idiot. You complain when we don't have enough armor, yet wen when we spend the money to get the armor, you complain even more. To me this is just more proof that you don't care about what is best for the counry you just care about trying to discredit Bush, because you are a sour loser, kind of like why you ran with your tail between your legs a few months ago, and dropped all of you fantasy leagues over night. Everyone I know acknowledges that we are war, some of us are cautiously optomistic while others like you would rather see us fail, so that you can point to Bush's failure than to win the damned thing. Bush has increased discretionary non military spending more than any President sice LBJ. You lose, Daddy's Boy. Why dont you stick to arguing about something you know about: how government policy should be set up to line yer nepotistic pockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecerwin Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Bush has increased discretionary non military spending more than any President sice LBJ. You lose, Daddy's Boy. Why dont you stick to arguing about something you know about: how government policy should be set up to line yer nepotistic pockets. Whats is the money being spent on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Whats is the money being spent on? Go do yer homework, kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecerwin Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 See, thats why you are a twit. He asked you to be more specific and he even gave you examples and you turned around and tried to be all cute. Answer the question or zip it. What are all the liberals you know claiming the government should do for them? Go do yer homework, kid. See, thats why you are a twit. I asked you to be more specific then you turned around and tried to be all cute. Answer the question or zip it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 See, thats why you are a twit. I asked you to be more specific then you turned around and tried to be all cute. Answer the question or zip it. Easy to look up at cbo.gov ---> <--- Click for discretionary budget status for 2006-2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 See, thats why you are a twit. I asked you to be more specific then you turned around and tried to be all cute. Answer the question or zip it. Yer learning already. How about the new crazy Medicare bill for a start. The US taxpayer has to pay massively inflated prices for drugs because the Republicans in Congress let the pharmaceutical companies write the bill and it prohibits the government from negotiating wholesale prices. Insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecerwin Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Yer learning already. How about the new crazy Medicare bill for a start. The US taxpayer has to pay massively inflated prices for drugs because the Republicans in Congress let the pharmaceutical companies write the bill and it prohibits the government from negotiating wholesale prices. Insanity. What qualifies as massively inflated? Are they market prices or did they raise the prices just for this bill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 What qualifies as massively inflated? Are they market prices or did they raise the prices just for this bill? Well, I believe on average, they are more than double what Canadians pay after their government negotiated the profit margin down with the very same pharmaceuticals. Good thing the Republicans on Capitol Hill are looking out for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 You say that Bush is spending more than any President since LBJ, well that is probably true. However, it is a product of the times we are in. LBJ and Bush have one thing in common that affects the spending, and that is we are fighting a war you idiot. You complain when we don't have enough armor, yet wen when we spend the money to get the armor, you complain even more. To me this is just more proof that you don't care about what is best for the counry you just care about trying to discredit Bush, <snip blah blah> Everyone I know acknowledges that we are war, some of us are cautiously optomistic while others like you would rather see us fail, so that you can point to Bush's failure than to win the damned thing. You've forgotten that the Iraq war was entirely voluntary, haven't you? Also, I don't believe the war costs are yet included in the budget figures. As for being at war, with the exception of service people and their families, who exactly has been affected in any way whatsoever? Apart from businesses having to hold jobs open for people actually doing the fighting, I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecerwin Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Well, I believe on average, they are more than double what Canadians pay after their government negotiated the profit margin down with the very same pharmaceuticals. Good thing the Republicans on Capitol Hill are looking out for us. Why are drugs cheaper in Canada? I don't know for sure and could be wrong but doesn't this article blame the price differences on pricing to market? I could be way off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 (edited) Why are drugs cheaper in Canada? I don't know for sure and could be wrong but doesn't this article blame the price differences on pricing to market? I could be way off. The first couple paragraphs of that article make my point. The Canadian government sets a cieling on drug prices they will pay and they have universal healthcare so that sets the price for all drugs the whole country. Then the government approaches say Pfizer and says we will pay $__X___ for yer drug. If Pfizer doesnt like it their drug is not sold in Canada. Period. That is why prices are low in Canada for the same drugs we pay so much more for here. Our government, run by the GOP, has decided not to use government leverage to reduce the profit margins of drugs for federal healthcare programs--except I think the VA may be an exception--and they let the drug companies write the Medicare bill, so we pay whatever price the drug companies want to charge. And by we, I mean the US taxpayers, a group you will hopefully join one day. By the way, know yer sources, you are essentially linking to drug company propaganda: AIMS is a conservative, free-market think tank in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. On its website, AIMS states that it is funded by "contributions from individuals, corporations, foundations and other organizations, as well as by the sales of our publications." It does list its "patrons" between 1995 and 2005 in its 2004-2005 Annual Report, and acknowledges the ongoing support of "several anonymous donors"..... The Institute promotes free-market ideology, and is at the forefront of the battle against public health care in Canada. Among its sponsors or "patrons" it lists the pharmaceutical giants, Pfizer and Merck Frosst. Like its sister think tank in western Canada, the Fraser Institute in Calgary, Alberta, the Atlantic Institute of Marketing Studies issues annual "report cards" for public schools in Atlantic Canada, which lead to the impression that public schools provide poor education and receive a great deal of media coverage......... Many leading academics and universities in the region have sharply criticized the metholodology of the AIMS study of public schools, saying the results are without scientific merit. Edited June 15, 2006 by skins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Front Row Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Republicans also freed the slaves, which I think out weighs making your grand pappy have the DT's. You say that Bush is spending more than any President since LBJ, well that is probably true. However, it is a product of the times we are in. LBJ and Bush have one thing in common that affects the spending, and that is we are fighting a war you idiot. You complain when we don't have enough armor, yet wen when we spend the money to get the armor, you complain even more. To me this is just more proof that you don't care about what is best for the counry you just care about trying to discredit Bush, because you are a sour loser, kind of like why you ran with your tail between your legs a few months ago, and dropped all of you fantasy leagues over night. Everyone I know acknowledges that we are war, some of us are cautiously optomistic while others like you would rather see us fail, so that you can point to Bush's failure than to win the damned thing. Very interesting thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecerwin Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 The first couple paragraphs of that article make my point. The Canadian government sets a cieling on drug prices they will pay and they have universal healthcare so that sets the price for all drugs the whole country. Then the government approaches say Pfizer and says we will pay $__X___ for yer drug. If Pfizer doesnt like it their drug is not sold in Canada. Period. That is why prices are low in Canada for the same drugs we pay so much more for here. Our government, run by the GOP, has decided not to use government leverage to reduce the profit margins of drugs for federal healthcare programs--except I think the VA may be an exception--and they let the drug companies write the Medicare bill, so we pay whatever price the drug companies want to charge. And by we, I mean the US taxpayers, a group you will hopefully join one day. I believe I have mentioned to you that I do pay taxes. That's irrelevant though. I have a question here. Why would the drug companies sell to the government with a price ceiling when they can sell the drugs on the open market at market prices? How much leverage does the government have? Isn't it part of the Republican ideology to allow markets to determine prices (even if it is taxpayer money)? Another question, Are there any pharmaceutical's based in Canada that we buy drugs from? By the way, know yer sources, you are essentially linking to drug company propaganda: AIMS is a conservative, free-market think tank in Halifax The Institute promotes free-market ideology, and is at the forefront of the battle against public health care in Canada. I just used the first one I found. That's why I said I wasn't sure and that I could be way off. Where are the Liberal sources? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 I believe I have mentioned to you that I do pay taxes. That's irrelevant though. I have a question here. Why would the drug companies sell to the government with a price ceiling when they can sell the drugs on the open market at market prices? How much leverage does the government have? Isn't it part of the Republican ideology to allow markets to determine prices (even if it is taxpayer money)? Another question, Are there any pharmaceutical's based in Canada that we buy drugs from? I just used the first one I found. That's why I said I wasn't sure and that I could be way off. Where are the Liberal sources? Because the government in a universal health care system is the market. It is a captive market. So if the drug companies want to sell any drugs to any Canadians they play ball or they dont get to sell in Canada. Liberal sources? Try just looking for objective sources next time. Contrary to what Bush and Faux News want you to believe, there is an objective fact-based reality and not everyone and everything is biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecerwin Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 (edited) Because the government in a universal health care system is the market. It is a captive market. So if the drug companies want to sell any drugs to any Canadians they play ball or they dont get to sell in Canada. I should have specified that I was asking why a drug company would sell to our government since we don't have universal healthcare. Doesn't that take away the governments leverage you were talking about? Are there any pharmaceutical's based in Canada that we buy drugs from? Again, I apologize for the biased link. Edit: I didn't apologize the first time, but meant to. Edited June 15, 2006 by thecerwin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I should have specified that I was asking why a drug company would sell to our government since we don't have universal healthcare. Ah, but we will one day. When we all wise up and realize what a monumental racket health care is in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Yer learning already. How about the new crazy Medicare bill for a start. The US taxpayer has to pay massively inflated prices for drugs because the Republicans in Congress let the pharmaceutical companies write the bill and it prohibits the government from negotiating wholesale prices. Insanity. this is easily offset by investing in some of those drug companies!!! what a great country we live in!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecerwin Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Ah, but we will one day. When we all wise up and realize what a monumental racket health care is in the US. Do you think it is plausible? I'm not sure the transition from a privatized industry into a state run industry is realistic in the US. Do you skins? If this did end up happening what would be the ramifications on the market? How would this effect everyone's 401k? How would this effect millions of individuals portfolio's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 i have to bump this it very entertaining to read info that is from the fifties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecerwin Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I think skins is ignoring this thread now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I think skins is ignoring this thread now. I think everyone gave up trying to talk to you because you are a hugh moran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I think everyone gave up trying to talk to you because you are a hugh moran. If we socialize medicine, who are you going to sue when a doctor kills someone? Can't sue the government can you? I might not mind socialized medicine. I could actually get behind it because as it is I'm paying my insurance, and my insurance is higher because of the way hospital jack things up because people that don't have insurance, and the government not paying the going rate. I might actually consider a mild tax hike to socialize medicine. Of course I probably wouldn't be able to get an MRI or Cath done with out an appointment a year in advance, but I'm still pretty young, so that shouldn't matter for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 If we socialize medicine, who are you going to sue when a doctor kills someone? Can't sue the government can you? Ever hear of the Federal Tort Claims Act? I have no recollection what the Federal Tort Claims Act says, but it sounds good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Ever hear of the Federal Tort Claims Act? I have no recollection what the Federal Tort Claims Act says, but it sounds good. call me crazy, but if they did socialize medicine i would think there would be some changes in tort act as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I think skins is ignoring this thread now. I was too until just now. Hw about the sham Karl Rove pulled in the congress? Democrats can only sign support the troops amendment if they approve of everything done in Iraq? Typical Rove. Play political games rather than debate real issues that may save some lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.