jryan

So if you educate yourself and speak with your doctor you can, more often than not, get a better deal on your prescriptions in the American system. I haven't been able to find anything yet, but I would be interested in seeing the cost savings between Canada's largely name-brand program and the American generic equivalent. I have a hunch that in such a comparison the American system would look even better. Walmart, for instance, based solely on the power of it's store to generate sales on everything else, draws customers to their pharmacies with cheap generic drugs. I would guess that Canadian Health services couldn't cover their cost for offering free antibiotics and $4 generics by making a killing on their electronics and toy departments... By the way, I think you are free to ask the pharmacist for a generic even if your doctor prescribes a name brand. Aslo, anyone with a prescription to check the FDA Generic database to see if their is a generic for what they take. Also, I take a rather expensive medication myself that does not yet have a generic form (Enbrel) but that is actually cheaper from American bulk online pharmacies than it would cost Canada to provide it to me through their system.

http://www.myonlinewellness.com/topic/genericdrugs Quote: "About 20% of drugs have no generic equivalent".. ergo, about 80% do. Because Medicare Part D already pays the bulk rate for medications from large pharmacy distributors like Rite Aid, Walmart, Etc. To allow Medicare to negotiate bulk discounts Medicare would have to open up drug distribution sites to distribute and warehouse the drugs as Canada does, or Walmart, or Rite Aid. There is little to no reason for this in the American system as it is already handled privately. The creation of such a distributorship also cost money, and we have no real way of knowing how that cost would impact the savings we seek to achieve.

Well, I don't think that the US military really qualifies as a Socialist program as it is a consumer of capitalist products. If the Military were running the industry that built the planes it used then yes, it would be socialist. But since it doesn't own the means of production, and is instead a consumer of it, it can't be claimed to be socialist. Socialist isn't "anything that the government uses tax money to pay for".. the government has to be actively involved in producing the goods that it is using and distributing before it can be considered socialist. On the other hand, the government intervention in GM would be considered socialist because it was taking a controlling share in the company as well as valuing Union stock over all other public stocks in the bankruptcy proceedings. That would be called a "double whammy" I think as it both takes controlling share as well as promotes direct worker ownership of the industry. Single Payer health care, on the other hand, would be more of a National Socialist program as it inserts complete government control, as sole consumer, of "privately owned" national industries... in this manner there is a "industrialist" class in the government hierarchy. Without trying to be inflammatory, the most readily available example of such a role that people would have seen would be Oscar Schindler from "Schindler's List". He held one of those "Industrialist" positions in Nazi Germany (like Wilhelm Messerschmidt, and others). NASA, likewise, is not socialist as it's products and built by private industry... and it avoids being considered "National Socialist" only because there is really nobody who can run even the Space Shuttle program privately (to the tune of $170 billion). Also, I don't think it's fair to label NASA as "few returns on investment" as NASA drove a large portion of the technology industry for decades, and few would question the value in pushing that envelope now, even when when the moon was the only readily available goal then. NASA and the Military made possible the technology that allows us to discuss a good deal of what we know on this forum today, as well as our ability to discuss it at all. That is no small return on investment.

No, but I think there may need to be some discussion on how you define "extremism" before I can state my point further.

Cancer isn't a life form. There seems to be a fundamental problem in the abortion debate revolving around what constitutes a "life" or "life form" biologically. In very simple terms a fertilized egg is it's own self contained HUMAN life. That it doesn't look human does not make it an insect. The fact that it's brain is yet to fully develop does not equate it with a permanently brain dead human being. That the human life in-utero subsists on nutrients from the host mother does not make the human life a leech any more than it makes the host mother a Brazilian cow. What is really missing in the abortion debate is an agreement on terms even while both sides seem to have agreed on what words to use.

And the majority of all medications perscribed do have a generic equivalent. So you are still talking about a fraction of the American population without health insurance, and the smaller fraction of that that have a chronic illness that require non-generic medications. That remaining fraction of a fraction (actually a fraction of a fraction of a fraction) is not worth tearing down the system in order to try a drastic rework of the system. Which is a gratuitous assertion on your part as medications are still negotiated and purchased in bulk by numerous large and small pharmacies in the US.

We don't need that program. We have CVS, Walmart, Safeway, Rite-Aid, Giant Food, Target and many other companies that already negotiate bulk rates with Pharmacies. Walmart, for instance, sells most generic brands for $5 even without insurance, and most distribute common antibiotics for free. Edit: Also, Bank of Canada did a study of 27 top selling drugs in Canada and compared them to the same 27 drugs in the US. Guess what they found? Canadians pay on average 56% more for those perscriptions (PDF of study here). Hardly a ringing endorsement of Canadian bulk discounting. You have to love the BOC conclusion... "If we could only buy from America..."

Medicare didn't have a drug benefit before the Medicare Pt D was created with the 2003 bill. I used to be a social worker in the 1990s and assisted a lot of Seniors navigate Medicare, Medicaid and local benefits. The primary reason senior citizens bothered applying for Medicaid was because Medicare, at that time, didn't cover prescriptions. With Medicare Pt. D Seniors had the option of buying into a prescription plan. More-over, the Medicare Advantage (previously Medicare+Choice) plans run by BC/BS, Humana, Kaiser, Aetna and so on could begin offering prescription benefits to their customers when before it was prohibited. The part of the program that prohibited the Federal Government from negotiating with drug companies was specifically to keep the Federal Government from influencing the drug manufacturing business in the U.S. through spending and regulatory powers. It didn't limit Aetna, Kaiser, Walmart or any private entity from doing so, however. It's a matter of opinion, but I find it incredibly open to corruption to have the government negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies while they also have regulator and oversight power on the same companies. The thought of giant deals being done as payback, without thought to cost or quality is not a new form of corruption in the Federal government.

That is odd coming from someone that accepts 1 single day of negotiation as evidence of Democrats bipartisanship. The Medicare negotiations took place over 2000+ days. I'm not trying to be a dick, I just find your claim of Democrats bipartisanship, and evidence for it, to be absurd. Who spent more time negotiating their bills? Seriously, had the Democrats successfully ramrodded the bill through in August, or Scott Brown lost in MA they Republicans wouldn't have even gotten the 1 day. Oops, missed that whole post apparently. So you don't disagree with the need for the bill, just that you would do it a different way? And how would Medicare negotiate bulk purchases of medication when they are not a drug distributor? Or are you asking that the Federal Government open their own pharmacy?

Sure. Let's start with the composition of The 108th Congress: 48D-51R-1I in the Senate and 205D-229R-1I in the House. The Voting on the bill was as follows: House (passed 216 - 215) Democrats - Aye - 9, No - 195, NV/P- 1 Republican - Aye 207, No - 19, NV/P - 2 Independant - Aye - 0, No - 1, NV/P - 0 Senate (passed 54 - 44) Democrats - Yea - 11, Nay - 35, NV/P - 2 Republican - Yea - 42, Nay - 9, NV/P - 0 Independant - Yea - 1, Nay - 0, NV/P - 0 That's pretty close, and pretty partisan (not as partisan)... let's look at that wiki article of yours to see if we can find the similarities between the current reform bill and the Medicare bill.... First line in the wiki article: "The bill was debated and negotiated for nearly six years in Congress ....." Hmmmm... Nearly 6 years they debated that bill in congress even though they had the House and Senate majorities all 6 years and the presidency for 3. I think we're done here. You lose. Now it's time for you to answer my question: So what's your answer?

The small bill values the opinion of the individual citizen, allowing them to pick the health care coverage that fits them best.. this benefits that majority of the citizens of the country. But the bill also provides assistance to citizens that, for health reasons, have seen their options greatly diminished or vanish, and restores a level of choice to them as well. It further increases the choice and opportunity of individuals that are self employed, giving them the same opportunity as those working for businesses. I can only imagine the uproar if Congress decided to put further limitations on American's choice. Hell, we have a whole grassroots movement revolving around the governments limitations on intoxicant choice.

I don't believe any religion is "right" or "wrong", per se. My beliefs are pretty simple: I believe that there is a way of behaving and treating other people that is optimal for the health of a person's "soul", and that is the best for the health of the community as a whole. If you want me to spell that out I can, but it would neddlessly clutter my point here, I think.... Pardon me while I jump into a somewhat confusing metaphor that I like to use... Anyway, that optimal behavior is a goal for each individual... I call it a "cabin in the woods". It is a place that, when you reach it, provides spiritual warmth and sustinence. I believe that place is the same for everyone. I don't think their is only one path in the woods to reach that cabin, only that there is only one cabin at the center of many paths. As such, all religions have their own map to that cabin. I may think that my map -- the Catholic map -- is more direct than some other religions, but everyone is free to choose their own road. Also, I think this cabin is for every person (as inner peace and contentment are every person's goal). Some people believe they don't need a map.. and indeed many of those people still get their that way. Though I would guess not as many do as I have seen too many people take the wrong path in life, insist it's the right one, and end up ruining their lives in the process. To be fair, I know plenty of people who insist they have a bonifide printed map by some religion and they still stray off the path while insisting they're reading the map properly. And in the defense of everyone these maps are a pain in the ass to follow!

So you would support rescinding the Medicare prescription drug program, then? Also, I already linked to two Republican health care bills, neither of which included pay outs to pharmaceutical companies. I corrected that for you. Your account of the last year was rather myopic.

Nobody could ever know what a reconciliation bill looks like. By design it hurries measures through congress with no debate... which may be ok with a 100 page bill that can bee read in a sitting.... but this is 2,700 friggin' pages. It's not surprising though. In August we saw Democrats swearing up and down that reading the then 2,000 page beast was not really important, what was really important was voting on it before the August recess. Also, here is the kind of measures that I would like to see in a health care reform bill. As an actual bill there would be more than one page, but this plan targets the actual problem and is far more efficient in doing so: The Small Bill (pdf) See the reform proposal I linked to. I mentioned the Republican bill only as evidence of the bill actually existing as a good faith starting point for compromise. The Democrats spent the last year pretending it didn't exist and lying about the lack of a Republican bill. I didn't say I supported that bill as written. "The Small Bill" is the kind of legislation that I would support, and it has a solution for pre-existing conditions that is at least a good starting point.

That is a odd way of looking at things, Bascule. A long term bipartisan effort to craft a bill that all sides would be at least moderately happy with would have been a great start. What kind of bill would it be and what would it include? I have no idea.. but the Democrats, being the ones in power and being the ones who decide on the procedure took the idea of bipartisanship, smashed it into a million pieces and sprinkled the pieces into the congressional toilets for target practice. One day of one-sided summit talks won't bridge that gap. And to add to the insanity of the "we tried being bipartisan!" bull-hooey that Democrats are now claiming, the one day summit was.. oh... a week ago? And rather than building on even that miniscule effort, here we are talking about reconciliation and an end to discussion. That is absurd to the Nth degree. Democrats should know that anything passed by reconciliation can be recinded by reconciliation as well. It would be all too easy to get public support for rescinding it since this idiotic 2,700 page bill does nothing but tax the public for the first several years while inserting regulations into private health care that will make costs skyrocket. It won't be hard to get public support for killing such a ill-conceived bill through reconciliation when Republicans regain control of Congress -- which they will if this bill gets passed. I've never seen the Democratic party this intent on suicide, but so be it.

They never tried bipartisanship. They spent a year changing locks on doors and trying toget a vote on healthcare in August without reading the bill even while the American people opposed it, claiming the Republicans had no health care plan when they did. They have been supremely partisan for all but one day out of the last 400 days, and even that one day was "we'll let you speak for a third of the time, we will dominate the conversation, and it means nothing because we're going the reconciliation route anyway". Now they want the vote to occurr without discussing what is actually in the 2,700 page bill... just like they did back in August. The Democrast seem to suffer from light sensativity. And they only had the one day show-summit because they lost their super majority. Bipartisanship? No. The closest they ever came was plucking the low hanging fruit from the Republican side with political pay-offs.

While his previous stance of budgets and spending was troubling, the current congressional view on budgets and spending is insane.

I don't doubt that that is an interesting question. I just don't think it's a question that is pertinent to the morality of abortion. All you are doing is adding the potential for more dead, which does nothing to lessen the negative impact of abortion. I'm still a bit confused by your position, anyway... are you arguing that there is no such thing as a soul, or just no soul in a fertilized egg?

You know, I heard Bunning interviewed today and he made some good points... the best of which was that Obama reinstated pay-go and then this bill (last straw) floats into congress with absolutely no means of paying for it and he just said "enough's enough". I can certainly see his frustration in such hypocrisy.

Why not? The possibility of twins only means you are potentially ending two lives rather then definitely ending one... how does that hurt the life-at-conception argument? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, it means both of their lives started at the same point. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well you pretty much make my point there, don't you? The change from in-utero to post natal is not as drastic a change and has all the same gray areas that you have already stated. It is not as clear cut as the change from not-a-definable-life to a life. You are oversimplifying by equating a developing human with an actual single celled animal that will never be a human being in it's whole lifetime. See my dehumanization argument.

I think you are spin this one too many times. The unverse is the universe. It is perfect in that it just is. There is no higher level for the universe to attain... no ideals to be met. "Perfection" isn't relative, at leats not in terms of a simulator. Perfection is the exact duplication of the original.

But that is the whole point. There is an obvious in-concrete starting point pre-made for you to use (conception), imposing a more arbitrary starting point does not increase the fidelity of the decision and any attempt to dehumanize the subject of the abortion in order to fit an arbitrary moral structure is still incredibly disturbing to many people.

But you aren't simulating a perfect actual universe down to the behavior of individual subatomic particles. When you do that let me know.

Black liquor is a by product of the wood pulping processing and is used by many paper mills as a primary energy source. They also sell the stuff for profit now as it has been found to have a lot of promise as an alternative fuel. But yeah, Bunning is like the anti-Mr. Smith.

While you are waiting you can read "Letters to Malcom: Chiefly on Prayer", also by C.S. Lewis. But really any spiritual book by Lewis, though the two metioned here are his most widely read. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso, you can read Letters to Malcom on Google Books.