Jump to content

US Politics- Stay Gold, Pony Boy


Kelli Fury

Recommended Posts

On January 12, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Rippounet said:

It's sad that the polarization of politics has come to this because in actuality, liberals and conservatives are not two very different interest groups. They have opposite values and principles on a number of issues, but it doesn't change the fact that most people have the same economic interests.

It's hard for me to read this without getting riled up and I'm not even American. I just genuinely don't get it.
Why is it so important to have guns? Or rather, since the 2nd amendment itself is hardly in any kind of danger, why is it so important to fight any regulations that might have a chance of bringing the violence down? It boggles the mind. And deep down, this is just an illusion of liberty.
Seen from the outside gun culture is some kind of primitive expression of masculinity coupled with some vague political principles which the right to bear arms actually only pays lip service to. But having guns doesn't give one anything save the illusion of empowerment, which has only become so important in recent decades because most Americans have in fact lost any meaningful power, whether political or economic.
And a conservative Supreme Court? What it will do is mostly give more rights to big business. Controversial issues like abortion, gay rights or affirmative action are just a smokescreen to change the law where it really matters, i.e. for wealth to be even more all-powerful. It's probably too bad such issues aren't solved through federalism.

I guess I think this division of American society between liberals and conservatives only obscures the real issues of inequality and corruption. And it's absolutely heartbreaking to see someone saying that they care more about abstract values and principles than very real issues of corruption and conflicts of interests.

The reason so many conservatives feel the 2nd amendment is so vital is that they are terrified of their own shadows and would be consigned to a life behind locked doors w/out their gun. Basically people terrify them and the gun is a security blanket so they can leave their homes. Full grown adults still worried about bogey men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

They didn't, but is "call now and we'll double your order for free" really a viable option? 

To me?  No.  But the feeling out there was one of desperation.  Desperate people do desperate things.  Will they regret it?  Most likely but again, what will be offered up to them in four years time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, snake said:

To me?  No.  But the feeling out there was one of desperation.  Desperate people due desperate things.  Will they regret it?  Most likely but again, what will be offered up to them in four years time?

Yeah, I get that. The Dems were clearly not listening. If nothing else, perhaps this will be a wake up call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

This has support and dissent on both sides, including 12 reps who voted for it and 13 dems who voted against it (there was no stipulation that the imported drugs  would have to meet our regulations).  

I was curious about something tho.    It was my understanding that drugs in Canada are cheaper because companies know they can charge higher prices for said drugs in the us-- that they basically make up the cost when selling here.  Does anyone have insight on how that would play out?    does this tackle the symptom rather than the root cause of the expense?

We have price controls, as does almost every other industrialized nation, with the exception of the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, snake said:

We have price controls, as does almost every other industrialized nation, with the exception of the US.

Ah ok I think that's the piece I was missing.    I was unclear if the drug companies would raise prices everywhere in response, but they couldn't with the controls I assume?   Is there any catch or trade off to this measure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I get that. The Dems were clearly not listening. If nothing else, perhaps this will be a wake up call.

I think so.  After the initial shock and the desire to blame the outcome on anything but their own mistakes the Democrats will eventually take a hard look at their policies and make the necessary changes I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Ah ok I think that's the piece I was missing.    I was unclear if the drug companies would raise prices everywhere in response, but they couldn't with the controls I assume?   Is there any catch or trade off to this measure?

Well, if the companies won't lower their prices then the drug will be unavailable to the doctors or patients.

Good article from a year ago by the WSJ that covers why prices are lower in other countries.  It talks mostly about Norway but does cover how Canada sets its prices.

Quote

A federal agency called the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board sets a maximum price for new drugs, based on factors including their therapeutic benefits and the prices in seven other countries—the U.S. and six European ones. Once a drug’s maximum price is set, the maker can’t raise it faster than the national inflation rate or above the highest price in the seven other countries.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, snake said:

We have price controls, as does almost every other industrialized nation, with the exception of the US.

 

Just now, butterbumps! said:

Ah ok I think that's the piece I was missing.    I was unclear if the drug companies would raise prices everywhere in response, but they couldn't with the controls I assume?   Is there any catch or trade off to this measure?

Yeah, we don't let the government negotiate over prices. This was banned when Medicare Part D was passed.

Also, I'll mention again the Patent issue. It's really something that needs to be discussed more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mexal said:

So I'm not quite clear on how this all goes. Today the House is voting to repeal budgetary elements of the ACA right? So if that passes and with the Senate voting on Wednesday, does this mean the ACA will be repealed (or gutted) or are there still more votes that need to be done?

item two is being voted on today

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  I think Trump knows that Sex sells and is the least damaging to him legally and as such he focuses on the part that is salacious to draw attention away from the parts that are actually potentially damning.

I haven't seen Trump really focusing on this issue at all.  I'd bet he just wants it to go away.  You're reaching.

35 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This vote was actually surprisingly bipartisan: 13 Democrats voted against it and 12 Republicans voted for it resulting in a 46-52 defeat. More Republicans did vote against than for, but it was not a split along party lines. It's kind of interesting to see Bernie Sanders on the same side of a contested issue as Ted Cruz.

Booker also voted against, right?

34 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

The reason so many conservatives feel the 2nd amendment is so vital is that they are terrified of their own shadows and would be consigned to a life behind locked doors w/out their gun. Basically people terrify them and the gun is a security blanket so they can leave their homes. Full grown adults still worried about bogey men.

This is utterly nonsensical on multiple levels. Simple minded reasons for complex issues are not particularly insightful.

First, it's not just conservatives that support the second amendment.

As for the rest, it's so second grade 'you're a big scaredy cat!' that it doesn't even really merit a reasoned response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

This has support and dissent on both sides, including 12 reps who voted for it and 13 dems who voted against it (there was no stipulation that the imported drugs  would have to meet our regulations).  

I was curious about something tho.    It was my understanding that drugs in Canada are cheaper because companies know they can charge higher prices for said drugs in the us-- that they basically make up the cost when selling here.  Does anyone have insight on how that would play out?    does this tackle the symptom rather than the root cause of the expense?

as to the bolded: this rationale seems to be little more than a fig leaf to hide the otherwise naked cowing to major donors in big pharma. Fez can maybe correct me, but this vote wasn't actual binding legislation, but to simply decide if this amendment would get to be debated and moved on in the near future.

also, afaik most of these drugs in question are the same ones sold in the US, made in the same facilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2017 at 3:17 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

I said short of selling his shares, he has done about as much as he can. And we will continue to disagree over whether it is reasonable to expect him to give up his ownership of his businesses in exchange for becoming president. I think it is absolutely not reasonable. You feel it is.

 

 

Ridiculous. As if Trump is the only rich guy who has become president and had to divest. Legally he doesn't have to, hopefully that changes in the future. But as Mormont pointed out, no one forced Trump to run for president.

It's fine though. There's no doubt in my mind that he'll continue to be involved in the business. And it will give investigative reporters an opportunity to bring him down. I have to imagine there will be at least one individual in the administration with a conscience who would be willing to drop a dime on The Donald's dirty dealings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, chairman lmao said:

as to the bolded: this rationale seems to be little more than a fig leaf to hide the otherwise naked cowing to major donors in big pharma. Fez can maybe correct me, but this vote wasn't actual binding legislation, but to simply decide if this amendment would get to be debated and moved on in the near future.

also, afaik most of these drugs in question are the same ones sold in the US, made in the same facilities.

It certainly appears that way.  And that accounts for the bi-partisan nature of the opposition, since BIG PHARMA is an equal opportunity influence purchaser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Have y'all considered that focusing upon the salacious aspects of the recent report at the expense of other, more serious (but boring), concerns about Trump may be exactly what he is looking for?

Puns and silly jokes are one of ways I communicate and I realize they are not for everyone.  However as recent discussion shows, more serious discussions on here get criticized too. 

Trump is a friggin' buffoon and a few piss jokes on this forum isn't going to make anyone forget his other many issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Booker also voted against, right?

Yes, he did. The Slate article says:

Quote

So why come out against such a worthy and clearly popular endeavor? Isn’t it exactly the thing to vote for to show you care about the economic woes of Americans, not just those who are less than happy with the Affordable Care Act? Well, Jezebel’s Ellie Shechet helpfully points out, Booker and a number of the other Democratic senators who said nay are among the biggest senatorial recipients of pharmaceutical contributions between 2010 and 2016.

If you follow the Jezebel link, Booker got more money than any of the others listed there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Fallen said:

Ridiculous. As if Trump is the only rich guy who has become president and had to divest. Legally he doesn't have to, hopefully that changes in the future. But as Mormont pointed out, no one forced Trump to run for president.

It's fine though. There's no doubt in my mind that he'll continue to be involved in the business. And it will give investigative reporters an opportunity to bring him down. I have to imagine there will be at least one individual in the administration with a conscience who would be willing to drop a dime on The Donald's dirty dealings. 

It's a failure of the Republican party to allow someone to run as a nominee without a guarantee of tax disclosures, divestment plan, etc. Allowing someone to run for nomination where they may not be able to ethically take the office they seek is a huge fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

Trump is a friggin' buffoon and a few piss jokes on this forum isn't going to make anyone forget his other many issues. 

Exactly. Nothin wrong with a bit of humor once awhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...