• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
President Obama calls on CNN's Jessica Yellin, the new White House reporter for the network. He congratulates her. "No pressure -- you're going to do great," he says.

Yellin asks about the debt ceiling and the administration's deadlines. Obama says they aren't deadlines, just "markers for us getting into trouble."

Then Obama launches into yet another car metaphor. He says the yellow light is flashing, but it's not red, "yet." (12:33 p.m.)

President Obama talks for a while about how the government has to live up to its obligations and "pay its bills," etc.

"Are we really going to start paying interest to the Chinese, who hold treasuries, and we’re not going to pay folks their Social Security checks?" he says. "Or we’re not going to pay veterans their disability checks?"

"August 2nd is a very important date," Obama says. "And there's no reason why we can't get this done now. ... This is not a technical problem any longer. This is a matter of Congress going ahead and biting the bullet amd making some tough decisions."

Obama says cuts in health care, taxes and other things have been "identified." He invokes his kids: "Malia and Sasha finish their homework, generally, ahead of time. Malia's 13, Sasha's 10. It is impressive."

They don't have all-nighters, Obama says. "You know, Congress can do the same thing," he says.

Then he comes down hard on Congress, saying he's "very amused" when critics say Obama should "show more leadership."

"Let me tell you something," he says. "Right after we finished dealing with the government shutdown ... I called the leaders here together. I said we've got to get this done. I put Vice President Biden in charge of a progress. ... These guys have met, worked through all the issues. ... I met with every single caucus for an hour to an hour and a half each. ... I've met with the leaders multiple times. At a certain point, they need to do their job. You know, and so this thing, which is just not on the level ... they need to do their job. ... That's why they're called leaders."

MORE! -- "They're in one week, they're out another week, then they're saying, 'Obama's gotta step in.' You need to be here. I've been here. He then cites a list of things he's taken care of -- Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan, the Greek crisis. "Let's get it done," he says.


He adds, "I think you know my feelings about that." (12:41 p.m.)


################

I thought this exchange was pretty interesting and funny for some reason.
 
Cyan said:
Hehe. Funny because this is probably true.

I can see some right wing blogger foaming at the mouth right now furiously trying to prove obama didn't literally kill 1 out of 10 of the al quaida leadership.
 

Kosmo

Banned
empty vessel said:

Not even a valid comparison. 340B (aka VA pricing) pricing is pricing including all associated discounts and rebates - the commercial pricing does not include discounts and rebates.
 

Kosmo

Banned
John Lennon was a closet Republican - this has to be some Hill and Knowlton PR BS:

John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.

Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon's death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.

In new documentary Beatles Stories, Seaman tells filmmaker Seth Swirsky Lennon wasn't the peace-loving militant fans thought he was while he was his assistant.

He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter.

"He'd met Reagan back, I think, in the 70s at some sporting event... Reagan was the guy who had ordered the National Guard, I believe, to go after the young (peace) demonstrators in Berkeley, so I think that John maybe forgot about that... He did express support for Reagan, which shocked me.

"I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who's an old-time communist... He enjoyed really provoking my uncle... Maybe he was being provocative... but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism.

"He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he'd been when he wrote Imagine. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy's naivete."
 

numble

Member
bananas said:
That's nice, but really it means nothing. This train ain't stopping until it reaches the Supreme Court.
Yes, but an Appeals Court ruling makes it get there faster. This is the first federal appellate court to rule on it, I think.
 

Kosmo

Banned
mckmas8808 said:
No news on it yet. Probably won't even make the evening new's quick segments. But had the ruling went the other way......

...it would have been news, since I believe it was an Obama appointee and a Clinton appointee ruling for it and a GHWB appointee ruling against it.
 
Kosmo said:
...it would have been news, since I believe it was an Obama appointee and a Clinton appointee ruling for it and a GHWB appointee ruling against it.

nope.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was 2-1 on the "individual mandate" -- the requirement that all Americans get health insurance. One of the judges voting to uphold it was Jeffrey Sutton, an appointee of George W. Bush and a former law clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia.
 
Kosmo said:
Not even a valid comparison. 340B (aka VA pricing) pricing is pricing including all associated discounts and rebates - the commercial pricing does not include discounts and rebates.
Discounts and rebates only apply to consumers. Insurance companies pick up that tab which causes your premiums to go up. That's why co-payments were developed. Insurance companies were trying to warn their customers that certain designer drugs were expensive, and you had to pay more. Now drug companies have coupons and rebates to encourage you to buy these drugs. Somethings are not as cheap as they appear.
 
Kosmo said:
Not even a valid comparison. 340B (aka VA pricing) pricing is pricing including all associated discounts and rebates - the commercial pricing does not include discounts and rebates.

So I'm confused. Are you seriously questioning whether the VA pays less for drugs than Medicare Part D? And if you are, are you seriously not interested in looking for yourself? I ask this not because I cannot easily provide you with this information but because I find it strange that somebody who professes so much concern for government spending has no apparent interest in learning something like this on his own.

It would seem your position is wholly ideological and that the empirical world is of little concern to you. I am thoroughly interested in whether you will seek the information out yourself or if you really would just wait there in ignorance about something so central to your professed concerns.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Kosmo said:
...it would have been news, since I believe it was an Obama appointee and a Clinton appointee ruling for it and a GHWB appointee ruling against it.


But when the conservative courts have made negative rulings, its seemed to make a splash in the news. Whereas the opposite doesn't seem to have the same effect.
 

eznark

Banned
NihonTiger90 said:
Well, abortion is now all but illegal in Ohio.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-abortion-ohio-heartbeat-idUSTRE75R7NC20110628

And if you're wondering if Kasich's worried about being electable after this and some of his other decisions that are a bit controversial ... he's pretty much said he only wants one term (as that's all he needs to fix the state's problems), so he doesn't really care.

If you also wondered if this is going to the Supreme Court: almost certainly. The bill's author wants exactly that (she's one of those Dominionist types, literally), and even Ohio Right to Life came out against this as being possibly hurtful to their cause.

Didn't the bill only pass the House?
 

Kosmo

Banned
Dr. Pangloss said:
Discounts and rebates only apply to consumers. Insurance companies pick up that tab which causes your premiums to go up. That's why co-payments were developed. Insurance companies were trying to warn their customers that certain designer drugs were expensive,m and you had to pay more. Now drug companies have coupons and rebates to encourage you to buy these drugs. Somethings are not as cheap as they appear.

No, rebates apply to PAYERS. The way it works in the drug world is this:

-Member pays their copay
-Pharmacy is reimbursed at negotiated rate minus member copay by the payer
-The payer (insurance company, government, etc.) is given rebate by the pharmaceutical companies
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Kosmo said:
Oh, I read that wrong. I thought it was the other way around. Well, that is news.


bam.gif


So I'm going to expect to see this on the scrolling marquees of all cable news channels today. And this warrants a CNN's BREAKING NEWS! headline too.

I'll let you guys know when that happens.
 

Cyan

Banned
Kosmo said:
John Lennon was a closet Republican - this has to be some Hill and Knowlton PR BS:
Could be. Dude sometimes oscillated between ideologies. He went Born Again for a while and corresponded with Oral Roberts and whatnot.
 

Kosmo

Banned
empty vessel said:
So I'm confused. Are you seriously questioning whether the VA pays less for drugs than Medicare Part D? And if you are, are you seriously not interested in looking for yourself? I ask this not because I cannot easily provide you with this information but because I find it strange that somebody who professes so much concern for government spending has no apparent interest in learning something like this on his own.

It would seem your position is wholly ideological and that the empirical world is of little concern to you. I am thoroughly interested in whether you will seek the information out yourself or if you really would just wait there in ignorance about something so central to your professed concerns.

Yes, the VA pays less for its drugs - but they don't pay THAT much less as represented in your chart. Unless you work for a commercial insurer, ACTUAL prices for drugs that are rebated is simply not available, where as 340B pricing is and is guaranteed to be less than "best pharma pricing". To compare them in a chart as somehow being on equal footing is comparing apples to oranges.

Read Section 603: http://www.hrsa.gov/opa/pl102585.htm

I can tell you there is a lot of wiggle room in there on pricing and that actual prices paid by the VA are no where near 40% less than commercial payers.
 

Kosmo

Banned
mckmas8808 said:
So I'm going to expect to see this on the scrolling marquees of all cable news channels today. And this warrants a CNN's BREAKING NEWS! headline too.

I'll let you guys know when that happens.

Fox has it! No joke: "WH Catches a Break as Court Backs ObamaCare"
 
Kosmo said:
I can tell you there is a lot of wiggle room in there on pricing and that actual prices paid by the VA are no where near 40% less than commercial payers.

That's not what this economist found.

I'm curious why you claim to be for reduced government spending when, empirically, you aren't. I realize that you can form your mouth and tongue in various shapes and emit sounds (or type words) that construct a sentence that would lead a person to believe that you support efficiency in government, but your actual actions and beliefs do not. And any rational person looks at the latter, not the shapes you can make with your mouth.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Kosmo said:
Fox has it! No joke: "WH Catches a Break as Court Backs ObamaCare"

You're right. :lol at "Catches a break" though. Fair and balanced indeed. But at least they have it up.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
mckmas8808 said:
You're right. :lol at "Catches a break" though. Fair and balanced indeed. But at least they have it up.


Okay I'm quoting myself here, but CNN has sent out a "BREAKING NEWS: Appeals Court rules for Obama on health care" out to everybody with their Android/iOS app.
 

Kosmo

Banned
empty vessel said:
That's not what this economist found.

I'm curious why you claim to be for reduced government spending when, empirically, you aren't. I realize that you can form your mouth and tongue in various shapes and emit sounds (or type words) that construct a sentence that would lead a person to believe that you support efficiency in government, but your actual actions and beliefs do not. And any rational person looks at the latter, not the shapes you can make with your mouth.

Right, the article states that the VA gets lower prices, not specifically because of government negotiation, but because they have a more restrictive formulary (and 340B pricing guarantees "best price"). Apples to apples would be to compare pricing between the VA plan and a Medicare Part D plan that covers a comparable number of drugs, not a restrictive VA plan and Medicare plans that offer members carte blanche. That's like comparing medical plan pricing by comparing a very restrictive HMO plan and an open ended PPO that covers everything including lasik.

Yes, if the payer gives a drug manufacturer exclusive placement on a formulary, they will get a higher rebate, and thus lower prices, however you do sacrifice patient/physician choice. The issue is, the legislation specifically prohibits Medicare Part D plans from offering a restrictive formulary like the VA offers:

FTA you posted (thanks for doing the work):
It’s worth asking, why are Part D formularies so generous? The reason is that a minimum of two drugs in each class must be included on formularies and six classes must include “all or substantially all” drugs on the market. Because of this, providing Medicare the authority to negotiate directly with manufacturers would not lead to price reductions on its own. To achieve savings, Medicare or its participating plans would also need the ability to exclude drugs from its formulary. This ability to tighten formularies would provide the leverage to bargain for lower prices.

Now, if you want to argue the need for more open formularies and their cost/benefit, that's a different story.
 

eznark

Banned
I've been in meetings all day, did you guys talk about the sweet new Rasmussen poll? If only he was legit and the GOP could run Generic Candidate this country would be saved!
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
eznark said:
practice makes perfect
I read the Twitter bio of the developer that did his website, and uhg, yeah...

Designer, aspiring worship leader and Biblical teacher for the glory of God because of the cross of Christ.
Makes sense!
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Kosmo said:
What did Obama's developer's Twitter bio say?
If I knew who developed it, I would let you know. Probably something about Karl Marx.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
eznark said:
That was more of a "Ron Paul running again lol!!" joke. Why get research-y? c'mon man
Huh? I got your joke, I was just pointing out that the developer of his site and Ron Paul are a match made in heaven. It wasn't anything against your joke. You've misread a line somewhere.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
eznark said:
I've been in meetings all day, did you guys talk about the sweet new Rasmussen poll? If only he was legit and the GOP could run Generic Candidate this country would be saved!


lol why are they still doing generic candidate polls if we already know most the Republican possibles?
 

Averon

Member
quadriplegicjon said:
lol why are they still doing generic candidate polls if we already know most the Republican possibles?

So it's easier to have Obama re-election doom and gloom headlines.
 

eznark

Banned
This is why the Walker recall has zero shot of happening:

Cost savings from worker contributions to health care and retirement, taking effect today as part of the new collective bargaining laws, will swing the Kaukauna School District from a $400,000 budget deficit to an estimated $1.5 million surplus, the Post-Crescent in Appleton reports. The district tells the Post-Crescent that it plans to hire teachers and reduce class size.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/124727554.html
 
Kosmo said:
Right, the article states that the VA gets lower prices, not specifically because of government negotiation, but because they have a more restrictive formulary (and 340B pricing guarantees "best price")

No, it is specifically because of government negotiation:

Plans able to restrict drugs from their formularies have the clout to say “no” to high prices. This is one, but not the only, reason the VA can purchase drugs at prices 40% below those paid by Medicare Part D plans.​

In other words, the ability to restrict drugs matters, but it is not what makes drugs 40% cheaper.

Kosmo said:
Apples to apples would be to compare pricing between the VA plan and a Medicare Part D plan that covers a comparable number of drugs, not a restrictive VA plan and Medicare plans that offer members carte blanche. That's like comparing medical plan pricing by comparing a very restrictive HMO plan and an open ended PPO that covers everything including lasik.

No, it's not like that. And, in fact, that's exactly what the authors controlled for. They still find a significant difference after "monetizing" the "loss of choice," which is dubious at best and for reasons pointed out in the comments (and not disputed by the author):

This is an interesting economic analysis but it ignores the therapeutic value of the formulary. There is a reason the VA excludes so many drugs from their formulary and it is because these drugs are ineffective or overpriced and can be replaced with cheaper drugs which have the same or better beneficial effect for the patient.

Therefore, the statement that “there is a loss of value of $405 to patients” is only true in the sense that patients can’t buy overpriced and/or ineffective drugs. There is no loss of therapeutic value. If you take into account the fact that patients can be as healthy using the restricted formulary then there is no loss and no need to compensate them for the loss.​

To which the author replied:

You bring an additional consideration, which is valid. I do not think we ignore it. Read the conclusion of the paper. However, the paper is economics. We are economists. You or someone equally qualified should write a paper on the point you have made.​

This comment also made the same point well:

The important point missed by Frakt et al. in their assessment of value of the more liberal Medicare formulary compared with the VA formulary is efficacy.

Drugs are not like iPads and iPhones. The value of having access to drugs is not so you can buy more expensive drugs and show them off to your friends. The point is to get and stay well. Spending for more expensive drugs is worthless if they do not perform significantly better than competing less expensive drugs.

There are piles of scientific studies showing that VA patients, with their drug access limited to the VA formulary, do not do the same as patients in conventional US health care systems. They do better. Choosing a drug based on characteristics other than efficacy is inappropriate, no matter how heavily the drug is advertised on TV or how heavily it is promoted to doctors, or how much it costs. There are many very expensive drugs that are less useful than much cheaper drugs, and the VA contructs its low priced formulary by relying as much as possible on those drugs, then on buying power and negotiation to obtain discounts on drugs that are more expensive but necessary.

The poster child for this is management of high blood pressure. Scientific research has shown that high blood pressure is most effectively and most safely managed by individual drugs or mixes of drugs that are generic and very very cheap. Costs of from $15 to $125 a year per patient are typical, depending on the mix of drugs needed. There are much more expensive drugs available, but studies show that they are both less effective and less safe. However, many of these drugs are available through Medicare and private insurance formularies and continue to be prescribed by the large fraction of doctors who either do not keep up on scientific literature or who get their information from drug company ads and representatives. This costs tens of billions of dollars each year.

We are fast reaching a point where we can no longer accept this kind of foolishness, and economic articles that ignore the issue of efficacy in discussing the value of health care management only add to the problem.​

I do find it ironic that you are using Part D's own self-imposed restrictions in defense of its would-be lower negotiating power compared to the VA. This is only a concession in my favor, because you are conceding additional flaws in Part D: namely, that it requires the government to spend money covering ineffective and overpriced drugs. You should remember that you are supposed to be defending it. Which brings me to my next question. Do you ever stop and wonder why you are defending Medicare Part D? It's indefensible corporate subsidy, and no self-respecting conservative or progressive would defend it.
 

dave is ok

aztek is ok
empty vessel said:
I do find it ironic that you are using Part D's own self-imposed restrictions in defense of its would-be lower negotiating power compared to the VA. This is only a concession in my favor, because you are conceding additional flaws in Part D: namely, that it requires the government to spend money covering ineffective and overpriced drugs. You should remember that you are supposed to be defending it. Which brings me to my next question. Do you ever stop and wonder why you are defending Medicare Part D? It's indefensible corporate subsidy, and no self-respecting conservative or progressive would defend it.
Kosmowned
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
eznark said:
This is why the Walker recall has zero shot of happening:



http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/124727554.html


Weren't those things the unions had agreed to? I thought the issue was stripping them of collective bargaining powers... and unless I am mistaken, the collective bargaining laws and the budgetary issues were separated into two different bills... so isn't this: "taking effect today as part of the new collective bargaining laws," somewhat misleading as well.
 

thekad

Banned
eznark said:
This is why the Walker recall has zero shot of happening:



http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/124727554.html


Quick, obscure the central issue!

This been posted yet?

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has reportedly been eyeing the race for the Republican presidential nomination -- but Texas isn't eyeing him for president, according to new survey from Public Policy Polling (D).

Indeed, the poll shows Perry trailing President Obama in heavily Republican Texas, which last voted Democratic for president in 1976, when Jimmy Carter was the South's favorite son. Obama leads 47%-45%, even though Obama's net approval rating is underwater at 42%-55%. Of course, this could potentially change if Perry actually became the nominee in a real election, but it's not a good starting point.

The poll found Perry's approval rating at only 43%, with 52% disapproval. In addition, the poll asked simply: "Do you think Rick Perry should run for president next year, or not?" The result was only 33% saying he should run, to 59% saying he should not.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/poll-perry-trails-obama-in-texas.php?ref=fpa

Imagine if Obama won Texas :lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom