Watchdog: McCain took nearly $70,000 from “the bad guy”
posted at 12:14 pm on January 6, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Eh. He’ll just use the Ron Paul defense: What’s wrong with taking money from someone you disagree with as long as you don’t use it to benefit them?
Still, one of Mitt’s better moments of the evening.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The two campaigns that got the most cash from those industries were those of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who received $270,000, and Barack Obama, who brought in $260,000, according to the center.
bnelson44 on January 6, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Dear Mitt:
I applaud that answer! Here’s your kiss: ❥
Love,
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Hey how did put that heart dingbat in your comment?
ronsfi on January 6, 2008 at 12:30 PM
McCain must be going for the Huckabee vote.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 6, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Indeed. Contrasting regulation to free market forces. McCain was channeling his inner Edwards there.
Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Just figured it out the other day! My Mac has a program called TextEdit. Under the Edit menu I went to Special Characters, which displays a marvelous array of Unicode dingbats. Double click one, bam it’s in your comment.
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Though the husband and I are FredHeads, I liked Mitt’s answer a lot.
He’s quite right.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Macs Rock!
What can we do to stop McVain besides not voting for him in the general?
Valiant on January 6, 2008 at 12:38 PM
☢☢☢☢ No McCain ☢☢☢☢
Valiant on January 6, 2008 at 12:41 PM
I like how Mitt has the knowledge of how government works and how the free market works. With all the complaining we have had over the years that the government should be run like a business, Mitt has the experience in both areas to make positive significant changes. AND he was successful in both too. That is very encouraging in a presidential candidate.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 12:42 PM
I’ve always been amazed at the demonization of companies that produce products we need and want. Shouldn’t they be heralded instead?
Capitalist Infidel on January 6, 2008 at 12:46 PM
The only thing I actually find disturbing about Mitt is his M.B.A from Harvard. The last president to have a Harvard M.B.A hasnt been working out so well.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 12:53 PM
The problem is Mitt’s just pandering. He doesn’t want to take the government out of it, he wants to inject it in even more. How the hell is forcing someone to pay for something they might not want keeping the government out of it?
lowandslow on January 6, 2008 at 12:55 PM
The pharmaceutical companies are a major problem with the cost of health care. They get government subsidies for R & D and then they get patents to allow a monopoly over generics for even longer.
Yes, they do produce drugs that help. But many drugs that they produce provide incentives to NOT cure anything. Why would the insulin industry want a CURE for diabetes? That would kill the goose that laid the golden egg. There is no incentive in cures, and every incentive in maintenance drugs.
A major problem is the FDA and the controls that they demand over everything. That adds to the costs of drugs, and as seen by Vioxx and others it doesn’t ‘protect’ us from bad drugs.
They need to allow generics to come out sooner, they need to restrict TV ads for PRESCRIPTION drugs (why do I need a TV ad for a drug that my doctor should tell me I need rather than me telling the doctor I need?).
The bottom line is that the pharma is a HUGE problem with the cost of health care. The pharma company basically wrote the Medicare prescription drug plan because they got GOVERNMENT money for the same prescriptions. The day it went into effect, the same drugs increased in price by more than 20% because the consumer wasn’t paying it - their prescription drug plan was.
They say that they won’t have incentive to produce more life saving drugs if they don’t make as much money. I guarantee you that the Chinese and the Indians would produce as many life-saving drugs as American companies.
Yes, there are basically 3 prongs to the problems within the health care crisis. The pharmaceutical companies are one MAJOR problem to controlling costs. But they have Washington in their pocket.
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 12:56 PM
McCain a hypocrite? The guy who fights against the “special-interests”? How can this be?
Anyway, that clip was a great moment. I’d also like to see the clip where Mitt talked about how the cost of insurance premiums have gone down in Massachusetts with his plan. That is a significant point.
That clip showed McCain as a Useful Idiot. This is a man who gets all sorts of perks as a bureaucrat that he enjoys thanks to the taxpayer’s largesse, but who has no understanding of free markets, and thinks he can make points by demonizing corporations which are essential to our way of life.
He doesn’t understand basic principles of free speech, or free markets for that matter…
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Why is my comment awaiting moderation? is it the word ‘drugs’? this is a test.
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 12:59 PM
no, how about ‘drug’.
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 1:00 PM
no, kill?
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Don’t you think his MBA helped us get tax cuts and recover from 9/11 in very quick order?
W is not perfect, but he understands how the free-market works. This is something that Rudy gets, but McCain and Huck are clueless about.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 1:01 PM
nope, no explanation.
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 1:02 PM
wow, that’s one of the best posts I’ve ever made - and it’s waiting moderation. I guess it’s the control of the FDA that doesn’t want it to be exposed. There is to be no criticism of the pharmaceutical companies.
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 1:05 PM
The Straight Talk Express? What a joke.
nomorespin on January 6, 2008 at 1:06 PM
How can that happen? Congress allows it to happen, the pharmacy companies are allowed to charge off their R&D on American consumers, the rest of the world gets a free ride. It’s called cost recovery, courtesy of the tax code and various accounting rules.
If the American consumer doesn’t pay the costs, most of which are dictated by Congress, then one of two things will happen, new drugs won’t be produced(most likely), or everyone will have to pay higher drug prices, which will then bring the UN to it’s feet that we are depriving the world of the benefits of new drugs by charging high prices.
Anyone remember what has happened to US made vaccines?
Can’t win. Why a Conservative engages in this, wait, sorry, McCain is not a Conservative.
tarpon on January 6, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Maybe it’s the word ‘ThackerAgency’
j/k
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Its not that they gave Mcbackstabber 70K, its that they should now demand it back.
Speakup on January 6, 2008 at 1:14 PM
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Probably so. I guess I’m making myself look bad by posting here. Not that I will change my opinion, but I never figure anyone reads what I say (or cares) anyway. But the other posts weren’t moderated. There is usually a software program that filters words, but I rarely use a word that is filtered. . . maybe once since I started posting here.
Anyway, I need another hobby. I think I’m going to try to get a career with the NBA somehow (not as a player but I do love basketball). BTW Chris Paul is the greatest player in the history of basketball. I hope everyone gets the opportunity to see him play. You’ll learn a lot about the game just by watching him play.
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 1:14 PM
McCain has a stunning lack of understanding abour how the Free Market economy works.
Wow, anyone dumb enough to think we could “reimport” subsidized drugs back to the US and prices will magically fall and companies will continue to invent new drugs has no business being president.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 6, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Probably a combination of kill and drugs or other words. It’s usually not one word that triggers it; but a combo.
lorien1973 on January 6, 2008 at 1:15 PM
I’ve had this happen a few times for no apparent reason. It will go away eventually.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Go Mitt!
Go !
mattshu on January 6, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Don’t even think about leaving HA. You’re family, and our family loves to squabble.:)
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 1:20 PM
McCain is as big a hypocrite as Huckabee, but nobody wants to call them on it because they are too busy hating on Mitt to put out the truth about the other candidates.
davenp35 on January 6, 2008 at 1:25 PM
I am going to channel a little Dan Aykroyd here
McCain you ignorant slut
Mojack420 on January 6, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Yes I am sure that it did. But it also brought us amnesty and a host of other problems. The problem is this, America is not a business, it’s a nation. Things that are sound practices for a business are not sound practices for a nation. It’s in a businesses best interests to keep certain costs as low as possible, one of those costs is compensation for labor. Another is benefits such as insurance and retirement.
At the individual businesses level these are sound business practices, but on the national level they are receipts for disaster. Because of his Harvard M.B.A Mitt is logically bound to make many of the same business over national interests decisions that have marked the Bush administrations greatest failure.
Outsourcing is an indisputably logical business decision, no business executive on earth can be faulted for going with outsourcing because of the unquestionable benefits it brings to the business. But on a nation policy level it is an unmitigated disaster.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM
McCain was simply playing the retard card… as in the public is too stupid to understand what’s really happening with health care and, specifically, the role of pharmaceutical companies, so I’ll make them the villains and the retards will get on my bandwagon. Mitt was the grown up who laid it out factually for anyone with a working cerebrum. Mitt is clearly the grown up in the room.
D2Boston on January 6, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Mitt was correct that the drug companies aren’t the “bad guy”, but McCain’s point that they should have to compete and negotiate. A fundamental principle of free market capitalism is competition, but when one company holds the patent on a drug they developed there is no one to compete with and no real choice to go without it.
There should still be a strong profit incentive such that the companies are motivated to develop new drugs and I’m not advocating price controls, but there are situations where a completely free market doesn’t work perfectly.
Hollowpoint on January 6, 2008 at 1:36 PM
OK, I’ll piece meal my post that’s being moderated.
I know it is a good business decision to advertise prescription drugs on TV. You can not watch TV now without seeing some prescription drug on an expensive TV ad.
If the government doesn’t allow some ads on TV, I would hope that prescription drugs would be limited. Doctors are supposed to promote drugs needed to cure a disease. Now, people see a commercial (restless leg syndrome) and they go to the doctor with a self diagnosis and a desire to get a prescription. The doctor should make the decisions, not the patient. Why are they spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising a prescription drug when they could be using that money to either spend on R&D of new drugs, or LOWER THE COST of the drug?
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Well, if Fred! drops out, I’m gonna hope for a Romney/Thompson ticket. Mitt did well last night, and became my second choice, replacing, ummm… well, nobody. But he did well, especially on health care questions.
joewm315 on January 6, 2008 at 2:03 PM
All you Mac users…your cute hearts are showing as annoying little squares to us Windows users. *sigh*
John McCain…oh how I wish I could stomach voting for you.
SouthernGent on January 6, 2008 at 2:09 PM
I believe that what Mitt is saying that is that you have
choice:
If you can afford it, you can buy health insurance and the state will do everything it can to make it easy to do that, and bring the costs down, and so forth; or you can carry on without insurance. However, what you cannot do is charge the taxpayers for your health care if the inevitable time comes when a huge expense comes up and you have refused to carry insurance.
First of all, outsourcing is a decision made by private companies so what does that have to do with Bush? Secondly, it is not the “disaster” you claim it is. Third, if not for punitive tax codes and regulations companies would not be forced to move jobs overseas in such large numbers.
I would argue that one of the reasons drug costs are so high is because the companies who develop these drugs at HUGE costs and tremendous risk, only have a very short time where they hold the patent rights before they are released to the generic drug makers.
The idea that there is no competition is ludicrous. There is no shortage of drug companies out there developing drugs and competing. Where we do have a shortage is in vaccine production, but that is largely because of the threat of lawsuits which Congress refuses to shield companies from.
What is unfair is that Canadians are being subsidized by Americans for their drug costs because Canada’s price controls forces the Drug companies to sell at an articifically deflated cost. McCain’s idea that we should just buy back those drugs from Canada is incredibly ignorant, since the profits would be so small at that point there would be no more incentive to stay in business.
Hillary wants price controls by the way…
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 2:12 PM
You just need to install the font. I see the stuff. Your browser should be able to decode unicode too. Firefox does, at least.
lorien1973 on January 6, 2008 at 2:18 PM
I disagree with you here Buy Danish. One of the problems to reducing costs is the patents. Drug companies cry crocodile tears that they would not produce drugs if they did not make enough money, but what would they do? That’s like saying oil companies wouldn’t produce oil if it was 10 dollars a barrel. It was 10 bucks in 1998 and they produced oil because that’s what they do.
Drug companies get GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES for R&D (read tax dollars). The whole crux of the stem cell debate was whether or not drug companies would get FEDERAL FUNDING for R&D of drugs they develop, then patent, then overcharge. Cut off the federal funding and I’d agree that patents would be a good idea. The patents need to go away.
Disagree here too. The FDA ensures that competition is limited. They have regulatory control over what drug gets approved and they are corrupt. They play favorites based on factors such as ‘kick backs’ that limit competition.
While I agree with this in principle, you do realize that the VA is allowed to negotiate prices with the drug companies, but it is AGAINST THE LAW for Medicare and Medicaid to do the same. The VA takes a lot of grief, but they have prescription drugs coming out the wazoo at the cost of a song compared to the rest of America. If the VA can negotiate like this, everyone else should too.
The pharmaceutical industry is a major problem in the cost of health care which will have to be addressed if a national health care program ever passes. If the cost of the pharma is addressed, the cost of health care can be cut in half. If American pharma doesn’t produce drugs, I guarantee you China and India will.
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 2:34 PM
McCain and Huck making eyes
at each other during their school girl attacks on Romney.
If I was Romney Id focus on the fact that Huck an McCain cant defend their own issues and wont let Romney defend his, and their behavior last night proves it. Huck and McCain are wahines as they looked at each other after they make their sissy remarks.
Huck and McCain showed their true selves last night. They have the class of bratty school girls.
Huck and McCain’s strategy- attack-attack-attack-deny-deny-deny, smile-smile-smile-look at each other to see if the other is laughing.
DfDeportation on January 6, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Yes,I remember that exchange,thats when McCain was getting testy,and Mitt did do well.
And I don’t have a Mac,RushBaby that’s cool!
canopfor on January 6, 2008 at 3:11 PM
This is interesting. It looks like Republicans are gaining ground on Democrats on issues, even though they still trail:
So on Taxes we have:
Republicans: 40% –> 47%
Democrats: 45% –> 38%
On Health Care we have:
Republicans: -21 –> -8
Democrats: +21 –> +8
This tells me that the more people pay attention to the details of the issues, instead of the empty rhetoric about “change” and such, the more people are turning to Republicans.
This gives me some hope that come the general election, so long as the Republicans don’t nominate Democrat-lite, the country will favor the Republican candidate once the focus is on details of policy, instead of all this empty rhetoric.
Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 3:13 PM
.
How can they operate without patents?
Great. China can’t even produce uncontaminated dog food, but if HillaryCare works as planned that may be what we are faced with.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Oops, that was for
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 3:18 PM
who was dead last in receiving money from Pharma’s….MIKE HUCKABEE…so based on Allah’s point that the cash determines the virtue, Gov. Huckabee is the most vituous of them all on this subject!
Dhornertx on January 6, 2008 at 3:30 PM
If some how McPain is the republican nominee it will be a write ballot for me.
oldernslower on January 6, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Thanks, canopfor. By the way, I enjoyed reading your comments in the mega debate thread from last night. Sharp and funny as always!
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Politico? Sorry I would not believe them if they told me my name was Doug or that the sky was blue.
Gatordoug on January 6, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Maybe, I didn’t understand what Romney was getting at, but it seemed to me that Romney was blaming the poor for wanting health care and being unable to pay for it. I’m economically conservative and agree with Romney’s defense of the pharma industry and am more than willing to say the source of almost all medical care for the poor should be charity. But blaming the poor for wanting health care? Don’t think the Democrats aren’t going to make an issue of this if Romney is the nominee.
Again, maybe I’m not understanding what he’s saying–but it’s also an issue if presidential candidates aren’t being clear.
thuja on January 6, 2008 at 4:44 PM
One of the highlights when defending his (Mitts) Government mandates:
Mitt: Do you want to know what kind of mandates I approve of?
Fred: We already know, what ever mandate you propose…
Mitt looked like Charlie Brown missing the football.
right2bright on January 6, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Read up on the plan if you really care to know. MA just took the money they were spending on very expensive emergency room visits and helped get people private insurance. That’s less government, not more. It’s a step in the right direction to back us out of a socialized medicine culture.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 4:56 PM
That is just more snarky cranky constipated old man who can’t keep the kids off the lawn attitude from Fred. He has no clue what those mandates are and was just attacking the word because of it’s seemingly negative connotation.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Rushbaby -
©☼☀∠ !
Qzsusy on January 6, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Look, I don’t dislike Mitt for any reason other than I question whether or not he’s genuine, but he has a solid family and that says a lot about a guy. I could certainly support him should he win the nomination. Having said that, read the sentence I just quoted.
They used government money to buy private health insurance. The problem here is that it doesn’t address the COST of health care and gives the insurance companies every incentive to charge MORE for insurance because the government is going to pay for it. I could give you a real world example in NC how that worked with the HCTC (Health Care Tax Credit) program through the IRS, but it would be easier to explain by using the example of the Medicare prescription drug program.
The government provided prescription drug benefits. That did not lower the cost of health care. The prescription drug companies raised their prices because the government was going to pay for it. That has nothing to do with patents, or being able to make enough money for R&D of new drugs. That’s simply the greed of the pharma and the government allowing them to do it because pharma has such a large lobby that gives Washington money.
I’m telling you I could fix the problem, but I’d make a lot of entrenched big money people mad (which none of the current candidates are willing to do). The problem is not insurance, the problem is the COST of health care. NONE of the plans that have been presented by the candidates attempt to do anything about the COST of health care - which is the fundamental problem with the health care system in America.
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Here are some articles on FDA corruption due to pharma money:
From August 1, 2007
The Food and Drug Administration voted overwhelmingly to keep the diabetes drug Avandia on the market, despite its known deadly effects. Two FDA committees met yesterday in Gaithersburg, Maryland, to consider whether the drug — which has led to the deaths of 80,000 people — should be pulled from the marketplace. The FDA does not deny that the drug is dangerous.
From April 2007 a survey:
More than four out of five Americans think drug companies have too much influence over the Food and Drug Administration, and 84 percent believe that advertisements for prescription drugs with safety concerns should be outlawed, reveals a striking new survey from Consumer Reports.
Article about ‘conflicts of interest’ in the FDA from Jan 2007:
Last year, Public Citizen, a national non-profit public interest organization, exposed that while conflicts of interest at the FDA’s drug advisory committees are common and often have serious dollars at stake, advisory committee members and voting consultants rarely step down because of them.
Sept. 2006 concerning the dangers of prescribing ADHD drugs to children while it is promoted by the FDA:
Since the Vioxx scandal broke in late 2004, most Americans are all too familiar with the idea that prescription drugs can be dangerous and even deadly. But how would America react if it were to discover that a class of drugs being primarily prescribed to children was also dangerous and sometimes deadly?
According to a May 2006 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, side effects and “problems” with widely prescribed Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) drugs send 3,100 people to the ER every year — 80 percent of them children.
There are plenty of examples of FDA corruption because of $. But I’ll stop there. I’ll provide more on request.
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 5:41 PM
I think size has something to do with moderation. If it is too large, it will be moderated. Sorry I’ll be more brief.
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Here’s a short one from May 2007. . .
The U.S. Senate passed the FDA “drug safety” bill today (S.1082) with a 93-1 vote. A key amendment that would have called for genuine drug safety protections for consumers — the Grassley amendment 1039 — was defeated by a single vote (47 to 46). The new law deepens financial ties between Big Pharma and the FDA, doubling the amount of money directly paid to the regulator by drug companies, but it fails to explicitly protect foods and nutritional supplements from overreaching FDA regulation efforts.
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 5:53 PM
There certainly are problems with the drug companies. I can’t say what the answer is, but when you’re dealing with the free market it’s harder to fix. But it is patently unfair for drug companies to cry free market when they are getting tax payer monies to help them compete. Now I have no idea what they get the subsidies for, so I cannot speak to that issue. But I think Mitt’s MA plan is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. He has stopped people from using emergency rooms as their primary care provider and given them choice. Subsequently, more people are in the free market even though the state helps them out. Hopefully, as people start to realize the benefit of providing ones own health care, I believe the push toward a true free market with no government help will be something people will support.
Little steps into socialized health care and little steps into free market care.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 6:23 PM
cs, I agree with you. I’m not really criticizing Romney’s plan here. I’m just saying that it (along with the other proposals) doesn’t address the problem, it just shifts it around. 3 areas that will cut the COST by 75% without government intervention and maintaining quality.
1. Pharma (I’m not against a company making a profit, but the FDA needs to be scrapped for a better system, and Pharma needs to be less influential in DC.
2. Insurance Companies - Insurance companies play a vital roll in negotiating prices to keep COSTS low. HOWEVER, they need to operate on a non-profit basis because they don’t actually provide anything of substance to health care. Insurance is important vehicle between patient and doctor for negotiating prices, but they HEALTH insurance companies shouldn’t make a profit. (bridge b/t public and private).
3. TORT reform. We must limit damages awarded to medical care gone wrong. By its definition, medical care is risky anyway. . . so accidents will happen. The patients should be compensated, but I don’t think they should bankrupt a hospital or doctor because of it. Reasonable restrictions on monetary awards from lawsuits need to be in place.
If you fix these three things, the health care ‘crisis’ in this country will be over. What is the problem with fixing these things? Nobody has incentive to fix them, and there is BIG BIG money with incentive to keep them from being fixed. But there’s your solution in a nutshell.
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Great reply, smart and confident.
Jaibones on January 6, 2008 at 6:36 PM
McCain is stealing John Edwards’s lines…
Jaibones on January 6, 2008 at 6:36 PM
The way you explain those issues it makes sense. But you’re right about pissing off the big boys. Health insurance companies not make a profit? That is one tough row to hoe.
Thanks for the explanations.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 6:39 PM
ni-i-ice!
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 6:42 PM
ThackerAgency - thanks. You shone today!
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Hey thanks RushBaby!:)
ThackerAgency on January 6, 2008 at 7:20 PM
For me at least the biggest problem is that our politicians are representing corporations and businesses instead of “we the people”. I listen to the candidates answer and it’s real easy to see who they’re working for. If it’s not the voter but instead some corporation which probably isn’t based here in the US anymore than they won’t get my vote. Big business Mitt is losing me quickly and although Huck is singing a populist song I remember that he was owned by Tyson foods back in Arkansas, Rudy actually sounds pretty good then I remember that he supports abortion and is a gun grabber. Still leaves me with Thompson and looking at the way FOX news is shutting him out on every answer he’ll be gone soon and I’ll write off the GOP and leave it for good.
Buzzy on January 6, 2008 at 8:57 PM
McCain and Rudiani-Kerik=media candidates
saved on January 6, 2008 at 9:44 PM
The whole drug cost thing is so yesterday!!
Hasn’t anybody noticed that the drug cost crisis has been largely solved? Walmart now offers a huge array of prescription drugs for $4: no paperwork, no discount cards, no Canadian imports, no BS!!! And the marketplace is responding to this: a local supermarket chain in our area is matching the Walmart deal with their own $4 prescriptions. And national providers are being forced to slash prices on their own formularies.
Once again, a problem government thinks is unsolvable…solved by private enterprise!!
We need more private enterprise and true competition to solve the rest of the health care problem: cost disclosure on all medical procedures and services, publication of performance reviews, and elimination of legal preferences for indirect providers (insurance companies).
Government needs to step away and let people use any drug they want as long as the consequences are accurately explained and the patient judges the risk to be acceptable. It is futile and unreasonably expensive to try to make each and every medicine “safe” for everyone: medication is always a tradeoff against something the patient believes is worse. So why saddle drug companies with a billion dollars in up-front costs for every new drug??
You want to cut health care costs by 1/3 to 1/2 overnight??
Fire everyone who sits behind a computer screen and never touches a patient!! Then pass tort reform!!! Insurance and government interference and out-of-control tort lawsuits are simply UNPRODUCTIVE OVERHEAD COSTS!!!
I wish the politicians would stop trying to make this harder than it needs to be.
landlines on January 6, 2008 at 10:24 PM
…and I forgot to mention:
“HEALTH INSURANCE” is NOT “HEALTH CARE”!!!
landlines on January 6, 2008 at 10:27 PM
I agree completely. But the problem with the Walmart solution is that the government doesn’t allow generics to come out until after the patent has expired. We have people who think that the patents need to be extended. Once generics are available, I agree, it is a no-brainer.
The FDA is trying to get involved in everything and it needs to be scrapped. The FDA is government run amuck.
You can’t say that health insurance is not health care enough. Most people think that health care means health insurance, but they are wrong.
ThackerAgency on January 7, 2008 at 12:47 AM
What was it Buckley once said about preferring to be led by the first 500 people in the Boston phonebook than by the faculty of Harvard?
(I say this as one whose first choices are Thompson & Romney and who’s applying to Harvard for my PhD…)
Tzetzes on January 7, 2008 at 12:11 PM