I wish somebody would !
- Thread starter Stalker
- Start date
Looks like the person Taking Car of Business is Mr. Mueller, the Special Counsel. The talking heads are saying this will be a drawn out process if history is an indicator. Too bad. Be nice if it could somehow be expedited and those with a selfish agenda silenced.
I realize we need to get to the bottom of this 'tho that does not serve many on the Left (and some on the Right), regardless of the damage done to our country. This is morphing to a level of hatred, beyond politics.
What does everyone think?
I realize we need to get to the bottom of this 'tho that does not serve many on the Left (and some on the Right), regardless of the damage done to our country. This is morphing to a level of hatred, beyond politics.
What does everyone think?
It's likely a non-story, but, when you think about it, it's all the democrats have. They have lost the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and over 1,000 national, state, and local seats since Incapabama took over. No wonder they are so insane. Also, when you have a guy arrive in Washington who is going to overturn their dominance on taxes, regulations, and NAFTA and all the power that comes with those things, there is bound to be a backlash.
The sad part is that many of the people who would likely benefit from a tax cut are influenced by the media to think that this administration is bad for them. These same people would benefit from jobs being brought back home and from a stronger economy, but again, they are conditioned/coached to think otherwise. They really do believe that the elite are the Republicans. It's what happens when people can't think for themselves.
Think of all of the people in Venezuela who bought into the same BS and look where that country is now. One the verge of collapse. Look what happened once Argentina elected a pro-business leader; things are moving forward again after the disastrous leadership of socialist Christina Kirchner. Some people drove to other countries, such as Uruguay, to buy tires for their cars. And Venezuela has run out of common everyday staples such as toilet paper. Ever wonder why the media doesn't cover these liberalism/socialism failures?
We have a problem with far too little coverage in general of what's happening in other countries.
I would make a large distinction between what's happened in Venezuela and Argentina. Kirchner was more a Peronist than anything else--certainly far from Hugo Chavez.
And where do we put China and India now? You could say no countries have made more rapid economic progress in the last 20-30 years, and I don't know where to put them on a traditional left-right spectrum. And what about Germany? Angela Merkel is the head of the Christian Democrats, the traditionally more conservative party of the two post-war German parties, but many of Germany's policies would seem to be to the left of the policies of most American Democrats. In American terms she is very liberal.
Stalker and Paul--and nj too in a way--are suggesting that what was the norm in American politics has to change, and I would say the way we have thought in terms of liberals and conservatives is one thing that definitely needs to be ditched. If we think the answer is always bigger govt. or smaller govt. we'll get nowhere. That certainly applies in areas like healthcare, infrastructure, the environment, and education. Healthcare is the area I know the best. There I wish we'd pay attention to the reasons a whole host of countries in Europe--which all have a mix of private and public elements--get much better outcomes than Americans get and pay much lower portions of their GDPs. (Look also at what most pay for drugs and then ask why that's so.) Canada too gets better outcomes and on the whole I'd say it's a better system than ours, but in a couple of key areas, e.g. wait times for some areas of specialist care, it's got serious problems.
I understand why some people, e.g Paul, are attracted to libertarianism. It annoys me too that when government fails--for instance, I've praised the VA healthcare system but it annoys me that they have tried to keep it secret when some of their results have been bad--it seems incapable of admitting that it did so. It also took far too long for the Obama administration to acknowledge that some aspects of the ACA weren't working, certainly not as promised. But if we're going to do what we need to do with infrastructure--remember it was the Eisenhower administration that built most of the interstate highway system--and healthcare, and the environment, etc. the govt. is going to have to play a big role. Show me a country with a healthcare, education, or transportation system that you really admire and where the govt plays a smaller role than it does in the U.S.
Good post, as always Tulla. I hate to respond to only part of your post, but it's late. We have a few Canadians on our street here in Naples; they live here for about five months a year. Let's just say that I have heard some horror stories from them about the healthcare system. One guy had a pretty bad hernia that needed treatment and was told to come back in six months, at the earliest. Instead, he came to Naples and got treatment that was better than what he would have gotten at home, both in terms of timing and quality.
I've also been told a story about a cancer patient (relative of one of the Canadians) who decided to come to the USA because the treatment would be so much better. Admittedly, these are small samples, but they certainly are not examples of a quality healthcare system. I've heard similar stories from a close relative who grew up in Britain; the wait times can be very long and often put the patient in a worse situation due to the delay. This is not to say that our system cannot be improved, however.
Regarding Kirchner, she nationalized the YPF oil company, took over Argentina's currency reserves, kept energy prices artificially low, etc. Not exactly the creation of a pro-business environment. These are the things that Obama probably wishes he could have done, but he was at least aware enough to know that the backlash would have been too strong because we still have enough pro-business people in this country, although some/most college professors are doing their best to change that.
To your point, I never said that Chavez and Kirchner were comparable in every way (although both nationalized oil companies), but to deny that Kirchner was a socialist is questionable, at least from our vantage point. In her country, she defeated a socialist to win the election, but even Obama might be seen as a non-socialist if he were to have governed in Argentina!
I've worked (for six months on a kind of exchange) in the Canadian--I should say the Ontario--healthcare system. In some areas (e.g. cardiology and oncology) the waiting lists are no longer than they are in the U.S. In some areas (e.g. for joint replacements and cataract surgery) they are longer--at least compared to those with good insurance in the U.S. You could say that the Canadian system could use more competition, but it's also true that a type of competition (for the lowest price for the same intervention) is the problem with the U.S system. Take an example from Philly. CHOP is a world-class children's hospital with excellence in almost all areas, including cardiac surgery. You could make a case why it's good to have another children's hospital (St. Christopher's) a few miles away but it's very hard to say why there needs to be another cardiac surgery program. As is the case throughout the U.S. such programs exist because insurance providers can pay less for services offered by hospitals with lesser reputations and (usually) lower-quality services. Anyway, as I think we all know, they had to close the service at St. Christopher's because of the number of really bad outcomes, including a number of deaths, that need not have happened and you could say the cause was a kind of unhealthy competition.
The one thing I know from my time in Canada and from regular visits there--I'm 90 minutes away--is that fewer things are shared by Canadians (most of whom live near the border and many of whom travel to the U.S.) than an attachment to their healthcare system. They have generally better health--greater longevity, lower infant mortality, lower rates of disease-related disability, etc.--and they spend about 40% less of their GDP on healthcare than Americans do. Of course it's true that other things than healthcare, e.g. clean air, a good diet, not being poor, and adequate housing, have a big effect on health indicators like longevity, but it would be hard to find any indicator other than shorter wait times for some healthcare services where the U.S. does better than Canada. (And I can't give up the chance to note that the U.S. wastes a great deal of money on unnecessary tests. That's partly because doctors too often order unnecessary tests, partly for fear of lawyers, but we also have a culture where people are just too focused on bells and whistles. Lots of my patients think they need an X-ray or even a CT or MRI scan because of transient lower back pain. The vast majority don't need any imaging (and there is some risk in nearly all imaging), but it's hard to convince patients otherwise--especially when their insurance company pays. As for drugs, do you know that ads for drugs are banned from TV in Canada and in nearly all European countries? I can't see any advantage to patients of such ads.
Bottom line: I don't doubt the Canadians you've come across in Florida have had bad experiences of the healthcare system in Canada and it's true that Bernie Sanders offers too rosy a view of healthcare in Canada, but anecdotes remain the lowest level of evidence.
That's great insight, Tulla. Much appreciated. Anything so high profile is going to get a lot of attention, similar to the VA issues that we previously discussed, where sometimes only the bad stories are publicized and used politically. There are no easy answers. Your expertise here is appreciated and your all-angles view is valuable to us on the outside.
The one area where I would disagree is ads for drugs. They should be closely scrutinized, but could ideally serve to educate the consumer more, or at least be a starting point for consideration.
More importantly, how is your health? Is there any medication that you are taking?
I think asking the first black President to produce his papers and asking for his college transcripts to see if he really was smart enough was pretty hateful.
The Trump candidacy was rooted in hate. There's no way around it.
Very true but I think this goes back even further back to Clinton. Since I was born in 1970 there are times that I was not aware of or was too young to understand Nixon/Ford/Carter. Reagan was the first I can remember of being aware of politics. Back then you had Dems and Reps their attitudes differed on several issues but most of the time they agreed on many issues and people were civil. That changed during Clinton's second term the country started to divide and become a lot more polarized This continued with Bush where Dems fought him tooth and nail and then Obama which took it to another level and now Trump which has increased the tension 10 fold. So from 1980 to now our country is probably as divided as is has been since the Civil war or at least the civil rights movement and say what you want about Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama is they never acted like this guy and put as big of a wedge between Americans as Trump does
Last edited:
nj, This thread is going in all directions, and I know I'm partly to blame.
I'm OK and have been almost entirely stable for a couple of years. Fatigue is a problem so I've cut back to working three days a week. Bottom line: I'm lucky.
About drug ads on TV: I agree they can serve a useful purpose in informing the public but there are big problems. No doubt you've seen all the ads for the new oral anti-coagulants (Xarelto, Eliquis, etc.). They offer important advantages and I would want to take one of them if I were just diagnosed with atrial fibrilllation or thrombosis. But they have a big limitation that warfarin doesn't have: they are not reversible. The problem is that you will never see an ad for warfarin, which has been around a long time (which means we know a lot about its long-term safety but which also means it's long past patent-protection--and thus relatively very cheap). It would be great if there were an ad that conveyed the following message: if you've been taking warfarin for more than two years and it's working well for you, i.e you're staying within the therapeutic range, you should almost certainly stay on it. One result would be huge savings.
And all the ads for new diabetes drugs convey a very powerful message: that you can live well with diabetes--and even look good--and no longer have to worry about gaining weight as a side effect, but the fact remains that even though the new drugs are somewhat better than the older drugs, type two diabetes is still very serious and can be debilitating and even life-threatening no matter what drugs you take. By far the best thing people can do to prevent diabetes or to prevent border-line diabetes from getting worse is to improve their diets and get more exercise. There is a real danger is that the net effect of all the ads is to make people think diabetes can be easily and effectively managed by drugs.
And we have abundant evidence that the powerful visuals almost entirely obliterate what's being said about possible side-effects--with the exception of the bit about "erections lasting more than four hours," which for some reason sticks in the memories of men watching the ads for ED drugs.
Back to politics: A few months ago Trump remarked a few times about the need to reduce drug prices substantially. It prompted a big ad campaign ("Do not go gentle ...") from Pharma. Perhaps it's worked because I haven't heard anything about drug prices recently and as far as I can tell haven't been discussed in relation to the healthcare bill. It's an issue both parties should be able to address head-on. I'm not talking about nationalizing the industry, but there is no reason, for instance, Medicare should be prohibited from negotiating prices.
No problem on the direction of this thread going in different directions. It's good to have a conversation with the most sane member on this board. I hope you know that my occasional tweaks to you are almost 100% in fun within the spirit of a political debate.
And it's good to hear that you are doing well. Have you decided which Prep game you will attend this year?
Great points on the pharmaceutical business and diabetes, in particular warfarin. I had never heard of it. The "erections lasting more than four hours" line needs to be edited somehow. I'd rather have it appear in the fine print, but, as you indicate, it's done that way for a reason.
Good points on the need for prices to come down. There is no reason for Gilead's Harvoni to cost $70,000-80,000 here and $1,000 in India. Hopefully, Trump can get that done. It won't happen in year one, but maybe by year two or three.
Great job Stalker; a miracle has occurred with a calm, mature thread. Good song too!
From what I've read Trump took a meeting with Pharam execs and came out singing a different tune. Haven't heard a peep about lower drug prices since, so I'm assuming we'll still be overcharged.
You're always right, so I have no reason to doubt you!! I am kidding, of course. I suspect that drug pricing will be far down the agenda and you might actually be right in the end.
Last edited:
For anyone interested in the extremes to which pharmaceutical companies go in marketing their products this might provide some illumination, some amusement--and maybe a bit of concern: https://www.vox.com/2017/5/18/15655...isease-awareness-soap-operas-general-hospital
