|
The Kingfish posted:We radical leftists are unhinged! We'd even throw the election to Donald Trump if you piss us off, so you had better be real loving careful to toe the line. Jokes aside it's better than just staying the course as that's literally what brought the Trump.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
I, for one, find it pretty great that trolls have ruined p much every thread in D&D with pedanticism for like months now. Cool dialogs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rfQjRMKkOE Jimmy Dore's a complete moron, though. JeffersonClay posted:*Points menacingly towards Hillary's back-stabbed corpse Nobody backstabbed Clinton. She pulled grenade pin then threw herself on it, shouting "I DIDN'T MAKE ANY MISTAKES EVERRRR!" JeffersonClay posted:I suspect many poor people would not support paying more for goods to have nebulous effects on 3rd world working conditions, but I appreciate you engaging with the tradeoff honestly. I'm not suggesting drug companies would stop selling to Europe or Canada, I'm suggesting they'd only supply enough for domestic consumption in those countries, because any drugs reimported to the US would represent lost profits. From a policy standpoint this may all be true, but do you understand why it's terrible politics to say this, instead of, you know, empathizing with your constituents? Majorian fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Tom Clancy is Dead posted:First off, explain to me in what world a market drops 20-40% of it's price for access to a market 5% of it's size. http://www.imshealth.com/files/imshealth/Global/North%20America/Canada/Home%20Page%20Content/Pharma%20Trends/Top10WorldwideSales_EN_14.pdf It won't ever happen, and wishing it would really hard because you don't like where we are at now won't change that. Peak 2016 Democratic party mentality. The 13 Dem senators who voted against it are exactly who you would guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
What? No. That is not at all what I said. Reimportation would not be a shock to any part of our economy. The effect, if there is one, would be barely noticeable. It could potentially gently caress up Canada, but it can't do much to us. We should absolutely shock the pharma industry. It's either single payer or nationally regulated drug prices, if you want something that has an actual real effect. I'm really surprised that I'm getting "oh, you're not left enough" for saying a market mechanism doesn't work we need a regulatory one, but, uhhhh, there you go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
May I just remind everybody that the Sanders amendment was purely symbolic? I.e.: it only urged the federal government to allow reimportation of drugs into the U.S. So there's really no excuse for Booker and the other Dems voting it down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:May I just remind everybody that the Sanders amendment was purely symbolic? I.e.: it only urged the federal government to allow reimportation of drugs into the U.S. jezebel has responses from Casey and Booker's office on the matter. quote:Saw your story and just wanted to follow up to clarify some of the record. Senator Casey’s record is clear: he is a supporter of importation of drugs from Canada since 2007. Last night, Senator Casey supported an amendment by Senator Wyden that would have allowed the importation of drugs from Canada. On a separate amendment, Senator Casey had some concerns about drug safety provisions that couldn’t be resolved in the 10 minutes between the votes. Senator Casey will continue to fight for the safe importation of drugs from Canada. Sen. Booker provided Jezebel with the following statement: posted:I support the importation of prescription drugs as a key part of a strategy to help control the skyrocketing cost of medications. Any plan to allow the importation of prescription medications should also include consumer protections that ensure foreign drugs meet American safety standards. I opposed an amendment put forward last night that didn’t meet this test. The rising cost of medications is a life-and-death issue for millions of Americans, which is why I also voted for amendments last night that bring drug prices down and protect Medicare’s prescription drug benefit. I’m committed to finding solutions that allow for prescription drug importation with adequate safety standards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
Yeah, the Intercept has a pretty solid response to that, though:quote:The safety excuse has long been a refuge for policymakers who don’t want to assist Americans struggling with prescription drug costs. Bills to legalize importation passed in 2000 and 2007, but expired after the Clinton and Bush administrations refused to certify that it would be safe. The Obama administration also cited safety concerns when opposing an importation measure in the Affordable Care Act.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
So is the current clinical trial period necessary?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Easy Salmon Recipe posted:It always boggles my mind when people support political beliefs that vilify them. Just after the 2008 election, I met a Palestinian man who had several plaques proudly displayed in his office, all of which had been granted since 9/11, thanking him for his generous donations to the Republican party. Like...the people who had used that money to use him and his family as a boogeyman to keep a manchild and his corporate handlers in power. maybe it's cuz he's a christian palestanian plus the Jews all vote democrat
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
cheese posted:Unless of course you are JeffersonClay and think Drugs aren't special goods Poor people don't spend a lot of money on luxuries. Pretty much everything they buy, they buy because they need to. If a poor person buys or rents an automobile, it's almost certainly because they absolutely need one to get to work to feed their family. If they buy clothes, it's to avoid freezing to death. If they buy a cell phone, or office supplies, it's because they actually need those things for work or school or life because poor people don't have money to waste on poo poo they don't need. All those goods are necessities. If there's a poor person who needs medication to be able to work, and who needs a car to be able to get to work, she is equally screwed by protectionism that increases the price of cars and protectionism that increases the price of medication.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Poor people don't spend a lot of money on luxuries. Pretty much everything they buy, they buy because they need to. If a poor person buys or rents an automobile, it's almost certainly because they absolutely need one to get to work to feed their family. If they buy clothes, it's to avoid freezing to death. If they buy a cell phone, or office supplies, it's because they actually need those things for work or school or life because poor people don't have money to waste on poo poo they don't need. All those goods are necessities. If there's a poor person who needs medication to be able to work, and who needs a car to be able to get to work, she is equally screwed by protectionism that increases the price of cars and protectionism that increases the price of medication.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 10:28
|
|
|
Comparative advantage: the term people like JeffersonClay use for countries with no worker protections or civil rights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
Is it normal to have this amount of hearings on Cabinet nominees prior to the actual inauguration?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Is it normal to have this amount of hearings on Cabinet nominees prior to the actual inauguration? Maybe, I don't know. If it's a change then you can see why - the drat secretary of state won't or can't acquit himself as anything other than a russophile, the president is a pissguzzler, his Treasury secretary is a greed elf with a name that rolls off the tongue like barf, the secdef is claiming he'd straight up do a 180 against his CiC, and the HUD secretary is a strange sleepy man with wild ideas about pyramids and belt buckles, and the AG is like a motion-activated lawn gnome who shouts racial slurs and Confederate slogans at passers-by.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Maybe, I don't know. If it's a change then you can see why - the drat secretary of state won't or can't acquit himself as anything other than a russophile, the president is a pissguzzler, his Treasury secretary is a greed elf with a name that rolls off the tongue like barf, the secdef is claiming he'd straight up do a 180 against his CiC, and the HUD secretary is a strange sleepy man with wild ideas about pyramids and belt buckles, and the AG is like a motion-activated lawn gnome who shouts racial slurs and Confederate slogans at passers-by. I giggled until the Sessions description then I straight up lost it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:you know who else is screwed? the sweatshop laborer overseas and the American who can't find a job Great so under protectionism the overseas worker is dumped back onto a subsistence wage level farm work while the American's job gets taken by a robot anyway
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Comparative advantage: the term people like JeffersonClay use for countries with no worker protections or civil rights. He makes a pretty good point that raising the price of goods is basically the equivalent of a flat tax on everybody: there's nothing progressive about it
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Typo posted:So is the current clinical trial period necessary? It's for "safety" in the same way corporate dems oppose drug reimportation for "safety". There obviously needs to be some level of validation (duh) but the current process is too onerous. The current process encourages market centralization (only the big dogs can afford to bring a drug to market), discourages long term improvement of treatments (it's safer to slightly modify a drug that you know works and release it as a new drug to keep premium pricing as opposed to actually developing new drugs) and, in many cases, denies life saving treatments because of how long it takes. A lot of the bloat associated with GLP-practices and clinical studies in general could be eased through looser regulation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Typo posted:He makes a pretty good point that raising the price of goods is basically the equivalent of a flat tax on everybody: there's nothing progressive about it If it is coupled with raising wages (and thus raised demand) the increased purchasing power could outweigh the flat tax aspect. We already see that when comparing coastal cities vs middle American cities (much less the countryside). Things like designer clothing, electronics, cars, etc. cost about the same everywhere. If I'm living in SF paying $4K/mo for a one bedroom a $250 pair of American jeans looks a lot cheaper than if I'm loving in Indianapolis paying $800/mo for a one bedroom. Especially since the same job doesn't pay nearly as much in Indianapolis as it does in SF. People on the bottom suffer under both systems but one allows for a growing middle class. Our current economic policy is leading to a bifurcation of income distribution between the "haves" and the "have nots".
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Pharmaceuticals is apparently the bizzaro market where all the neoliberal arguments are true (trade restrictions bad, regulations bad)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Maybe, I don't know. If it's a change then you can see why - the drat secretary of state won't or can't acquit himself as anything other than a russophile, the president is a pissguzzler, his Treasury secretary is a greed elf with a name that rolls off the tongue like barf, the secdef is claiming he'd straight up do a 180 against his CiC, and the HUD secretary is a strange sleepy man with wild ideas about pyramids and belt buckles, and the AG is like a motion-activated lawn gnome who shouts racial slurs and Confederate slogans at passers-by. But Clinton said "super predators" one time in the nineties so obviously things could be worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Pharmaceuticals is apparently the bizzaro market where all the neoliberal arguments are true (trade restrictions bad, regulations bad) Who knew that public funding for private profit would create perverse incentives? Truly a mystery of the age.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
What does public funding for research have to do with onerous FDA regulations for new drugs? Eliminating or expanding funding wouldn't affect the regulatory burden at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Money's got to come from somewhere since we want to run our government like a business. Taxing an already expensive but necessary product is terrible optics. So you grab your piece of the pie from the middle. That quickly spirals into a "more is more" philosophy because it creates a positive feedback loop. Same deal applies to the mismanagement of the military.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
government projects are inherently safe
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:government projects are inherently safe This but mostly unironically. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Pharmaceuticals is apparently the bizzaro market where all the neoliberal arguments are true (trade restrictions bad, regulations bad) It's almost as if...medicines needed for people to live are...some sort of special good.  Also,  at your "regulations bad" BS. Most of these drugs are made in the U.S.; that's why they're being reimported. They've already been regulated by the FDA.e: I still can't get over your "medicines are not a special good." Do you agree with the Nestle chairman who said that water is not a human right, as well? Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
80% of drugs in the US are made overseas (mostly China and India).
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:80% of drugs in the US are made overseas (mostly China and India). Yes, but these weren't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Pharmaceuticals is apparently the bizzaro market where all the neoliberal arguments are true (trade restrictions bad, regulations bad) You are a transparent shill. Nobody said that global trade doesn't make things cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Typo posted:He makes a pretty good point that raising the price of goods is basically the equivalent of a flat tax on everybody: there's nothing progressive about it
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Unlike the progressive and humane policy of sitting on your fat rear end while global capital races to the bottom and hollows out the labor market. The global labor market has gotten better for the vast majority of human beings, it did indeed poo poo on some people in the rustbelt but protectionism isn't the solution to helping them
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Typo posted:The global labor market has gotten better for the vast majority of human beings, it did indeed poo poo on some people in the rustbelt but protectionism isn't the solution to helping them Probably not, but it doesn't seem to me that the Sanders wing of the Dems is actually arguing for stringently protectionist policies. The key thing is that the Dems can't keep responding to this type of economic friction as Clintonistas like Clay have for a long time now. Just saying poo poo like "Well, the economy is better for MOST Americans," and "NAFTA has benefited more people than it has hurt," may be technically true, but they are politically tin-eared. They are ways to drive votes away from the Dems, not gain them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Probably not, but it doesn't seem to me that the Sanders wing of the Dems is actually arguing for stringently protectionist policies. The key thing is that the Dems can't keep responding to this type of economic friction as Clintonistas like Clay have for a long time now. Just saying poo poo like "Well, the economy is better for MOST Americans," and "NAFTA has benefited more people than it has hurt," may be technically true, but they are politically tin-eared. They are ways to drive votes away from the Dems, not gain them. right, clearly protectionism is ascendant, I would sacrifice some degree of trade if it means the dems gets to achieve some other left-wing economic aims. Increasing tariffs would be a worthwhile trade if for instance, the dems get the public option out an electoral coalition supporting it OTOH if Trump pushes very hard for tariffs, we would actually get a real big national debate on whether free trade is good or not that goes across party lines, the American people might actually be making an informed decision for once
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's almost as if...medicines needed for people to live are...some sort of special good. JeffersonClay posted:Poor people don't spend a lot of money on luxuries. Pretty much everything they buy, they buy because they need to. If a poor person buys or rents an automobile, it's almost certainly because they absolutely need one to get to work to feed their family. If they buy clothes, it's to avoid freezing to death. If they buy a cell phone, or office supplies, it's because they actually need those things for work or school or life because poor people don't have money to waste on poo poo they don't need. All those goods are necessities. If there's a poor person who needs medication to be able to work, and who needs a car to be able to get to work, she is equally screwed by protectionism that increases the price of cars and protectionism that increases the price of medication. quote:Also, Schlobdb is arguing that the FDA regulations for new drugs are too onerous and that's why drugs are too expensive. Majorian posted:Probably not, but it doesn't seem to me that the Sanders wing of the Dems is actually arguing for stringently protectionist policies. The key thing is that the Dems can't keep responding to this type of economic friction as Clintonistas like Clay have for a long time now. Just saying poo poo like "Well, the economy is better for MOST Americans," and "NAFTA has benefited more people than it has hurt," may be technically true, but they are politically tin-eared. They are ways to drive votes away from the Dems, not gain them. I don't think democrats should support economic policies we know will hurt people because they're politically convenient, because that's gross, and because if we win with those policies we'll be blamed when they fail to bring the promised prosperity. And there's no reason to agree with the premise--what evidence leads you to conclude free trade is a liability in elections?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Schlobdb is arguing that the FDA regulations for new drugs are too onerous and that's why drugs are too expensive. http://www.wsj.com/articles/jump-in-chinese-imports-gave-trump-election-boost-study-finds-1479849833
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:All those goods are necessities. You realize this sounds like an "All lives matter" type of response, right? Yes, all of those goods are necessities. There are particular, unique barriers with getting necessary medicines to people who badly need them in the U.S., though - chief among them, their insanely inflated costs. quote:I don't think democrats should support economic policies we know will hurt people Do we know that allowing drug reimportation will hurt more people than it will help? quote:And there's no reason to agree with the premise--what evidence leads you to conclude free trade is a liability in elections? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I'm pumped as hell to be feared by party elites the way that the GOP fears true believer conservatives. You'll have to deal with us forever now until we finally hijack the party. LMBO they won't give two shits about you guys until you start primarying them from the left, much like the Tea Party did to the GOP establishment from the right. If leftists can't even get a decently-sized caucus in Congress, then they're not actually a political force to be reckoned with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
Typo posted:http://www.wsj.com/articles/jump-in-chinese-imports-gave-trump-election-boost-study-finds-1479849833 Thank you for this, it's interesting. Majorian posted:You realize this sounds like an "All lives matter" type of response, right? Yes, all of those goods are necessities. There are particular, unique barriers with getting necessary medicines to people who badly need them in the U.S., though - chief among them, their insanely inflated costs. Lol no, I don't really see the similarity between the argument "all price increases hurt the poor" and "racism isn't real". There are no significant differences between pharmaceuticals and all the other products the poor need to survive in the context of this discussion about trade. quote:Do we know that allowing drug reimportation will hurt more people than it will help? I don't know and never claimed to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:59
|
|