Hick: This is really fun. Could the Dems screw it up any worse?

[meaningless pic]

So is Hick just another useless troll or does he think some pathetic tagged pic with no reasoning or explanation actually supports any argument at all?

Anyone ever notice that a ton of the fark independents love to just post pics alone to try and make a point? These are the type of geniuses that think bumper stickers can advance a debate.

fritton: Hick: This is really fun. Could the Dems screw it up any worse?

[meaningless pic]

So is Hick just another useless troll or does he think some pathetic tagged pic with no reasoning or explanation actually supports any argument at all?

Anyone ever notice that a ton of the fark independents love to just post pics alone to try and make a point? These are the type of geniuses that think bumper stickers can advance a debate.

dahmers love zombie: Can someone explain to me why we just couldn't say to the insurance companies, ETC etc


Cause insurance doesn't work like other industries. You pay them, and they hope you don't use the service. When you do use it, they lose money. So they only insure those that they can make a profit off of.

Insurance companies don't want to insure everyone because that would cost them money instead of increasing profits.

Essentially, the insurance companies would tell the gov't. "Um, we'll pass thanks."

fritton: Hick: This is really fun. Could the Dems screw it up any worse?

[meaningless pic]

So is Hick just another useless troll or does he think some pathetic tagged pic with no reasoning or explanation actually supports any argument at all?

Anyone ever notice that a ton of the fark independents love to just post pics alone to try and make a point? These are the type of geniuses that think bumper stickers can advance a debate.

It's an aftershock of the hardcore trolling from the election season.

Jamespoon: Darth_Lukecash: Well to be honest, had the blue dog democrats actually just toed the party line on Health Care, they could have gotten a LOT of sweet deals from the whitehouse.

A lot of them rode Obama's coattails to victory last November. They should be toeing the party line because they owe it to them.


No the rode the public's frustration with Bush and the republican party to victory last year. With no republicans in power anymore those frustrated voters are starting to realize that the democrats aren't any better.

It's actually rather funny democrats are laughing there asses off as republicans like palin and limbaugh are purging their moderates declaring them traitors.

While at the exact same time the democrats like are are making all kinds of threats their moderates proclaiming the "greatest threat since Bush" and in the end will give away their super majority next year.

Curse of the Goth Kids: fritton: Hick: This is really fun. Could the Dems screw it up any worse?

[meaningless pic]

So is Hick just another useless troll or does he think some pathetic tagged pic with no reasoning or explanation actually supports any argument at all?

Anyone ever notice that a ton of the fark independents love to just post pics alone to try and make a point? These are the type of geniuses that think bumper stickers can advance a debate.

[insane pic]


That one made me laugh... you get a pass.

skyrous: ...and in the end will give away their super majority next year.

A supermajority that can't protect one of your flagship policy initiatives from a filibuster really isn't much of a supermajority now is it?

I'd also hasten to point out that currently the Dems have room to trim a little fat whereas the GOP most certainly does not.

All that said though I do agree that some of the internal criticism over here does sound uncomfortably similar to Republicans' familiar paranoid ravings about OMG RINOS; hopefully after this contentious healthcare rhubarb is over with we can go back to not doing that.

Pharmaceutical companies aren't worried. They have millions more customers on the way, and are going to get a huge chunk of that $900 billion pie.

fritton: Curse of the Goth Kids: fritton: Hick: This is really fun. Could the Dems screw it up any worse?

[meaningless pic]

So is Hick just another useless troll or does he think some pathetic tagged pic with no reasoning or explanation actually supports any argument at all?

Anyone ever notice that a ton of the fark independents love to just post pics alone to try and make a point? These are the type of geniuses that think bumper stickers can advance a debate.

[insane pic]


That one made me laugh... you get a pass.

Harpo is unhateable. =D

blah blah blah blah democrats yada yada yada yada republicans blah blah blah blah


hey kids, THIS JUST IN:
THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM IS A CORPORATE SCAM. NEITHER PARTY REPRESENTS YOU (UNLESS YOU'RE RICH, AND EVEN THEN, YOU'D BETTER PLAY BALL WITH THE TEAM)

Now get back to work, you have debts to pay, farkers.

fritton: These are the type of geniuses that think bumper stickers can advance a debate.




¿Qué LOL?

fritton: Anyone ever notice that a ton of the fark independents love to just post pics alone to try and make a point? These are the type of geniuses that think bumper stickers can advance a debate.

FlukeBoy: blah blah blah blah democrats yada yada yada yada republicans blah blah blah blah


hey kids, THIS JUST IN:
THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM IS A CORPORATE SCAM. NEITHER PARTY REPRESENTS YOU (UNLESS YOU'RE RICH, AND EVEN THEN, YOU'D BETTER PLAY BALL WITH THE TEAM)

Now get back to work, you have debts to pay, farkers.

oh, that and Harpo does rule.

perfect pic: 4 stars. Free internets and all that.

damn, you're quick.

Hiro Nakamura: Thanks to fritton, this is now a WTF pics thread. I give you this one, from pictureisunrelated.com:

jeebus. I....it...whaaat the fark????

come on you guys, I've been drinking. go slow. take it easy.

seriously, what is going on with that guy's face?

FlukeBoy: seriously, what is going on with that guy's face?

Maybe I'm weird, but the picture of Nancy Pelosi in the article looks like she's readying her pimp hand.

ROFLMAO

edgycat strikes again!

heap, that's farking hilarious.

dahmers love zombie:
Where in here am I missing something?

Well, the idea of a "sliding-scale for premiums that ties in with employment status" sounds like it would be either bad in the same way as the current system, incredibly messy to implement, or both. That's more of a nitpick though.

Once you've given everyone catastrophic insurance, the rest of the stuff doesn't really fall under "insurance" at all. Checkups, higher quality regular care, etc. that people would then go outside the government plan to a "health insurance" company for are not things that should be insured against, because the are guaranteed to happen. A major problem with the current system is that "insurance" effectively pays for routine maintenance, and the companies milk this for all they're worth, contributing to the rise of healthcare costs that is the underlying problem.

So where's the problem, you say? It's the fact that you're still bringing in a private company to pay for the routine maintenance. You don't want people shopping around for an insurance company, you want them shopping around for actual health care. Your plan recognizes that bringing market forces to bear on the insurance companies would be good. The part you're missing is that using those same forces on the healthcare system itself would be better. The bigger issue is that costs are getting out of control. Going through a private insurance company lets people avoid facing this fact. Out of sight, out of mind. People with government-run catastrophic insurance and paying their own way for the rest are forced to deal with this (and people will deal with outrageous medical costs awful fast once it's coming out of their own pocket). Or, if you're more liberal, single-payer government systems also force the buyer to deal directly with the healthcare providers. Your hybrid system doesn't provide this measure against rising costs.

Your plan is merely trying to be better than whatever 1900 page monstrosity is going around right now. Better than that plan doesn't necessarily work at all. You also make a token gesture towards bipartisanship, which I think is dumb. You don't want people to consider the interests of both parties instead of their own party. You want them considering the interests of the citizens and neither political party

I keep hearing on Fark how Pelosi isn't very good. Very confrontational, very partisan. Alrighty. But why does Mr. Insurance Exec sound like a minion of Satan?
"We won't be able to research cures for cancer! Oh noes!" Afaik, they don't do that in the first place and aren't going to no matter how much money is thrown at them.

il be in my bunk

BuckTurgidson: Any firm that spends significant money lobbying Congress has to file a quarterly report. Monday was the deadline for the second quarter, providing a chance to peer into three critical months in the health care debate: April, May and June. That's when Congress really got down to business with health care.

In those three months, PhRMA spent just over $6 million, which breaks down to about $2 million a month.

But the reports filed by the companies that belong to PhRMA reveal that during this same period, all but a few of them were running their own lobby shops as well. The drugmaker Pfizer alone spent $5.5 million. Amgen, Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline spent about $3 million each.

Add it all up and you get this: In those three critical months, PhRMA and its member companies spent $40 million lobbying Congress. That's more than $3 million each week.

...

There's something else drug companies bought with that $40 million: people.

PhRMA alone has 29 people lobbying for it. In the graphic on this page, you can dig into the reports, and you'll find that PhRMA also hired 45 different Washington, D.C., lobbying firms to represent it in those three months of the second quarter.

Most of the drug companies that belong to PhRMA are running their own lobby shops as well, plus the biggest ones have also hired dozens of D.C. lobbying firms.

So think about it this way: There are far more people in Washington representing one party of the debate - the big drug companies - than there are members of Congress working on the health care bill.

This is not to pass judgment on the merits of PhRMA's arguments, but rather to show just how much money and lobbying it uses to back them up - and the winning streak in Congress that follows.

BuckTurgidson: So think about it this way: There are far more people in Washington representing one party of the debate - the big drug companies - than there are members of Congress working on the health care bill.

No single human being could write something this convuluted and complex.

Wow, your gonna demand they sell drugs on the cheap to your plans to the tune of for $1.4 billion per year, when their total revenue is $734 billion. Additionally those drugs they will sell at a discounted price to the plans (for those unable to afford them before only) cost next to nothing to make. It's not like they are demanding they sell MRI machines at below cost. All were really talking about is some lost potential future revenue, that would never have had the potential to exist without this bill anyway. So your still giving them an unimaginably huge windfall with this bill, just with $1.4 billion extra revenue removed. Way to stick it to them Nancy, they must be utterly terrified of you. You obviously have this medical inflation thing under control.

Huffington Post = Fox News....fair and balanced

heap: FlukeBoy: seriously, what is going on with that guy's face?

Separated at birth?

fritton: Hick: This is really fun. Could the Dems screw it up any worse?

[meaningless pic]

So is Hick just another useless troll or does he think some pathetic tagged pic with no reasoning or explanation actually supports any argument at all?

Anyone ever notice that a ton of the fark independents love to just post pics alone to try and make a point? These are the type of geniuses that think bumper stickers can advance a debate.
HOPE_^TM

Big Pharma. Nicely framed. Sounds way more evil than "companies that make the stuff that helps heal you".

That wasn't part of the deal, Blackheart! THAT WASN'T PART!

Is Subby from the Eighteenth century? Been a While since I've seen so much random Capitalization.

jjorsett: Big Pharma. Nicely framed. Sounds way more evil than "companies that make the stuff that helps heal you".

Maybe if they don't make 86 year old women like my grandmother, on Social Security, pay 6000$ for a pill to save her life (Kidney Cancer) "nicely" Give a 2000$ reduction and then give the rest of us the bill for 4000$, we'd be more forgiving.

Or if they accepted negotiations rather then fighting the right for Medicare to get the same prices every place else on earth gets. Ever wonder what that whole Canada drug importing thing was about? They buy the same drugs, they just get to negotiate prices.

Or if they didn't spend thousands more on Advertising then RnD.

Or If they didn't make a tiny change to a drug and reapply for a new patent.

Or... well you get the idea.

For those of you interested in knowing why costs have gone up in health care, and pharmaceuticals impact on rising costs, listen to this.

Link (new window)

To sum it up, the major problem is that people don't really know the true cost of their drugs.

saintstryfe: Or If they didn't make a tiny change to a drug and reapply for a new patent.

I thought finding new indications for a drug allowed them to renew the patent. For instance, the drug company funds some research that finds their antidepressant that's about to go off-patent helps people quit smoking. Helps in quitting smoking is a new indication, so they get to renew the patent.

Drug companies do do R and D, but I'd guess, oh, roughly 100% of that is focused on finding new indications for their existing under-patent drugs.

GASP! But this means that they'll have to cut back on crucial advertising for erectile dysfunction and restless leg syndrome medications! Now they'll never be able to cure self-thrusting penis.

Nancy Pelosi is history's greatest boner killer/hip shaker.

saintstryfe: jjorsett: Big Pharma. Nicely framed. Sounds way more evil than "companies that make the stuff that helps heal you".

Maybe if they don't make 86 year old women like my grandmother, on Social Security, pay 6000$ for a pill to save her life (Kidney Cancer) "nicely" Give a 2000$ reduction and then give the rest of us the bill for 4000$, we'd be more forgiving.

Or if they accepted negotiations rather then fighting the right for Medicare to get the same prices every place else on earth gets. Ever wonder what that whole Canada drug importing thing was about? They buy the same drugs, they just get to negotiate prices.

Or if they didn't spend thousands more on Advertising then RnD.

Or If they didn't make a tiny change to a drug and reapply for a new patent.

Or... well you get the idea.

Make them sell their products cheaply and you won't have any new products being developed. R&D costs for a new drug are astronomical, and the only way to pay for them is to charge US customers, because other nations aren't going to pay those prices. They'll simply let their citizens do without rather than pay high prices. You can always go for 1970s-era off-patent generics that will cost you 1970s-era prices, if that's what you want. If you want a 2009 drug that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to test and get approved, then expect to pay a price that compensates the company for that expense and risk.

Shaggy_C: BuckTurgidson: So think about it this way: There are far more people in Washington representing one party of the debate - the big drug companies - than there are members of Congress working on the health care bill.

No single human being could write something this convuluted and complex.

Ever read "The Stand"?