I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Ahem, but Johnson is/was a joke.

2.

And FYI, there is a movement underway to start a new conservative party since Trump and his alt-right racists ruined the GOP. The most recent outrage is how Hannity and Lou Dobbs have gone off the deep end over McMullin's success in Utah. So-called conservatives using terms like Renegade Jew and Mormon Mafia churn my stomach. I have seen Trump described as truth serum for bigots. That is true. He's also like a black light that you would never want to use in the hotel room you're about to sleep in, that reveals the stains on the lurid underbelly of the GOP. Thanks to Trump, those folks are now in the open and have a voice, and a lot of conservatives want nothing to do with them in the future. Reconstituting the GOP without a substantial purge will be impossible. (I will point out that a lot of these people were traditionally Dem voters who have been drawn to Trump, lest you feel too morally superior, but good news for you, those horrible people aren't Democrats anymore.)

That pretty much means that the Dems have got a lock for the near future, I think. But as I constantly remind myself in the words of Alexander Hamilton: "If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

but good news for you, those horrible people aren't Democrats anymore.)

This isn't news. The democrats explicitly turned their back on those people (not always perfectly, see Super Predators and Sista Souljah) while the GOP actively courted them.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Ahem, but Johnson is/was a joke.

Fair enough, I am one of a few people here receptive to the third-party arguments. But is appears that everyone agrees that Johnson is just silly. And if the best the Libertarian party can do is nominate an amiable goofball who is singularly uninformed about pretty much all world events, will voting for him really do anything at all to influence the major parties to adopt libertarian philosophies? Because I think the major parties are more likely to write off any votes he gets as meaningless protest votes that were as likely to go to Bozo McFrownie of the Clown Car Party as to Johnson, and not a reflection of the political leanings of the voters.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

In the first place, new drugs and devices are priced out of the reach of most Americans. I don't care about a new diabetes drug if the price (with Part D) is $475/mo. If I can't afford it, and most Americans can't afford it, it's just part of the oligarchy machine.

There are some things our health systems does extraordinarily well and other things it doesn't do so well. We're incredible at expensive drugs with big markets. We're very good at generics that bring the price of expensive drugs with big markets down after the patent period. We're also pretty good at orphan drugs that get funded with heavy tax incentives.

There are all kinds of reasons for this, and there are many ways to improve the stuff we're bad at, but none are magic wands.

An example: The Chinese are developing a massive healthcare system to treat a population that has environmental stresses well beyond what we have (but a better diet nonetheless), look like they will be better at developing the cheap drugs addressing large population needs (like insulin or flu vaccines), to a great degree because they operate off a system in which all healthcare is ultimately on the same P&L, from drug development to patient care. That will never happen here, and their system is going to have some very different problems as it emerges. I think one next frontier in health care battles is going to be battles over whether or not we find a way to let in those drugs without having them routed through the big Pharmas (we're dealing with the issue on a small scale with Cuba right now; also, we generally are pretty good at using vaccines that come out of places like China or Russia, like flu vaccines, without driving the cost up, but those generally don't compete with Western products).

Improving the stuff we're bad at without killing the stuff we're good at requires wonks. Serious wonks. The biggest danger is that we'll have a bunch of ideological assholes trying to run the policy, whether those assholes are right wingers who just want to kill Obamacare or a bunch of single-payor ideologues who think negotiating down the cost of drugs will actually have a systematic impact rather than being a little patch in a few limited areas.

And that's my healthcare rant for the day.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

2.

And FYI, there is a movement underway to start a new conservative party since Trump and his alt-right racists ruined the GOP. The most recent outrage is how Hannity and Lou Dobbs have gone off the deep end over McMullin's success in Utah. So-called conservatives using terms like Renegade Jew and Mormon Mafia churn my stomach. I have seen Trump described as truth serum for bigots. That is true. He's also like a black light that you would never want to use in the hotel room you're about to sleep in, that reveals the stains on the lurid underbelly of the GOP. Thanks to Trump, those folks are now in the open and have a voice, and a lot of conservatives want nothing to do with them in the future. Reconstituting the GOP without a substantial purge will be impossible. (I will point out that a lot of these people were traditionally Dem voters who have been drawn to Trump, lest you feel too morally superior, but good news for you, those horrible people aren't Democrats anymore.)

That pretty much means that the Dems have got a lock for the near future, I think. But as I constantly remind myself in the words of Alexander Hamilton: "If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures."

I think there is actually a pretty good argument for a vote for McMullin. Stein and Johnson are just dumb jokes. And you've got to admire the Mormon conservatives in general this election cycle.

The Dems don't have a lock as long as Republicans continue to control as many state legislatures as they due. Dems can't take the house without something like a +6 vote because of gerrymandering. And I suspect the bigots and non-bigots on the right will make peace enough to win some Senate seats in two years.

But we need a second party that is not a dumpster fire, and that has at least one or two workable policy ideas other than keeping blacks from voting and investigating the Clintons, which from what I can see have been their sole federal legislative priorities for the last twenty years.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

... But we need a second party that is not a dumpster fire, and that has at least one or two workable policy ideas other than keeping blacks from voting and investigating the Clintons, which from what I can see have been their sole federal legislative priorities for the last twenty years.

You forgot to include "tax cuts for the rich" as one of the GOP's priorities.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think there is actually a pretty good argument for a vote for McMullin. Stein and Johnson are just dumb jokes. And you've got to admire the Mormon conservatives in general this election cycle.

The Dems don't have a lock as long as Republicans continue to control as many state legislatures as they due. Dems can't take the house without something like a +6 vote because of gerrymandering. And I suspect the bigots and non-bigots on the right will make peace enough to win some Senate seats in two years.

But we need a second party that is not a dumpster fire, and that has at least one or two workable policy ideas other than keeping blacks from voting and investigating the Clintons, which from what I can see have been their sole federal legislative priorities for the last twenty years.

I have seen some polling within the GOP that is of particular interest. It generally shows a sharp generational divide within the GOP that is likened to Brexit, but in this case, it is the older Evangelicals who are supporting Trump and the young conservatives are maintaining their principles. So I am encouraged that the Millenials are doing the right thing for once.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...elical-age-gap

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

You forgot to include "tax cuts for the rich" as one of the GOP's priorities.

Thank you. True. That, the two wars and two recessions were their major accomplishment during the Bush administration, when they fully controlled the House, Senate and White House.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I have seen some polling within the GOP that is of particular interest. It generally shows a sharp generational divide within the GOP that is likened to Brexit, but in this case, it is the older Evangelicals who are supporting Trump and the young conservatives are maintaining their principles. So I am encouraged that the Millenials are doing the right thing for once.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...elical-age-gap

I wish McMullin & Co. (you too?) well with their project.

Massachusetts has republicans I disagree with but don't think are out and out shits. Hell, Romneycare eliminated lifetime caps on health insurance for us before Obamacare did it for most of the rest of you. I hope a few emerge in other parts of the country.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

before Obamacare

I want to start a poll to see who is the last to claim this was not a total fucking crash. I call Ty!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

An example: The Chinese ..... (but a better diet nonetheless),

Maybe now, but as the move to cities increases, exactly the same as us.

look like they will be better at developing the cheap drugs addressing large population needs (like insulin or flu vaccines), to a great degree because they operate off a system in which all healthcare is ultimately on the same P&L, from drug development to patient care.

Actually they operate w/o patents so they can steal what is developed elsewhere.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Fair enough, I am one of a few people here receptive to the third-party arguments. But is appears that everyone agrees that Johnson is just silly. And if the best the Libertarian party can do is nominate an amiable goofball who is singularly uninformed about pretty much all world events, will voting for him really do anything at all to influence the major parties to adopt libertarian philosophies? Because I think the major parties are more likely to write off any votes he gets as meaningless protest votes that were as likely to go to Bozo McFrownie of the Clown Car Party as to Johnson, and not a reflection of the political leanings of the voters.

I said basically this same thing when plated nominated Ty to run things here.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Massachusetts has republicans I disagree with but don't think are out and out shits.

Minnesota used to, but they're pretty much all gone. That whole Tea Party thing really did a number on republicans who wanted to do anything at all.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There are some things our health systems does extraordinarily well and other things it doesn't do so well. We're incredible at expensive drugs with big markets. We're very good at generics that bring the price of expensive drugs with big markets down after the patent period. We're also pretty good at orphan drugs that get funded with heavy tax incentives.

There are all kinds of reasons for this, and there are many ways to improve the stuff we're bad at, but none are magic wands.

An example: The Chinese are developing a massive healthcare system to treat a population that has environmental stresses well beyond what we have (but a better diet nonetheless), look like they will be better at developing the cheap drugs addressing large population needs (like insulin or flu vaccines), to a great degree because they operate off a system in which all healthcare is ultimately on the same P&L, from drug development to patient care. That will never happen here, and their system is going to have some very different problems as it emerges. I think one next frontier in health care battles is going to be battles over whether or not we find a way to let in those drugs without having them routed through the big Pharmas (we're dealing with the issue on a small scale with Cuba right now; also, we generally are pretty good at using vaccines that come out of places like China or Russia, like flu vaccines, without driving the cost up, but those generally don't compete with Western products).

Improving the stuff we're bad at without killing the stuff we're good at requires wonks. Serious wonks. The biggest danger is that we'll have a bunch of ideological assholes trying to run the policy, whether those assholes are right wingers who just want to kill Obamacare or a bunch of single-payor ideologues who think negotiating down the cost of drugs will actually have a systematic impact rather than being a little patch in a few limited areas.

And that's my healthcare rant for the day.

Talk about price going down when a drug goes generic doesn't impress me when I won't be alive in 20 years. Besides, your argument flies in the face of the fact that I pay $117 for insulin that I've been taking over 20 years myself.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There are some things our health systems does extraordinarily well and other things it doesn't do so well. We're incredible at expensive drugs with big markets. We're very good at generics that bring the price of expensive drugs with big markets down after the patent period. We're also pretty good at orphan drugs that get funded with heavy tax incentives.

There are all kinds of reasons for this, and there are many ways to improve the stuff we're bad at, but none are magic wands.

An example: The Chinese are developing a massive healthcare system to treat a population that has environmental stresses well beyond what we have (but a better diet nonetheless), look like they will be better at developing the cheap drugs addressing large population needs (like insulin or flu vaccines), to a great degree because they operate off a system in which all healthcare is ultimately on the same P&L, from drug development to patient care. That will never happen here, and their system is going to have some very different problems as it emerges. I think one next frontier in health care battles is going to be battles over whether or not we find a way to let in those drugs without having them routed through the big Pharmas (we're dealing with the issue on a small scale with Cuba right now; also, we generally are pretty good at using vaccines that come out of places like China or Russia, like flu vaccines, without driving the cost up, but those generally don't compete with Western products).

Improving the stuff we're bad at without killing the stuff we're good at requires wonks. Serious wonks. The biggest danger is that we'll have a bunch of ideological assholes trying to run the policy, whether those assholes are right wingers who just want to kill Obamacare or a bunch of single-payor ideologues who think negotiating down the cost of drugs will actually have a systematic impact rather than being a little patch in a few limited areas.

And that's my healthcare rant for the day.

We are good at end of life care because it makes money. In other countries -- and I have been there when the conversation was had between the sick person and National Health and/or various Canadian health ministries -- and it goes like this:

"Wow, your parent has cancer? Bummer. Here's some pain pills. Call us when it's . . . time."