Sarah Palin's death panel a reality

Then why did the insurance companies spend so much money in an effort to defeat it? (Because it eliminates their primary profit generator - rescission of coverage.) Why are insurance companies losing so much money now that the prohibition of rescission has kicked in?I'm not seeing the "gift". Oh, I guess you mean the mandate? Skipping over the fact that the "mandate" is nothing more than a $600 yearly tax penalty - considerably less than the actual yearly cost of individual health insurance - the mandate is the necessary flip side to elimination of rescission, otherwise there's nothing to prevent you from signing up for health insurance in the back of the ambulance. That's right; I suppose it's just coincidence that you're not giving the first black president any credit for achieving a progressive goal that has stymied 6 decades of Democratic presidents. Sure. "Pops"? I don't get it. Yup, pretty much the same thing, except they're not getting killed in Germany. Neither illegal nor immoral, in fact. No more than our invasion of Germany. Bad idea? Definitely, but Barack Obama voted against it, and has drawn down our troops in Iraq. More than Bush ever did. Absolutely wrong. The Bush policy was the surge. The Obama policy is the drawdown.You understand those are exact opposites, right? Uh, yeah, you did. You complained that we still had an embassy there. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Or - and, here's kind of a nutty third possibility - you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Wrong again, genius. You understand that Obama's Senate votes are a matter of public record, right? That you can just look them up?

quote:

---

Partnering first with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), and then with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. Lugar-Obama expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.[30][31][32] Obama and Coburn also collaborated on repeated efforts to end the abuse of no-bid contracting in the aftermath of natural disasters.[35] In August 2005, he traveled with Richard Lugar to Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan. The trip focused on strategies to control the world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction as a first defense against potential terrorist attacks.[37] Obama also introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, a bill to cap troop levels in Iraq, begin phased redeployment, and remove all combat brigades from Iraq before April 2008.[44]

---

No, he didn't. He campaigned on opposition to the Iraq War, and he's made good on that opposition by bringing most of our troops home. But he never campaigned against all wars. I've already explained how "bully pulpit" doesn't mean a platform from which to dictate the votes of senators. It's merely the power of a national microphone - he can, to some extent, direct legislative focus but he's not permitted to direct legislative outcomes. Sorry, he's not. I know you like to think of him as your Big Black Daddy but he's simply not constitutionally empowered to give you all the ponies you thought you were voting for. I don't understand the relevance of the question. I'm not asserting that the American people must vote a certain way; I'm explaining that regardless of how they vote, there are substantial structural biases in our system of government that favor Republicans and conservative outcomes. You've not addressed that point in any substantive way.

You're a class act Crash, your parents must be proud. Wow. I am speechless. Crash has gone on record to state that US troops in Germany and Iraq is the same thing. Wow. I'll let someone else address this, I have better things to do like check the tension on my floss dispenser. Masssive US presence in Iraq and Afghan will never end. Let's meet here in ten or twenty years so I can tell you "I told you so". Besides Obama's Senate votes being a matter of public record, so are my words: It was clear to a two-year-old that I am talking about SIZE, not withdrawing the embassy. You couldn't find a more relevant quote, Pops? Also, you could've referenced your quote.Obama certainly did continue to vote to fund the death for innocent civilians (Iraq and Afghan war) AFTER it was started by Bush Jr. Obama said he did it SUPPOSEDLY because he felt it was necessary to support our soldiers (I would think you would sincerely support troops by not keeping them in illegal and immoral wars to begin with). You can verify his voting record at this link, Pops:http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 (Those two contradictory statements earn you a Rrhain *blink*) I'll repeat: There's STILL 8-10 PERMANENT US military bases in Iraq that aren't going anywhere. There's STILL 50,000 US "counter-terrorist" (combat) troops in Iraq. There's another 100,000 mercenary troops employed by the US in Iraq. The US "embassy" in Iraq is the largest in the world. The Defense budget has expanded under Obama. Just exactly WHEN does Obama's opposition to the Iraq war begin? You are silly. In a sad way. This is even further off-topic than our current off-topic discussion. I'll pass.You still didn't address: And even if all my points except one were incorrect, I would still not consider Obama a liberal because OBAMA SUPPORTS extraordinary rendition and CHILD TORTURE. Four times, and yet you still can't address this Pops. What's the matter? Cognitive dissonance, mental constipation, old fashioned dishonesty?

They are, actually. It's funny, though. You know what progressives typically don't do? They don't react more strongly to the accusation of racism than to actual racism. You know, like you're doing. So it's a point you can't refute. Why would it? We have troops in dozens of countries, and like Iraq and Afghanistan - it's at the request of the governments of those nations. "Massive", of course, is your weasel word here. Right. You complained that the embassy "wasn't going anywhere." But why would we withdraw our embassy? That criticism makes no sense at all.Gosh, what could it be about this president that, uniquely, you would fault him for not doing things that aren't reasonable to do? I wonder. Then why would you have complained that it "wasn't going anywhere"? Those are the words in your post. Did you write them, or not? They're right up there in your post. Is someone else posting under your name without your permission? Please notify Percy if this is the case. You're right - Bush built it that way. Please explain what that has to do with Obama - is he supposed to go to Iraq and knock down some of the buildings himself? This is just another example of you faulting Obama for not being your Big Black Daddy who waves a hand and makes everything all better. And it's entirely obvious where your anger comes from. (Google "magic negro" if it's unclear. No, not the Rush Limbaugh song.) It's "Crashfrog", or "Crash", please. Did he, or did he not, introduce the Iraq War De-Escalation Act? Answer the question. Just as there are military bases in Germany and Japan, many decades after the end of our wars in those nations. At the request of those nations, in fact.I'm sorry that Big Black Daddy couldn't give you the complete dismantling of the American military that you so obviously wanted, but that's not anything he ever promised to do and it's not something he can do - not Constitutionally (Congress closes military bases) and not politically. There's no contradiction. Being opposed to the Iraq War isn't the same as being opposed to all wars, which isn't even a liberal position - it's the pacifist position. No, I did address this - Canadian drug reimportation isn't a liberal platform, and he certainly didn't run on it. Medicare already uses its collective buying power to purchase pharmaceuticals at lower rates. It's not in the President's authority to set drug prices for everybody else.

You mean not a Democratic Party platform. It is something that many liberals have been in support of. Russ Feingold and Mark Dayton come to mind. At one point not too long ago The Obama White House stated support for drug reimportation. The White House supports drug re-importation after killing it?. Arre you sure about this? Really sure? Because the "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act," expressly prohibited Medicare negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.If you want to show where Medicare is allowed to negotiate with drug companies I will gladly read it.Edited by Theodoric, : changed subtitle

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

And many other liberals are not in support.Again - how is it a major tenant of liberalism that we re-import drugs from Canada? Be specific. Yes, it's a function of Medicare Part D. They don't negotiate with pharmaceutical companies, they negotiate with pharmacies.Is it just that you don't know how health care works? Apparently not.

I see. YOU want ME to be courteous and respectful. While your allowed to call me a racist. Why don't you address my OPENING assertion FIRST? Did Obama or did Obama not continue to vote to fund the death for innocent civilians (Iraq and Afghan war)? Please answer MY question. Should be easy for you, I already supplied the link.Obama supports extraordinary rendition and CHILD TORTURE. That makes it FIVE times I've asserted this. And yet, no rebuttal from you. Listen to the sound of those crickets. As I understand it, according to you, it is not because I have any real, reprehensible feelings against CHILD TORTURE. Oh, no, no, no, no. To you, I am ONLY FAKING my utter repugnancy and outraged revulsion of CHILD TORTURE . . . because of Obama's skin.Lovely.Have a nice day Pops.

Oh, you're free to insult me all you like. Just try to make it clever, ok? Instead of just repeating nicknames that don't make any sense. ("Pops"? I don't get it.) I've not actually called you a racist. Funny how you've jumped to that conclusion.Guilty conscience? War spending authorization bills fund troops, they don't fund deaths. Obama's actions have been to reduce civilian casualties. You're right, you've repeatedly asserted it. "Crash" is fine.

Yea and obama is trying to scam our incompetent polititians to take a prissoner from guantanamo and "house" him in our jail. He is nothing but a hustler kidding one of the first presidents the us had that i like besides clinton.

Can you give examples of prominent liberals that do not support re-importation. I would like to know who they are.No one ever stated that it was a major tenet(not tenant) of liberalism. You seem to think liberals all have one overarching philosophy and agenda. Drug re-importation is a liberal idea. All liberals may not support it, but that does not make it any less of a liberal idea. Wrong, but firstlets look at your original assertion. False. Medicare does not purchase drugs at lower rates. The do not purchase drugs at all. The VA negoatiates and purchases drugs at lower rates and brings substantially lower drug rates to veterans than people on medicare receive.Do you know anyone on Part D? It is a cluster fuck. Insurers and Pharmacy companies manipulate and change offerings every year. They highlight loss leaders and offer good deal on some drugs and rape for other drugs.Also, you are incorrect that medicare negotiates with pharmacies. The PBM's negotiate. Do you know what a PBM is? The PBM system has been shown to not work as advertised and they are not passing on the cost reductions to consumers.Here is an example of how well this negotiating is working for people on Medicare.

quote:

---

We found that for all six sponsors we reviewed, pharmacy benefit managers (PBM) negotiated lower drug prices with pharmacies in exchange for the pharmacies being in the sponsors' networks. We also found that the pharmacy discounts for brand-name drugs were based on average wholesale prices, whereas the discounts for generic drugs were based on prices established by PBMs. Finally, we found that for five of the six sponsors, pharmacy discounts were not always passed on to beneficiaries and the Government. These results provide valuable information about how PBMs negotiate with pharmacies for lower Part D drug prices and about the pricing methods sponsors use to pay for these drugs. These results further highlight the importance of sponsors ensuring that they are receiving the pharmacy discounts they negotiated and that they are passing these discounts on to beneficiaries and the Government.

---

SourceIs it just that you don't know how health care works? Apparently not.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Besides Barack Obama? Paul Krugman, Uwe Reignhart Nancy Pelosi, Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias, and so on. Thoughtful people realize that drug reimportation is a canard; it only works, after all, if Canada agrees to sell us the drugs and they have absolutely no incentive to do so, because it will raise the price of drugs in Canada both as a function of the reduced supply and as pharmaceutical companies recapture the lost revenue by jacking prices in Canada. So, you agree with me that whether or not someone supports drug reimportation has nothing to do with whether or not they're a liberal. (John McCain was strongly in favor of drug reimportation, indicating that the notion is completely orthogonal to liberalism.) To be most accurate - individuals on Medicare receive pharmaceuticals from private pharmacies, who are then reimbursed by Medicare. If you wanted to be most accurate you would stipulate that Medicare reimburses, not purchases; that strikes me as a distinction with little practical difference.But what I said was fundamentally accurate - Medicare uses its purchasing power to negotiate lower reimbursement rates than private insurers, and that includes lower rates to pharmacies for pharmaceuticals. People want Medicare to actually buy drugs in bulk from pharmaceutical manufacturers directly, but what would be the point of that? Medicare doesn't operate pharmacies - what would it do with all those drugs? The only thing Medicare has the logistics to distribute are checks. So, your sweeping critique of the American Care Act, the bill that apparently so thoroughly disqualifies Obama from being a "liberal" is that it doesn't eliminate the obscure middleman in Medicare pharmacy reimbursement negotiations?And how is this not merely Big Black Daddy Disappointment, as I've characterized it? Obama's ACA brings affordable health insurance to millions who previously didn't have it - has already begun to do so, in fact - and your complaint is that he didn't do enough to make Lipitor a little bit cheaper?Jesus Fucking Christ. It really does drive you absolutely fucking insane that Obama turned out to be a human being and not a Magic Negro, doesn't it?

Your racist rants aside you do not understand how medicare part d works.Ok first lets look back at what you have claimed. Many liberals have supported drug re-importation and because people like Mccain coopted it does not change that it was brought forward as a way to counter the Bush government policies by liberals.
Obama did run on it.
Here is just one article.

quote:

---

All of the three major presidential candidates likely would "push through major changes in policy," such as proposals to allow reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada and expand health benefits for veterans, the Wall Street Journal reports. Democratic candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) and Republican candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) all support proposals that would allow the federal government to negotiate prices directly with pharmaceutical companies under the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

---

Source
You have been claiming that medicare negotiates with someone on the price of drugs. This has you has been shown repeatedly to be wrong.I have a lot to go over here so I hope I do not get to confused.
Next.

quote:

---

Thoughtful people realize that drug reimportation is a canard; it only works, after all, if Canada agrees to sell us the drugs and they have absolutely no incentive to do so, because it will raise the price of drugs in Canada both as a function of the reduced supply and as pharmaceutical companies recapture the lost revenue by jacking prices in Canada.

---

You are correct that a number of liberal minded people are against drug reimportation but not for the simplistic reason you espouse.Uwe Reinhardt(your examples might be more impressive if you could spell their names) is against it because as he states

quote:

---

American politicians who support importing drugs from countries with lower, government-controlled prices including the reimportation of American-made drugs originally exported to these countries effectively ask the governments of these countries to do for American politicians what the latter are either unwilling or powerless to do at home.

​

It may be a nifty political expedient; but it is camouflage for a truly bizarre form of health policy.

---

SourceI would be very interested to see what your other examples actually had to say about drug re-importation.Here is where your argument fails. First of all drug re-importation itself can not be a canard. You might want to look up the word. The idea that drug re-importation will solve our drug price problem could be a canard. The thing is no one is saying it is the solution. Everyone agrees that it is a short term stop gap measure. In a sense it would be a back door bargaining tool to get the drug companies to lower prices in the US. That you think the price of drugs is in any way controlled by supply and demand is cute. The drug companies can not jack up there prices in Canada. The Canadian government regulates the price of drugs, that is why they are cheaper in Canada. Non sequitur. Do you understand how Part D actually works? The private pharmacies are paid by the insurance company. The insurance company is then paid by medicare. In no step in this does Medicare do any negotiating on the price of drugs.I was part of one of the teams that implemented Part D for United Healthcare. As one of the execs said at that time it is a gold mine "guaranteed customers, guaranteed income and guaranteed profit". Part D is a huge give away to the insurance companies. No. Medicare has no purchasing power for drugs and does not negotiate lower reimbursement rates to the pharmacies. Medicare Part D is private insurers. Insurance companies offer Medicare approved plans. The PBM's make a proposal to get a plan approved. Medicare does not and cannot, according to law, negotiate the price of drugs.More info.

quote:

---

Some estimates say that if Medicare could negotiate a 30% drug discount for Part D beneficiaries, the government would save another $20billion a year. That likely would hurt PBM sales.

​

If the administration does decide it wants Medicare to negotiate drug prices, it would have to renege on a deal forged in June with thepharmaceutical industry.

​

In return for protection from Medicare negotiating power, the pharmaceutical trade group, PhRMA, promised the White House the industry would cut $80 billion from seniors' drug costs over the next 10 years.

​

But there could be a back door to Medicare drug-price negotiation,says Jeff Jonas, an analyst with Gabelli & Co. It's possible the newlegislation will make PBMs report to the government the deals they make with drug manufacturers.

​

If that transparency revealed unreasonable price inflation, it would give ammunition to the argument that Medicare should negotiate prices directly, Jonas says.

​

Most PBMs already show their clients the deals they make.

---

Source I never said any such thing. There are many things that disqualify him from being a liberal. His abysmal record on health care reform is just one thing. What I am arguing here is your blatant and total misrepresentation of Medicare Part D. Your racism aside my point is Barack Obama is not and has never been a liberal. Does criticism against Hillary and Nancy Pelosi make me a sexist?Listen to what I say here. The Democratic Party is not a liberal party. The leaders of the party are not Liberals. The Democratic Party and its leadership are at best a centrist party.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

That says that Obama ran on a position of HCR that included bulk purchases of drugs by Medicare, not drug importation. It says that at least one of the three candidates was in favor of drug reimportation, but it doesn't say that it was Obama, and we've already agreed that it was McCain. Via a middleman, but they do negotiate reimbursement rates, as I said. Sadly you have become confused, because once again you've allowed emotionality - your deep animus towards the President and towards me - to adversely affect your ability to read. The simplistic reason that reimportation is just arbitrage, not a real solution? That's practically verbatim from Reinhardt's article. That's what I'm saying is the canard. I never said that it was itself a canard, because that makes no sense.Why would I say things that make no sense? Again - you need to calm down, slow down, and read much more carefully. You spend a considerable amount of time and energy refuting things I don't actually say. And maybe what we need in health care reform are better solutions than "short-term stop gap measures." Solutions like we got in the ACA. Of course, that was simply a basis for you to complain that the measures are too long-term!There's just no pleasing someone like you, because it's obvious no matter what Obama does it'll be the wrong thing, because your opposition has nothing to do with his policies, but with the man himself. It's all personal for you - hence the incredible anger that suffuses each and every one of your posts. And yet they get less from Medicare than from other insurers. How is that achieved if not by negotiation? You don't say, from which basis I conclude that you don't know, because you don't know what you're talking about.And again - the bill that would allow Medicare to negotiate directly with manufacturers and establish a Medicare formulary similar to the VA system wasn't blocked by Obama - it was blocked by the senate.How did that happen if there were 60 votes for passage in the Senate? If there weren't 60 votes, what precisely was Obama supposed to do about it? Be specific. Legislation requires 60 votes in the Senate because the Senate doesn't operate by majority rule. And you're wrong, as I've proven. He's precisely as liberal as the President is allowed to be under our system of government. Again - there are systemic barriers to the progressive agenda in our system of government. You may continue to ignore that point as you've done, but it doesn't make it any less true. The proof of it is all the progressive agenda items that have passed the House and been blocked by the Senate. Then how do you explain all the liberal bills passing the House? Who's passing them? The ghost of Martin Luther King Jr.?No, House Democrats are passing them. They're being blocked by the Senate, which remains a conservative body no matter how many progressives are elected to it, because the Senate doesn't operate by majority rule.You can continue to ignore that point, but it's the reason nobody reading this thinks you know what you're talking about. You just don't seem to evince any comprehension of how our government actually works. You think the President legislates. You think the Senate operates by majority rule. The average 5th grader knows more about our government than you seem to.

Does anyone want to talk about the death panel that prefers to call itself the Republican Party?

Because of the false reasons for invading Iraq.Can you name another place where we invaded a country because of false information and lies which we still have a base in?It may be at the request of the government in Iraq, but not the people of Iraq. A group that both the US and the Iraqi government have ignored. The key word is "war."Both Afghan and Iraq were illegal (under UN international law) invasions. One was to seek out terrorist, the other was because Iraq had WMD's...which turned out to be a lie orchestrated by our government.There is a clear distinction between WW2 and the Iraq/Afghan invasions. Mainly, that one was a war and the others weren't.And to your point that Obama removed troops from Iraq...that's funny, because he increased troops in Afghanistan, 30,000 to be exact. Which tripled the amount of troops there that he inhereted from the Bush admin. When he became president there were roughly 34,000 troops, which he increased to about 72,000 in a push for a total of 100,000.So what's the point of claiming he took troops out of Iraq if he placed them in Afghanistan? The point is to bring them home, not to stick them in another hell hole that we have no business in.Now, I agree that this doesn't make him a liberal, or a conservative. But what it does make him is incompetent.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Puerto Rico. We also have a base on Cuba that you might have heard of, also directly as a result of the Spanish-American War (which we invaded as a result of false information and lies about the sinking of the USS Maine.) The war in Iraq was authorized by Iraq's violations of the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. The UN Security Council has never voted on the legality of the current war.The invasion of Afghanistan is authorized as a matter of national self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, to which the US is signatory. We were attacked by forces in that country. If the war were truly illegal why would the UN participate in it by forming the ISAF? Because they were needed there. I mean I don't entirely understand the question. Do you not understand that Iraq and Afghanistan are two different countries? Troops withdrawn from Iraq count as "withdrawn" no matter how many other troops are sent to Afghanistan. I don't see how. Can you elaborate?