Quote from: topside on March 27, 2017, 10:46:44 AM
That's some interesting history and characterizations regarding factions - most of which I was not aware of. I'm not sure how to digest it yet but will look into it more.

You can look it up, it happened when Newt was Speaker of the House, and no, oddly enough it's never ever talked about.

QuoteStepping in recently and observing without seeing such history, it seems that the platforms of the Dims and Pubs are strikingly different. So even if Dims have now changed color, they still are at least under the Pubs platform.

If you compare the two, there is no mention of socialism in the dim party either.
Look at the GOP and you won't find crony capitalism either, but the party is full of it. Neither party has even remotely resembled it's platform in nearly 40 years.

QuoteWhat you are saying logically suggests why the Dims have moved even more to the left - those toward center moved out. So the hardcore Dims (that hold to their platform overtly) will keep distancing themselves from the center and right. Although as long as they keep giving things away (with strings) there will always be many who side with them - no matter how left they are. I have family like that - it's so irrational. 

Honestly, the left purged the party of the last moderates years ago. And you're right, some will always vote D
(D) regardless, not because they love th party, but rather despise the GOP, and who can blame them?

QuoteBut you identify some behind the Dim party pulling the stings. I guess you're thinking of guys like Soros? I don't see how you neutralize that. The only way is to having counterparts pulling strings for the conservative side?

Soros works both party's, don't think his money only flows to the coffers of Dims. Then again, this proves my point of leftists in both party's.
Here's just a taste from 2014, but search deeper and you'll be shocked just how bad it is.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/michelle-malkin/2014/01/13/column-beware-soros-funded-main-street-republicans

QuoteAnd the Crony Capitalists - as you say don't give a crap about the nation as long as they make money. They buy the influence that benefits them most regardless of impact to the republic. What can be done to neutralize them?

We're doing it, have been since 2010 and 2014 and will continue to well after 2018.

QuoteIt still seems that small steps should be taken - conservatives should work to at least kill off the failing democratic party proper while they are on their heals. The complexity you've identified clouds how that might happen though. Clearly the idea of working "across the isle" is a non-starter.

Yeah, we are, meaning TEA Conservatives, but the GOP loves playing victim to the nonexistent Dim party.
A victim needs a bully, so they'll do their damndest to see that it remains viable.

Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 27, 2017, 09:50:40 AM
Wow! I didn't realize that you were now the resident forum expert!!      For future reference you just might want to put your big boy pants on, lose the attitude, read a little more carefully and think a little further.     

Quote from: zewazir on March 27, 2017, 12:57:04 PM
Disagree with your assessment of where the costs of healthcare originate. Have you any idea how much money is spent getting our beloved nanny state to approve a new medication, a new treatment protocol, or even a new style of scalpel? Then there is the fact that less than one in 50 medications which even make it to stage 0 (animal) trials will make it all the way through levels I, II, and III to be marketed. An economist, Joseph DiMasi, performed a study which concluded that the total cost for getting a new medication to market averages $802 million when adding in the costs associated with the 49 failed medications that go with each success. As such, pharmaceutical companies find themselves having to come up with $802 million in revenues from each new drug marketed just to break even with the development costs!

(http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PharmaceuticalsEconomicsandRegulation.html)

New medical equipment is not quite as bad, but none the less, considering more ideas fail during clinical trials than succeed, nand figuring the costs of pushing a new idea through all the levels of development, medical equipment companies  face horrendous development costs in meeting the regulatory requirements of the government.

Then there are the costs of screwups. Malpractice insurance premiums have skyrocketed over the last couple decades, primarily due to ever increasing jury awards when things go wrong. (http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2002/12/02/story2.html)
Think about it: when a specialist's insurance rates exceed the median income of their patients, where is that money going to come from? Increased fees for office visits, increased fees for consults, increased fees for prescribing fracking Tylenol. But doctors are not the only ones facing what are becoming outrageous expenses in malpractice premiums. Drug companies are especially susceptible to huge malpractice awards because if one of their medications turns out to have a problem not caught in clinical trials, they will face enormous class action suits. We have even seen drug companies face huge class actions for side-effects, or adverse reactions to primary effects, even when those possible reactions were fully disclosed!  (Read about what is happening against the makers of Xarelto.)

Yes, with increased life spans - and the fact that many of those life spans increase through the use of medical technologies - is having an effect on health care. But the costs of those new drugs, new equipment, and new treatment protocols are all being drastically affected by the same people bringing us O-Care: The United States Government and their regulatory agencies whose primary purpose is justifying the money they spend ramming the big green pickle up our nethers.

Yes - very valid point that malpractice is a part of the equation. The providers need to be responsible for their screw-ups. But many suits are about when something doesn't go how the patient wanted it to then sues. It's rampant. I have friends that espouse conservative views all the time. But when one was treated for pancreatic cancer (hail mary surgery) but the sickness was later diagnosed as a very rare type of auto immune disease, he sued for malpractice. I didn't agree with his decision - thought he was violating the values he espoused. But many will throw a lot of values overboard when it's their life in the balance. 

Doctors aren't going to get rare diagnosis right every time. And that's just one case of an espoused conservative - it goes on and on. A lot of treatments are just trial and error - they worked before, so probably will work again - but sometimes do not. It's less science than we care to admit. But it is getting more quantitative and accurate as individual observables improve and databases are correlated with past history, clincial, and physiological results. 

There is a lot of talk about releasing drugs early. Certainly with those with no other hope than what the drug suggests might happen. But some will be dissapointed when the drug doesn't work as planned. To re-emphasize your data - 49 failures for each success. I'm not convinced that much can be recovered in the pharma area; hope I'm wrong. 

No one wants to let people go (suffer or die) when there are treatments that can help. As Ms. Indepedence mentioned, when someone is dying of cancer and fighting for their life it's even harder. But if the cost is $10M over the span of treatment, where does that money come from? And what if it's effect is to extend life for a year or two. Is it still worth it. Certainly to the loved ones. Maybe to the patient. But multiply this by millions of people. Limiting care is part of the equation when it comes to finding an "affordable" path.

It's collecting dust in committee because leadership was only concerned with what would pass easily.

Quote from: topside on March 27, 2017, 04:38:49 PM
Yes - very valid point that malpractice is a part of the equation. The providers need to be responsible for their screw-ups. But many suits are about when something doesn't go how the patient wanted it to then sues. It's rampant. I have friends that espouse conservative views all the time. But when one was treated for pancreatic cancer (hail mary surgery) but the sickness was later diagnosed as a very rare type of auto immune disease, he sued for malpractice. I didn't agree with his decision - thought he was violating the values he espoused. But many will throw a lot of values overboard when it's their life in the balance. 


Doctors aren't going to get rare diagnosis right every time. And that's just one case of an espoused conservative - it goes on and on. A lot of treatments are just trial and error - they worked before, so probably will work again - but sometimes do not. It's less science than we care to admit. But it is getting more quantitative and accurate as individual observables improve and databases are correlated with past history, clincial, and physiological results. 

From what I have read - and been involved in - a large number of malpractice suits are formed around retribution. Something bad happened, and the quest is to make them "pay." Sadly, even in those cases when there was a genuine lapse in standard of care, it is not the responsible party who pays, but rather the insurance company, whose premiums the suit settlement is paid out of is simply passed onto other patients. That is why we need torte reform. The opponents of torte reform claim it is wrong to put a price tag on life, yet that is exactly what the lawsuit does. The dead little girl who should not BE dead is worth so many millions? (most of which ends up lining the lawyers pockets...) Nope. If there was a lack of care to the point someone is actually liable for a death or extreme damage, then the laws need to be written so they are criminally liable - not just civilly liable. Then limit awards that can be gained from the civil liability based on actual damage, with severe limits put on things like "mental anguish" and other snowflake excuses.

Quote from: topside on March 27, 2017, 04:38:49 PM
There is a lot of talk about releasing drugs early. Certainly with those with no other hope than what the drug suggests might happen. But some will be dissapointed when the drug doesn't work as planned. To re-emphasize your data - 49 failures for each success. I'm not convinced that much can be recovered in the pharma area; hope I'm wrong.

Releasing new medications "early" is but one area that could significantly reduce the costs of development. As usual, the bureaucracy of the federal government has become more about justifying a bunch of federal administrators' salaries than it is about actually keeping the public safe. There are undoubtedly ways to revamp how FDA works which would reduce the costs of medical R&D, not only shortening the time between phase I trials and permission to market a new drug/device/protocol, but also reducing the expenses involved in each phase of trials. (One of those areas would be related to torte reform in the area of awardable damaged resulting from a trial gone bad. Where is the justice when a patient is told the possible consequences of participating in a trial, then sues and wins when the trial goes bad?) Simply put, regardless of the fact that only about 2% of new medications make it through to market, the fact that it cost an average of $820 million (in 2000, undoubtedly well over a billion now) in total R&D costs for every successful new medication is just STUPID WRONG. Considering how many of FDA's regulations are reactionary to unique events, I would wager that R&D costs could potentially be cut by 75% or more - 90% with decent torte reform thrown in.

Quote from: topside on March 27, 2017, 04:38:49 PM
No one wants to let people go (suffer or die) when there are treatments that can help. As Ms. Indepedence mentioned, when someone is dying of cancer and fighting for their life it's even harder. But if the cost is $10M over the span of treatment, where does that money come from? And what if it's effect is to extend life for a year or two. Is it still worth it. Certainly to the loved ones. Maybe to the patient. But multiply this by millions of people. Limiting care is part of the equation when it comes to finding an "affordable" path.

No, limiting care is not an acceptable option. But just as there are ways to feed people who cannot afford food, and housing people who cannot afford housing, there are ways of covering people who cannot afford health care.

If we get malpractice costs under control, cut R&D costs by 75% or more, it won't take $10M to treat a single cancer patient. As for what costs remain that some may not be able to afford, take it to the people. Private charities - especially faith based charities - still do most of the helping in the world.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 27, 2017, 06:49:53 PM
It's collecting dust in committee because leadership was only concerned with what would pass easily.

I think this Bill would pass easily, but because of the damage it would do in exposing just who is against killing Commiecare in the GOP, it will never see the light of day.
Odd, it's the very Bill the people are demanding, but our elected Representatives refuse to do what the people demand.

I say push it on Ryan, force him to call a vote, get these names on record that support Commiecare so come Midterms we can run the assholes out of DC once and for all!

Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2017, 05:25:30 AM
I think this Bill would pass easily, but because of the damage it would do in exposing just who is against killing Commiecare in the GOP, it will never see the light of day.
Odd, it's the very Bill the people are demanding, but our elected Representatives refuse to do what the people demand.

I say push it on Ryan, force him to call a vote, get these names on record that support Commiecare so come Midterms we can run the assholes out of DC once and for all!

There is a report this morning that talks continue behind the scenes. This is fine as we do not need pontificating politicians racing to the nearest microphone. The conservatives have the leverage as it is pure fantasy to think the democrats will help Trump. Let's hope the next bill is not a charade like the bill Ryan proposed.

Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2017, 05:25:30 AM
I think this Bill would pass easily, but because of the damage it would do in exposing just who is against killing Commiecare in the GOP, it will never see the light of day.
Odd, it's the very Bill the people are demanding, but our elected Representatives refuse to do what the people demand.

I say push it on Ryan, force him to call a vote, get these names on record that support Commiecare so come Midterms we can run the assholes out of DC once and for all!

Sounds like an excellent plan to me! 

Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2017, 05:25:30 AM
I think this Bill would pass easily, but because of the damage it would do in exposing just who is against killing Commiecare in the GOP, it will never see the light of day.
Odd, it's the very Bill the people are demanding, but our elected Representatives refuse to do what the people demand.

I say push it on Ryan, force him to call a vote, get these names on record that support Commiecare so come Midterms we can run the assholes out of DC once and for all!

You are right but the GOP still hasn't found it's testicles.

Quote from: Ms.Independence on March 28, 2017, 04:50:12 PM
Sounds like an excellent plan to me! 

Something tells me that's the plan the Conservative Caucus has in mind.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 28, 2017, 06:25:15 PM
You are right but the GOP still hasn't found it's testicles.

Marxists never had any to start with.

Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2017, 06:32:35 PM
Marxists never had any to start with.

And sadly in the congress the Freedom Caucus doesn't make a full scrotum.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 28, 2017, 06:34:36 PM
And sadly in the congress the Freedom Caucus doesn't make a full scrotum.

But we have the balls to fill it. Just don't get them excited.

Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2017, 06:45:53 PM
But we have the balls to fill it. Just don't get them excited.

That could get messy.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 28, 2017, 06:25:15 PM
You are right but the GOP still hasn't found it's testicles.

Michelle has them yet.