Bye Bye Meals On Wheels

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

Catastrophic coverage for everyone is a good start. Reign in the drug prices. Subsidize those who can't take care of themselves, and have the others contribute something, regardless of income level. It doesn't seem to work to well when it's just free.

Reigning in drug prices goes against capitalism and people who want less government intervention. So you believe there should be government intervention in this instance? I personally think there should. There is no reason why drugs can't be affordable and still provide more than enough profit to make drug makers filthy rich, while allowing for plenty of research funds.

[Strike 3,957]

Because I wanted to respond to both while my response was fresh in my head... are you being serious? Are you using me replying to two posts at once as a reason to dodge my question? I didn't know the rules stated I could only handle a response to one post at a time. I sincerely didn't mean to butt hurt you and ruin your day. And I also didn't realize you were a baby. Now I know

 

Not dodging sh*t. Never done that here. Just sick of certain people around here muddling up discussions. I have better things to do with my time. More than willing to have intelligent thoughtful discussions, but only if it's in a productive format. I don't find it productive to lump a bunch of different points in to one post. That's why I very specifically segregated yours, so we could have a discussion about both of them individually. If you want to discuss specific points put one in a post so there's no confusion. It's sad that when you libs don't like someone's response they simply resort to calling names.

[Strike 3,957]

Reigning in drug prices goes against capitalism and people who want less government intervention. So you believe there should be government intervention in this instance? I personally think there should. There is no reason why drugs can't be affordable and still provide more than enough profit to make drug makers filthy rich, while allowing for plenty of research funds.

 

No reason to intervene. Just change the laws on how long they have exclusive rights to the drug. If they want to price things more reasonably we can have a discussion with them about that. Otherwise we shorten it to like 5 years and then generics can come out. They need laws that protect them just as much as we need their drugs. But we have to allow them to recoup their investment in the drug. Many drugs don't pan out and end up being losses to the drug companies. They have to be profitable on the drugs that do succeed. There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

 

The problem is that you are asking the wrong question. If you believe that reducing taxes in certain areas has a trickle-down impact, then that is a good thing. If instead you are a mindless lib who slurps up MSM pablum and believe that Trump is raiding the treasury to give to his rich cronies, then that would be bad. HTH

I am stating neither. I honestly can't project what kind of benefit the tax cuts will have, if any. I know that having an excessive tax on the largest earners is not fair. We depend on them to employ us. But I also know that the top earners shouldn't be crying poor when the difference between their yearly income is say $5million with Trump's tax program compared to $4 million with Obama's tax program. I have my doubts that we really see the benefits of their tax savings, but I could be completely wrong. The richest people in our country are that way because they are great at saving money. So logically it doesn't make sense to assume people who are great with money are just going to spend extra earnings.

 

What I do see is a President who wants to reduce the top tax bracket by a large margin while simultaneously increasing spending. Then when Trump's administration tries to rationalize the spending increase with proposed cutbacks, the rallying point among him and supporters are social programs.

 

It all ties together. Increase in spending, decrease in taxes for the rich, and proposed cuts to social programs as the crux for added government savings on spending.

 

I am also saying I will not argue social spending could probably use an overhaul and become more efficient without affecting it's recipients. I just want to see specifics if that's what is proposed.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

 

Not dodging sh*t. Never done that here. Just sick of certain people around here muddling up discussions. I have better things to do with my time. More than willing to have intelligent thoughtful discussions, but only if it's in a productive format. I don't find it productive to lump a bunch of different points in to one post. That's why I very specifically segregated yours, so we could have a discussion about both of them individually. If you want to discuss specific points put on in a post so there's no confusion. It's sad that when you libs don't like someone's response they simply resort to calling names.

No you deserved to be called a baby. If you are paying attention at all you should be able to tell I am trying to have a real discussion here. And there is a ton of assumption about what I believe going on just because I am more liberal. All you would have had to do is tell me you want to keep the posts separate. Then you ended with I guess we are done here. That is the response of a baby. But if you are willing to continue with real discussion I am willing to also.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,626]

Reigning in drug prices goes against capitalism and people who want less government intervention. So you believe there should be government intervention in this instance? I personally think there should. There is no reason why drugs can't be affordable and still provide more than enough profit to make drug makers filthy rich, while allowing for plenty of research funds.

The Government also happens to be the biggest customer in this instance. No need for huge government involvement here. Make it so they can shop elsewhere for their drugs. Costs will decrease naturally. It's government that made the rule that they can't shop elsewhere inthe first place. Just undo what they put in place.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

 

No reason to intervene. Just change the laws on how long they have exclusive rights to the drug. If they want to price things more reasonably we can have a discussion with them about that. Otherwise we shorten it to like 5 years and then generics can come out. They need laws that protect them just as much as we need their drugs. But we have to allow them to recoup their investment in the drug. Many drugs don't pan out and end up being losses to the drug companies. They have to be profitable on the drugs that do succeed. There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

I completely agree. Though I would say that proposing more laws is intervening in a way.

 

Hey creating a drug is a lot of work. I am all for the people willing to take the risk and create a product that benefits others to become rich themselves. Though when Martin Schkreli was in front of the hearing committee, he knew they really couldn't do anything about his price gouging and acted like the whole thing was a waste of time, which it kind of was. Now maybe some legislation to stop the gouging sprouts directly from the disdain for his indifference, then maybe the hearing wasn't a waste after all.

[Strike 3,957]

No you deserved to be called a baby. If you are paying attention at all you should be able to tell I am trying to have a real discussion here. And there is a ton of assumption about what I believe going on just because I am more liberal. All you would have had to do is tell me you want to keep the posts separate. Then you ended with I guess we are done here. That is the response of a baby. But if you are willing to continue with real discussion I am willing to also.

 

In my last post I told you exactly what you have to do if you want to continue the discussion. Not sure why you don't just do that. I didn't know you were a poosey. I do now. See how that works poosey?

 

[Strike 3,957]

I completely agree. Though I would say that proposing more laws is intervening in a way.

 

Hey creating a drug is a lot of work. I am all for the people willing to take the risk and create a product that benefits others to become rich themselves. Though when Martin Schkreli was in front of the hearing committee, he knew they really couldn't do anything about his price gouging and acted like the whole thing was a waste of time, which it kind of was. Now maybe some legislation to stop the gouging sprouts directly from the disdain for his indifference, then maybe the hearing wasn't a waste after all.

 

Who proposed more laws?

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

 

In my last post I told you exactly what you have to do if you want to continue the discussion. Not sure why you don't just do that. I didn't know you were a poosey. I do now. See how that works poosey?

 

 

Why did you respond to both of my posts in one? There was a reason I responded to your two separate points in separate posts. I'm not going to discuss multiple tangential issues in every post. So I guess we're done here.

 

Again, read you post. You said So I guess we are done here. Nothing in there described how we can continue the conversation. I was defending calling you a baby from this post. That's all. And you were, in fact, acting like a baby. So can we get back to the discussion then?

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

 

Who proposed more laws?

Ok you said change laws. Either way the government is intervening if they are forming laws to change the way drug companies do business.

[Strike 3,957]

Ok you said change laws. Either way the government is intervening if they are forming laws to change the way drug companies do business.

 

If you think we should get rid of EVERY law on the books I can't agree with that. I'm not an anarchist. If not, we're talking about changing an existing law. The question is how do we get drug companies not to gouge. I think that adjusting the very law that allows them to gouge is an appropriate free market response. Alternatively, we can suggest to them that we will completely repeal the law and let their competitors make generics starting on day one. Either way, it is law that needs to exist for the reasons I outlined above. So it's not going away. It would destroy the drug industry. Given that, using it to negotiate their behavior seems like a very good way to deal with this issue.

[Strike 3,957]

 

Again, read you post. You said So I guess we are done here. Nothing in there described how we can continue the conversation. I was defending calling you a baby from this post. That's all. And you were, in fact, acting like a baby. So can we get back to the discussion then?

 

I suggest you reread post # 242.

 

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

 

I suggest you reread post # 242.

 

Doesn't matter what you said aftet. These responses were all in reference to when you said you were done. After you clarified how we could continue, then I abided by your discussion requirements of 1 topic at a time. Though I would still like a response to my original thought when you have a chance.

[Strike 3,957]

Doesn't matter what you said aftet. These responses were all in reference to when you said you were done. After you clarified how we could continue, then I abided by your discussion requirements of 1 topic at a time. Though I would still like a response to my original thought when you have a chance.

 

I have responded to all your posts that were about a single topic.

 

[ROCKFORD 134]

All you libs should be at the food pantry feeding the hungry. Old folks are starving out there. Get off your ass and go!

 

i volunteer at our community bike shop. im in charge of the kids bike program.

 

any kid under 10 years old gets a free bike, on us.

 

http://www.freecycles.org/programs/

[penultimatestraw 473]

No reason to intervene. Just change the laws on how long they have exclusive rights to the drug. If they want to price things more reasonably we can have a discussion with them about that. Otherwise we shorten it to like 5 years and then generics can come out. They need laws that protect them just as much as we need their drugs. But we have to allow them to recoup their investment in the drug. Many drugs don't pan out and end up being losses to the drug companies. They have to be profitable on the drugs that do succeed. There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

 

Pharmaceutical companies are incredibly profitable, even considering drugs which don't pan out. Their profit margins are among the highest of any major industry. And shorter patents just encourage introduction of "me too" drugs by slightly modifying an existing drug whose patent has expired, rather than developing new medications. Plus, some "orphan" drugs will never have a big market, yet people with the diseases they treat still need them. Most current drug shortages (and believe me, there are a lot of them) are older, off-patent medications.

 

These are a couple reasons why the free market fails when medicine is considered like other businesses. And one reason why government involvement is pretty extensive in almost every other developed country in the world.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

In my last post I told you exactly what you have to do if you want to continue the discussion. Not sure why you don't just do that. I didn't know you were a poosey. I do now. See how that works poosey?

 

Grow the Fock up.

[Alias Detective 1,179]

i volunteer at our community bike shop. im in charge of the kids bike program.

 

any kid under 10 years old gets a free bike, on us.

 

http://www.freecycles.org/programs/

Bikes are tough to chew.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

 

Those social programs you claim to care about were bloated for that reason by the Democrats. Keep taking from the middle class to give to 'those less fortunate' for the sake of getting their votes. You know..........people that won't work, choose abortion as a means of birth control, brood mares pumping out child after child they can't afford, etc.

Yes. We know you have nothing but contempt for the poor. For those who need help. You don't need to keep repeating it.

 

You can judge a society by its priorities. By how it treats its less fortunate. We apparently would rather spend money on our empire than take care of our people.

[Gepetto 982]

You don't even live in this country.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

You don't even live in this country.

I'm just glad to see the truth finally come out. For decades, the republicans pretend to give a sh!t about poor people.

 

These days they pretty much openly say "Fock em. Let em die."

 

Classy bunch of folks.

[Gepetto 982]

Way to stereotype an entire group of people. You're really on a roll.

[Strike 3,957]

Doesn't matter what you said aftet. These responses were all in reference to when you said you were done. After you clarified how we could continue, then I abided by your discussion requirements of 1 topic at a time. Though I would still like a response to my original thought when you have a chance.

 

You still haven't responded appropriately to my post. Pathetic. You libs suck A$$.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Yesterday was,Trump's 10th visit to his country club since being president. 10th!! And yes, he golfed yesterday ROFL. What a hard worker.

He could golf everyday for the next 8 years and still have accomplished more than your boy.

 

MAGA

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Yes. We know you have nothing but contempt for the poor. For those who need help. You don't need to keep repeating it.

 

You can judge a society by its priorities. By how it treats its less fortunate. We apparently would rather spend money on our empire than take care of our people.

Ahhh....you know me right? I don't dislike the poor; I dislike having a gun shoved in our faces telling us to give more to those 'less fortunate'. I give plenty already and the more I EARN the more the govt MAKES me give. Fock that. I do my part by EARNING a lot and giving to charity.

 

Most of you on the left here probably see the inside of a church or soup kitchen when you've got nowhere else to turn to. You want to do more for the poor, start locally. Give more of your after tax dollars, go help someone.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

I'm just glad to see the truth finally come out. For decades, the republicans pretend to give a sh!t about poor people.

 

These days they pretty much openly say "Fock em. Let em die."

 

Classy bunch of folks.

Classy like the Democrats? Rigging the Democratic process? Killing babies while fighting for the lives of murderers? That's the classy you're looking for?

 

The lower 50% of the wage earners in this country pay how much of the Federal taxes?

[NewbieJr 540]

He could golf everyday for the next 8 years and still have accomplished more than your boy.

 

MAGA

He's failed at everything he's attempted so far. But besides that little inconvenient truth, you're spot on.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,626]

The national debt has gone down by 100 billion after Trumps first two months in office.

[12th Man 884]

The national debt has gone down by 100 billion after Trumps first two months in office.

MAGA!

[NewbieJr 540]

The national debt has gone down by 100 billion after Trumps first two months in office.

Link?

[12th Man 884]

Link?

Try Google. It's free.

[NewbieJr 540]

Try Google. It's free.

That's what I thought

[Hardcore troubadour 12,626]

Link?

Look it up yourself meathead.

[12th Man 884]

That's what I thought

You also thought MOW was getting shut down.

[NewbieJr 540]

Look it up yourself meathead.

That's what I thought. Nothing

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Poor meathead. Following SloFlake's lead chasing red herrings so long he forgot how to use Google.

 

Take your head out of your a $$ (or whoever's) and look around a bit.

[Sho Nuff 719]

He could golf everyday for the next 8 years and still have accomplished more than your boy.

 

MAGA

You can keep repeating that lie

[Sho Nuff 719]

Crediting a man with no budget yet...whose fiscal year hasn't started yet... with lowering the debt is next level ignorance.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Poor meathead. Following SloFlake's lead chasing red herrings so long he forgot how to use Google.

 

Take your head out of your a $$ (or whoever's) and look around a bit.

Coming from the most uninformed regular poster...this is damn funny.