|
|
Post by Outsider on Jul 31, 2019 5:24:08 GMT -5
Morning Folks, I couldn't get the debate on live last night - at least on TV. Thanks for the updates last night - i just read through them. The only thing in my feed this moring was this: With One Line, Elizabeth Warren Effectively Ends What Was Left of John Delaney's Campaign "Extremely rude of Elizabeth Warren to murder John Delaney on national television like this." Sen. Elizabeth Warren eviscerated John Delaney during Tuesday's debate. (screenshot: CNN) In one line during Tuesday's CNN Democratic primary debate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren made a distinction between her vision of the Democratic Party and that of her more conservative opponents. Replying to former John Delaney, a former congressman from Maryland polling at around one percent who has made opposing left-leaning policy ideas the centerpiece of his quixotic run for the nomination, Warren wondered aloud what use it was trying to lead the American people without a vision. "You know, I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for," said the Massachusetts Democrat. A split screen showed Delaney with a large, but awkward, smile. "Extremely rude of Elizabeth Warren to murder John Delaney on national television like this," tweeted social media manager Erick Fernandez. Warren has based her primary campaign on a list of policy ideas backed up with detailed proposals: "I've got a plan for that" has become a mantra of sorts for the senator's presidential campaign. Delaney, on the other hand, has struggled to gain traction with voters and has stuck mostly to attacking the candidates to his left for their plans to expand Medicare and tackle the climate crisis. Both Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) hit Delaney on Tuesday, prompting a celebration from Twitter user @non_bona_dicta. "Gotta say though, I'm really loving watching Delaney get pummeled by Sanders and Warren," said @non_bona_dicta, "they're burying the motherfucker." After the applause from her one-line cutdown of Delaney died down, Warren made clear that the real issue at hand was a corrupt political system that, along with corporations, is taking the government and "holding it by the throat." "We need to have the courage to fight back against them," said Warren. "Until we're ready to do that, it's just more of the same." "Well, I'm ready to get in this fight," said Warren. "I'm ready to win this fight." www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/30/one-line-elizabeth-warren-effectively-ends-what-was-left-john-delaneys-campaign?fbclid=IwAR1Vf8SVV10AhVX2ir3m936tJBM7MOCCNpqyE7g6tAUYSlwEprDCUsCtbv0 |
|
|
|
Post by Outsider on Jul 31, 2019 5:25:00 GMT -5
Mitch McConnell Really Doesn’t Like His New Nickname As one of the great obstructionists in U.S. political history, Mitch McConnell has made peace with being the heel of the Senate: In recent years, he’s embraced such nicknames as Darth Vader, the Grim Reaper, and “Cocaine Mitch,” going as far as selling T-shirts of that last, most ridiculous one. But 34 years into his career on the hill, McConnell has found an alter ego he can’t stand: “Moscow Mitch.” The name began to take off on social media, in op-eds, and on Morning Joe after the Senate majority leader blocked two bills that would boost election security, in part by requiring campaigns to disclose any offers of foreign assistance to the intelligence community and the Federal Election Commission. McConnell, who never met a campaign-finance restriction he liked, defended himself by citing his hesitancy to increase federal oversight over state elections and championing the restrictions put in place that increased security for the midterms. Even with his rationale, the timing was off: McConnell’s block came the day after the Mueller testimony — in which the former special counsel said he feared election interference was the “new normal” — and the day of a Senate Intelligence Committee report stating that Russia hacked into the polls in 2016 to an extent much greater than previously known. Fueled by his consistent downplaying of the Trump-Russia scandal and the special counsel’s investigation, the nickname took off. On the Senate floor on Monday, McConnell spoke out against the “hyperventilating hacks” who’ve accused him of promoting Russian interests, comparing his treatment to “modern-day McCarthyism.” The Kentucky senator said he would not be bullied into supporting the anti-interference bills and added: “Over the last several days I was called unpatriotic, un-American, and essentially treasonous by a couple of left-wing pundits on the basis of bold-faced lies,” McConnell said. “I was accused of aiding and abetting the very man I’ve singled out as an adversary and opposed for nearly 20 years, Vladimir Putin.” As most middle-schoolers or Trump targets might know, McConnell’s request to stop being called by the name he doesn’t like was unsuccessful: The nickname appears to be growing, with #MoscowMitchMcTreason and #MoscowMitchUnAmericanTraitor gaining traction on Twitter. Hoping to come to his defense, Trump did the best he could on Tuesday: “Mitch McConnell is a man that knows less about Russia and Russian influence than even Donald Trump,” the president told reporters. “And I know nothing.” nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/mcconnell-really-doesnt-like-his-cocaine-mitch-nickname.html?fbclid=IwAR03SWTZBGLnil0BWt0vCZLi5na_gh5VJmVKdSXw6FIOpvp1K6iDj1ayBRk |
|
|
|
Post by Outsider on Jul 31, 2019 5:26:00 GMT -5
The Liz and Bernie show: Progressive duo shows us why they're electable Warren and Sanders lay waste to moderate foes, and to the false dichotomy between "electable" and progressive One thing is absolutely certain coming out of the first night of the CNN Democratic debates in Detroit: Despite months of chin-scratching punditry pitting "electability" against strong progressive views, by the end of the night Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts showed that they're not just the most progressive candidates on stage, they're also the most electable. As I predicted, Warren and Sanders did not turn on each other, although CNN moderator Jake Tapper repeatedly tried to bait them into it. Instead, they backed each other up and faced off against the moderates that made up the rest of the stage. The tag-team strategy allowed both Warren and Sanders to walk away as winners at the end of the night. Contrary to my initial concerns, it also made for an exciting debate — and one that bodes well for future debates, when the pointless candidates are finally winnowed out and these two will take on former Vice President Joe Biden. They didn't have Biden to kick around on Tuesday evening, but Warren and Sanders were given the gift of former Rep. John Delaney, whose bug-eyed eagerness to paint the sorts of generous social programs that are standard in most other developed countries as total crazypants provided an excellent foil. It was straight-up weird that CNN's moderators gave so much talking time to Delaney, a millionaire businessman who briefly rented a Maryland congressional seat and is polling below 1%. But he made a wonderful heel for Warren and Sanders, who spent most of the night dunking on him deliciously. "I genuinely do not understand why anyone would go to all the trouble of running for president just to get up on this stage and talk about what’s not possible," Warren said at one point, in response to one of Delaney's rants about how it's somehow not possible to do more to help ordinary Americans live better, more secure lives. "Republicans are not afraid of big ideas," Sanders announced dramatically, correctly pointing out that the tax cuts enacted by Donald Trump and former Speaker Paul Ryan are far more expensive than all manner of social programs we're repeatedly told we can't afford. Even New Age author Marianne Williamson got caught up in the dunking-on-the-moderates energy, declaring, "I look at some of you and I almost wonder why you’re Democrats," and adding, to big applause, "You almost think something is wrong with using the instruments of government to help people." As Vox's Matt Yglesias tweeted, "The moderators’ decision to make John Delaney the central figure in the debate is sort of strange, but I guess this is what happens when you can’t get actual front-runner Biden on stage." But it wasn't just Delaney. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana and former Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado all trotted out variations of the claim that it's too expensive or dangerous to embrace "left-wing" policies that are considered unremarkable in much of Western Europe and Canada. All of them got crushed by Warren and Sanders, who were clear and confident in defending themselves. Certainly, the CNN moderators tried hard to tip the debate against the progressives, with Tapper continually framing questions about single-payer health care in terms of a tax increase, even though Warren, Sanders and even Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, explained that most people won't care about a tax raise if they are relieved of paying health insurance premiums at the same time. It simply didn't work. The topline takeaway of the night is that Warren and Sanders came across as the only candidates who had both the vision and the courage necessary to take on Trump in a general election. We can only hope this debate will help undermine this nonsense narrative that pits electability against progressive politics. Indeed, by defending themselves against attacks from centrists all night, Warren and Sanders displayed that they not only have the fortitude to go against Trump, but that they were the only candidates on that stage with such fortitude. While Warren and Sanders were the joint winners of the debate, it must also be said that Buttigieg demonstrated that he's a contender, despite his youth and the air of undeniable skepticism surrounding his candidacy. He did a masterful job all night of sidestepping the progressive vs. moderate debate and framing his answers in a way that will appeal to both camps. Frankly, it was reminiscent of Barack Obama's similar skills at seeming progressive but not aggressive. For those voters who long to return to the Obama era, Buttigieg might end up feeling like a better fit than Biden, who is currently trying to corner the Obama nostalgia vote. Buttigieg's biggest misstep of the night was a line about how, as "an urban mayor serving a diverse community, the racial divide lives within me," a clunker that will do him no favors in shoring up his weak support with voters of color. Still, while his performance was overshadowed by Warren and Sanders' mastery of the stage, Buttigieg is calm, professional and not to be underestimated. It will be interesting to see what he does on a stage that's been cleared of the pointless clutter-candidates who are wasting our time in these cattle-call debates. He's not the only one. After tonight, it's clear what really needs to happen: tThe low-polling candidates need to clear out, making the way for more robust debates where the truly interesting contenders have more time to be heard. Luckily, the next debate in September will require higher polling and fundraising standards, and we can expect half the current candidates to be winnowed out. After tonight, at any rate, progressives should be excited. The idea that milquetoast centrists are somehow more "electable" took a serious hit Tuesday night. It was clear that the passion and strength necessary to take on Trump is coming from the left side of the field. No doubt mainstream pundits will continue to harp on the false dichotomy that insists progressive candidates are not "electable" candidates. Hopefully the voters are not as easily bamboozled. www.salon.com/2019/07/31/the-liz-and-bernie-show-progressive-duo-shows-why-are-electable/ |
|
|
|
Post by Outsider on Jul 31, 2019 5:27:23 GMT -5
It’s Bernie and Warren Against the World In the first night of the second debate, the top progressives got a feel for what would come in a general election matchup with Trump. And Republicans got some clips to use. DETROIT—Around 15 minutes into Tuesday night’s Democratic primary debate, it became clear that it was Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders against the world. The two liberal stalwarts were peppered with criticisms from lesser-known, more centrist opponents who called them everything from whimsical to naive. Such attacks have been leveled before. But never with millions of people watching and never in such aggressive, pre-packaged sound bites. The senators defended Medicare for All, pushed back on more moderate approaches to immigration reform, and chided their rivals for failing to think outside the box to fix the country’s most intractable problems. But their pleas and persuasions didn’t assuage their rivals who, in the process of chastising them, gave fodder to Republicans eager to paint the Democratic Party as radically out of step with the American public. Asked to respond to former Maryland congressman John Delaney’s attacks on Medicare for All, which he has called “political suicide” for eliminating private insurance, Sanders curtly responded: “You’re wrong.” After a few moments of sparring between the two men, Warren also came to the policy’s defense, calling Delaney’s criticisms “Republican talking points.” “Let’s be clear about this: We are the Democrats. We are not about trying to take away health care from anyone,” she said. “That’s what the Republicans are trying to do.” The two joined forces again on immigration after Montana Gov. Steve Bullock called Warren’s plan to decriminalize illegal border crossings and grant health insurance to undocumented immigrants “detached.” “ t matters if we say our law is that we will lock people up who come here seeking refuge, who come here seeking asylum. That is not a crime,” she said. “And as Americans, what we need to do is have a sane system that keeps us safe at the border but does not criminalize the activity.”
But the onslaught didn’t end there. Sanders dismissed criticism from Rep. Tim Ryan (OH), who said providing undocumented immigrants with health care would attract more unauthorized immigration.
“I happen to believe that when I talk about health care as a human right that applies to all people in this country, and under a Medicare for All single-payer system, we could afford to do that,” he said.
Sanders and Warren repeatedly criticized their rivals for pitching ideas that lacked a bold vision for the country. At one point, a bemused—and perhaps a bit agitated—Warren chimed in after Delaney had taken another swipe at the extent of her policy ambitions. “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for,” she said.
Even Marianne Williamson, a mystic healer and motivational speaker turned presidential candidate, showed signs of exacerbation at the wet blanket tune of many of the candidates. “I look at some of you and I almost wonder why you’re Democrats,” she said. “You almost think something is wrong with using the instruments of government to help people.”
The back-and-forth was the most glaring illustration to date of the policy and strategic divides that are emerging within the 2020 field—in which the rush to embrace far-reaching progressive policy proposals has been met by fears that the party is moving too fast, too far. And while some Democrats were agitated that the primetime showing of their presidential candidates was turning into an admonishment of the frontrunners, Republicans were giddy.
“Voters don’t just need to trust Republicans when we say their party is beyond extreme,” Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Ahrens told The Daily Beast. “There are Democrats on stage making that case for us.”
“They’re right,” Ahrens said of the Democratic field’s centrist candidates. “Expect to see their attacks in Republican ads near you.”
As they watched live on Tuesday evening, Team Trump and its surrogates were practically clicking their heels. Asked if the more moderate or centrist candidates were laying a foundation for possible attacks during the general election, a Republican operative involved in 2020 replied, “Honestly, yes.” The operative added that there were “some good clips” from Bullock, Delaney, and Ryan “hitting them for unrealistic health-care [and] climate plans.”
Every presidential primary carries the risk that the demands of the base may create vulnerabilities in the general election. Veterans of past elections say those fears can be overstated. There is, they argue, some upside in having the attacks be leveled now.
Back in 2016, much of the Democratic primary was waged in docile tones. When Hillary Clinton was challenged on her use of a private email server, Sanders took the issue off the table entirely, saying the public didn’t care about her “damn emails.”
The line worked well for Sanders—his aides said it prompted a fundraising bonanza—but it didn’t for Clinton. Instead of having to deal with the issue when the stakes where relatively low, she ended up having to navigate it during the general election. After the campaign, aides to the former secretary of state looked back and wondered if it would have been better if Sanders had hit her harder.
Still, Republicans watching the campaign from afar saw the division within the Democratic field Tuesday as a gift. The Trump campaign, in particular, zeroed in on one exchange between Ryan and Sanders as emblematic of the fissures they could utilize as the general election nears.
“In this discussion already tonight,” Ryan said, “we’ve talked about taking private health insurance away from union members in the industrial Midwest, we’ve talked about decriminalizing the border, and we’ve talked about giving free health care to undocumented workers when so many Americans are struggling to pay for their health care. I quite frankly don’t think that that is an agenda that we can move forward on and win.”
Ed Brookover, who served as a senior adviser on Trump’s 2016 presidential run, told The Daily Beast that the “divisions in the Democratic Party are wide. The voters who joined the Trump campaign in 2016 are seeing their decisions justified by the socialist-type platforms presented by most candidates tonight. The frustrations of many Democrats continue to grow, giving the Trump campaign an entree to even more disaffected Democrats in 2020.”
Democrats emerged from Tuesday night’s debate still confident that the party stood in a strong position to defeat Donald Trump. Even the centrist think tank Third Way offered a note of caution for the naysayers within the Democratic tent who feared that the policy prescriptions offered by Warren and Sanders would prove debilitating.
“There are certain things a few of these candidates have supported that would make it harder to win when November 2020 comes around,” said Lanae Erickson, senior vice president for Third Way’s social policy and politics program. “Democratic voters already know that, and it is so much better for them to ask these questions now than in October of next year.”
After the debate, former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper told reporters he had doubts that a Medicare for All message would help where Democrats needed voters the most.
“Are these swing districts in places lik Michigan and Wisconsin, are they really gonna support Medicare for All?” he said. “You tell me. I don’t see it.”
But what stood out about the debate was not that the party had given itself a weakened hand heading into the general election, but that it was looking at the possibility that the next few months would be filled with more instances of the moderates providing fodder for the president’s re-election team.
“It is time,” South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg said at one point, “to stop worrying about what the Republicans will say.”
—with reporting by Hanna Trudo, Lachlan Markay, and Asawin Suebsaeng
www.thedailybeast.com/two-against-the-world-bernie-sanders-and-elizabeth-warren-take-all-on-comers?ref=home |
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Jul 31, 2019 7:01:09 GMT -5
Watched enough of the debate to see this:
It’s a cycle CNN certainly hasn’t figured out
It’s a perfect meta-commentary on political media dynamics that the way to get more time in the debate than your poll numbers merit is to fight.
If you just say smart things that don’t play into conflict framing, you get no time, and without time to talk, you can’t win votes.
—@ezraklein
|
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Jul 31, 2019 7:05:12 GMT -5
Guess we won’t know until 2024
i am……baffled because I have truly never once heard a moderator ask republicans how they are going to sell their cockamamie nonsensical ideas to progressives?
—@jduffyrice
|
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Jul 31, 2019 7:17:39 GMT -5
Talks derailed again: US, China wrap up trade talks after Trump tweetstorm Chinese and US negotiators held their first face-to-face talks Wednesday since agreeing to a trade war truce last month, but the short meeting in Shanghai was overshadowed by a Twitter tirade from President Donald Trump. Washington and Beijing have so far hit each other with punitive tariffs covering more than $360 billion in two-way trade in a row centered on demands for China to curb the alleged theft of American technology and provide a level playing field to US companies. US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin shook hands and exchanged pleasantries with Vice Premier Liu He Wednesday morning. The group then went behind closed doors for around four hours in the first face-to-face negotiations since Trump agreed to a truce with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in June following a breakdown a month earlier. The talks were relatively brief and the group emerged later, a little earlier than expected, for a group photo before the US trade officials left for the airport without speaking to reporters... www.rawstory.com/2019/07/us-china-wrap-up-trade-talks-after-trump-tweetstorm/ |
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Jul 31, 2019 7:42:41 GMT -5
Funny:
|
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Jul 31, 2019 8:02:38 GMT -5
Nate is correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Jul 31, 2019 8:03:56 GMT -5
Morning Folks, I couldn't get the debate on live last night - at least on TV. Thanks for the updates last night - i just read through them. The only thing in my feed this moring was this: With One Line, Elizabeth Warren Effectively Ends What Was Left of John Delaney's Campaign "Extremely rude of Elizabeth Warren to murder John Delaney on national television like this." Sen. Elizabeth Warren eviscerated John Delaney during Tuesday's debate. (screenshot: CNN) In one line during Tuesday's CNN Democratic primary debate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren made a distinction between her vision of the Democratic Party and that of her more conservative opponents. Replying to former John Delaney, a former congressman from Maryland polling at around one percent who has made opposing left-leaning policy ideas the centerpiece of his quixotic run for the nomination, Warren wondered aloud what use it was trying to lead the American people without a vision. "You know, I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for," said the Massachusetts Democrat. A split screen showed Delaney with a large, but awkward, smile. "Extremely rude of Elizabeth Warren to murder John Delaney on national television like this," tweeted social media manager Erick Fernandez. Warren has based her primary campaign on a list of policy ideas backed up with detailed proposals: "I've got a plan for that" has become a mantra of sorts for the senator's presidential campaign. Delaney, on the other hand, has struggled to gain traction with voters and has stuck mostly to attacking the candidates to his left for their plans to expand Medicare and tackle the climate crisis. Both Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) hit Delaney on Tuesday, prompting a celebration from Twitter user @non_bona_dicta. "Gotta say though, I'm really loving watching Delaney get pummeled by Sanders and Warren," said @non_bona_dicta, "they're burying the motherfucker." After the applause from her one-line cutdown of Delaney died down, Warren made clear that the real issue at hand was a corrupt political system that, along with corporations, is taking the government and "holding it by the throat." "We need to have the courage to fight back against them," said Warren. "Until we're ready to do that, it's just more of the same." "Well, I'm ready to get in this fight," said Warren. "I'm ready to win this fight." www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/30/one-line-elizabeth-warren-effectively-ends-what-was-left-john-delaneys-campaign?fbclid=IwAR1Vf8SVV10AhVX2ir3m936tJBM7MOCCNpqyE7g6tAUYSlwEprDCUsCtbv0Speaking of Liz |
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 31, 2019 8:06:55 GMT -5
So ICBC, BC's public car insurance corporation which is also responsible for licensing/road tests, has a small problem: the wait times for road tests in the Lower Mainland (Vancouver, metro area, and surrounding valley) has spiked up to 50-70 minutes. Obviously, this has led to an increase in fraud as people find some way to get tests this week. Well, ICBC took their systems offline for some routine maintenance and realized that their systems were still receiving pings. A lot of pings. To locations other than their main site. They dug into their logs and realized that in the two weeks prior, the vast majority of their traffic could be attributed to 10 IPs. This was sent to the RCMP who put together a sting on the most prolific of these 10 and confirmed the fraud. www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/icbc-road-test-bots-hack-drivers-1.5230572They still haven't figured out how he did it, though. |
|
|
|
Post by doddeb on Jul 31, 2019 8:25:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by doddeb on Jul 31, 2019 8:32:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by doddeb on Jul 31, 2019 8:42:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by doddeb on Jul 31, 2019 8:44:31 GMT -5
Thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by doddeb on Jul 31, 2019 8:46:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by doddeb on Jul 31, 2019 9:04:43 GMT -5
Thread. Williamson had some good moments last night, but good to remember she has some wacko ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by doddeb on Jul 31, 2019 9:28:23 GMT -5
Thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 31, 2019 9:31:56 GMT -5
Trump admin does something good: Americans will be able to import drugs subject to FDA oversight. www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-plan-drugs-canada-1.5231405Canada is a bit alarmed because even a modest use of importing from Canada could quickly equal Canada's total consumption of drugs so there's calls for supply management policies of some form. But hey, this is still freaking good news for Americans |
|
newhivemaster
Hive Listener
Hive Master
Posts: 2,660 
Likes: 10,489
|
Post by newhivemaster on Jul 31, 2019 9:37:23 GMT -5
SigDig for Wednesday, 7/31/2019 Good morning, Hive! 2.12 carats
A Nebraska schoolteacher visiting Crater of Diamonds State Park in Arkansas discovered, well, a diamond. A 2.12-carat diamond, to be precise, the largest of the 300 or so found at the park this year, where visitors pay up to $10 to search a 37-acre field on top of a volcanic crater. However, the raw brown diamond, large though it may be, is probably only worth about $1,000, based on comparable stones for sale online.
|
|
|
|
Post by doddeb on Jul 31, 2019 9:38:48 GMT -5
Why, tho. 😑
|
|
|
|
Post by doddeb on Jul 31, 2019 9:52:54 GMT -5
Trump admin does something good: Americans will be able to import drugs subject to FDA oversight. www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-plan-drugs-canada-1.5231405Canada is a bit alarmed because even a modest use of importing from Canada could quickly equal Canada's total consumption of drugs so there's calls for supply management policies of some form. But hey, this is still freaking good news for Americans I agree, but it would also be helpful to allow Medicare to negotiate prices: "Drug prices are lower in other economically advanced countries because governments take a leading role in setting prices. But in the U.S., Medicare is not permitted to negotiate with drug companies." A lot of my online friends in the COPD community already order meds from India. I have 'good' insurance and I'm $170.00 out of pocket/month for two inhalers for which there are no generics here. Both drugs have been on the market for years. It's ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Jul 31, 2019 9:52:55 GMT -5
What’s up with Rubio?
|
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 31, 2019 10:12:52 GMT -5
Trump admin does something good: Americans will be able to import drugs subject to FDA oversight. www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-plan-drugs-canada-1.5231405Canada is a bit alarmed because even a modest use of importing from Canada could quickly equal Canada's total consumption of drugs so there's calls for supply management policies of some form. But hey, this is still freaking good news for Americans I agree, but it would also be helpful to allow Medicare to negotiate prices: "Drug prices are lower in other economically advanced countries because governments take a leading role in setting prices. But in the U.S., Medicare is not permitted to negotiate with drug companies." A lot of my online friends in the COPD community already order meds from India. I have 'good' insurance and I'm $170.00 out of pocket/month for two inhalers for which there are no generics here. Both drugs have been on the market for years. It's ridiculous. My wife was ranting about the price of drugs yesterday because she's in an insurance gap as she switches jobs (she's covered under my plan but the insurance company is confused about her status so she has to pay upfront and get reimbursed). Price: $15 for 7 pills |
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Jul 31, 2019 10:42:37 GMT -5
A: He's meek and he thinks he will inherit the earth. |
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 31, 2019 10:59:29 GMT -5
A: He's meek and he thinks he will inherit the earth. When the Lord said meek, I don't think he meant spineless.... |
|
|
|
Post by doddeb on Jul 31, 2019 11:00:48 GMT -5
Looks like Trump may run into roadblocks from the usual suspects.
|
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Jul 31, 2019 11:09:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by doddeb on Jul 31, 2019 11:12:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Jul 31, 2019 11:42:16 GMT -5
Good thread:
|
|
