# Trump to issue Executive Order to Lower Drug Prices



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jul 7, 2019)

I cannot care. I don't support the political at all. They are always corrupt and don't trusted them. NONE OF THEM.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 7, 2019)

Regardless of the order itself, is it not hypocritical that Trump and the Republicans derided Obama's use of executive orders as tyrrany?


----------



## Josshy0125 (Jul 7, 2019)

Really hate that guy. As an outsider, I am still in shock that this child is president. Waste of garbage human being. Should be in jail.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 8, 2019)

Would be nice to have a topic where I'd agree with him, but I simply don't believe it. This is a simple re election stunt. His attempts to reduce the costs have been a dead letter so far (which is, in a way, a compliment, as at least there was the correct intention on this). More than any other country in the world, the pharmaceutical industry screws the citizens. Not just in drug prices, but in all sorts of insurance schemes, apparently.

Focusing on just one aspect might not be enough, as the industry is resourceful enough to work around it (okay, we'll lower the prices for a bottle of pills... By having it contain less pills. Too obvious? Okay, then we'll give the same amount of pills, but containing less concentration so you'll need a higher dose to cure. And so on). But ey... Since this is an article about the future, it probably strands before it gets anywhere (the industry probably has a claim ready to file about being violated in regards to the free market or something).


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

He's addressing an issue that both sides agree on, but I suspect that a certain side will overlook the positive aspect something like this will have on society and show their disrespect for our President regardless if it's something they previously asked for or agreed with.

I'm insulin dependent and if I didn't have insurance I'd probably have to move to another county to buy it or obtain it through indirect channels, just to stay alive. I welcome this change, just as I welcomed the legalization of Hemp (thank God for CBD oil). I don't particularity buy into the "lets hate the man and everything he does even if that means changing my core value system and flip flopping on issues to fit into the PC hater crowd".

I don't agree with a lot of things most politicians do or stand for in general, but I'm not going to look only at the negative aspect of this deal. Medication prices are outrageous in the USA for no other reason other than the fact the companies are in it for personal profit. Sort of like it's big business in coming up for treatments for problems, but not curing the actual problem (of course, that's another issue all together).

Before the Keto diet, my medication was well over $3,000 a month and in other countries it would have been around $400 a month. I see no reason why this shouldn't happen. I don't want to Pharmaceutical Companies to take a loss, but they won't be considering the drugs the are selling here in the States can be found elsewhere for much cheaper.

There are already laws regarding monopolies that aren't being enforced (look at entertainment and/or cable companies) and the drug racket is a major monopoly. Especially considering the 3000% price hikes on older medications for no other reason then for personal profit. You don't need a Nintendo Switch to live, so I don't have a problem with prices on certain things increasing, but if you're literally causing people to die because they can't afford live saving medication than that needs to be addressed and I'm glad it's being addresses. I don't really care who is addressing it.

I'm looking beyond blind hatred and contempt for our country, but it doesn't surprise me that the simple minded haters have already started to reply bashing the President of our great country. It's not about him, it's about the drug prices and if they can be lowered it's going to benefit everyone, not just people with a certain political preference. The last time I checked diabetes really doesn't care who you voted for, it'll kill you either way without prejudice.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 11, 2019)

Good idea. Trump can't accomplish anything though. The system is more corrupt than he could ever be and nothing positive will ever be done.


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Good idea. Trump can't accomplish anything though. The system is more corrupt than he could ever be and nothing positive will ever be done.



I just hope he doesn't get any resistance from the people who have been supporting and asking for such a thing to happen for many, many years. I can see those in the pockets of the Pharmaceutical companies having issues with this. I'd question anyone who suddenly starts to oppose such a move, because they're probably doing it for more then simple bias hatred.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> He's addressing an issue that both sides agree on, but I suspect that a certain side will overlook the positive aspect something like this will have on society and show their disrespect for our President regardless if it's something they previously asked for or agreed with.
> 
> I'm insulin dependent and if I didn't have insurance I'd probably have to move to another county to buy it or obtain it through indirect channels, just to stay alive. I welcome this change, just as I welcomed the legalization of Hemp (thank God for CBD oil). I don't particularity buy into the "lets hate the man and everything he does even if that means changing my core value system and flip flopping on issues to fit into the PC hater crowd".
> 
> ...


Im convinced anything this selfish prick does is for  selfish gain.  He would never have America's interest at heart unless it aided his narcissistic and personal interest and agenda, first.


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> Im convinced anything this selfish prick does is for  selfish gain.  He would never have America's interest at heart unless it aided his narcissistic and personal interest and agenda, first.



That may be true, but if his selfishness produces positive outcomes I'm willing to overlook his personality. I didn't particularly like Obama's self righteous elitist attitude (as that is common character trait with most politicians), but some of his policies greatly helped out our country. Granted, other policies harmed our country, as it with any President in office. Maybe I've just been around a few more decades than you have and more perspective on the issue. I'm still not going to disrespect our President, regardless of who he or in the future she might be.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> That may be true, but if his selfishness produces positive outcomes I'm willing to overlook his personality. I didn't particularly like Obama's self righteous elitist attitude (as that is common character trait with most politicians), but some of his policies greatly helped out our country. Granted, other policies harmed our country, as it with any President in office. Maybe I've just been around a few more decades than you have and more perspective on the issue. I'm still not going to disrespect our President, regardless of who he or in the future she might be.


Obama's self-righteous what?! He was a great guy. Sheesh. I'm not even from America and Its clear you dont know a thing. Trump doesnt deserve respect. Who cares if hes the president? Hes a selfish HORRIBLE sexist racist, rapist who deserves jailtime. I give his idiot supporters no sympathy in being fucked over by him. Hes an asshole and I hope to see him behind bars. Regardless of being the president, or not, he is the LAST human on this planet to deserve any sort of sympathy or respect. Hes scum and the absolute worst of humanity.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 11, 2019)

I never have, nor will I ever support heavy handed decisions made at the Federal level. The problem is that, even if a decision sounds benevolent and helpful in nature, these one size fits all polices  have the potential to be very dangerous and because it is enforced nationally there is absolutely no way to contrast and compare between state's as to the effectiveness, unintended consequences, etc. The 08 housing crisis is a perfect example, what would have otherwise been a self contained/quarantined financial crisis solely among blue states ended up becoming a National Economic Crisis. 

As I mentioned in another political thread, politicians are notoriously awful when it comes to considering unintended consequences of their actions; In regards to the issue of high drug prices, ironically they are largely responsible considering how our Patent System currently works. In particular, Companies do not even NEED to make use of the patents at any point in their lifespan to keep them, they could just claim they are contemplating it's use but want to protect the IP for the time being; While that is a legitimate reason to patent something, the problem is there are too many instances where it becomes clear they never intended to use these patents, in actuality they just do not want anyone to use them so they can maintain their market dominance without having to innovate or lower their prices.

It is too soon to say how this executive order will play out, although I am certain it will not work as intended, and worse it will only pave the way for future presidents to broaden the scope of what executive powers are able to accomplish. I predict that while larger pharmaceutical companies could eat the losses for awhile, this executive order will put smaller companies/start ups out of business as they are far less likely to sustain the same kind of losses on their lesser established/developed products. Another parallel to this is whenever the minimum wage rises, it really does not hurt the Walmart's of the world since they can just adjust their prices/eat any temporary losses, instead it actually hurts small businesses whom could never sustain the same losses, let alone have enough bargaining power to increase their prices yet retain customers.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 11, 2019)

Hmm that’s weird I didn’t get any notifications for this thread.

Biotech Stocks Fell after Trump announced Executive Order. They fear the president will get something done.


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> Obama's self-righteous what?! He was a great guy. Sheesh. I'm not even from America and Its clear you dont know a thing. Trump doesnt deserve respect. Who cares if hes the president? Hes a selfish HORRIBLE sexist racist, rapist who deserves jailtime. I give his idiot supporters no sympathy in being fucked over by him. Hes an asshole and I hope to see him behind bars. Regardless of being the president, or not, he is the LAST human on this planet to deserve any sort of sympathy or respect. Hes scum and the absolute worst of humanity.



Well, you said it. You're not from America so I wouldn't expect you to respect our system of government. It would be like me judging your country based on no experience with your political system based solely on entertainment coming from tabloids masquerading as news organizations. However, if you read Sky or BBC they are pretty impartial, so kudos to those sites, but like I said, I'm not from your country, so judging it based on Internet hate and limited exposure to simply news articles wouldn't put me in any position to do so.


----------



## Viri (Jul 11, 2019)

Good. I agree with him, and hope he at least brings more awareness to the fucked up drug prices here.


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

LonelyPhantom said:


> I never have, nor will I ever support heavy handed decisions made at the Federal level. The problem is that, even if a decision sounds benevolent and helpful in nature, these one size fits all polices  have the potential to be very dangerous and because it is enforced nationally there is absolutely no way to contrast and compare between state's as to the effectiveness, unintended consequences, etc. The 08 housing crisis is a perfect example, what would have otherwise been a self contained/quarantined financial crisis solely among blue states ended up becoming a National Economic Crisis.
> 
> As I mentioned in another political thread, politicians are notoriously awful when it comes to considering unintended consequences of their actions; In regards to the issue of high drug prices, ironically they are largely responsible considering how our Patent System currently works. In particular, Companies do not even NEED to make use of the patents at any point in their lifespan to keep them, they could just claim they are contemplating it's use but want to protect the IP for the time being; While that is a legitimate reason to patent something, the problem is there are too many instances where it becomes clear they never intended to use these patents, in actuality they just do not want anyone to use them so they can maintain their market dominance without having to innovate or lower their prices.
> 
> It is too soon to say how this executive order will play out, although I am certain it will not work as intended, and worse it will only pave the way for future presidents to broaden the scope of what executive powers are able to accomplish. I predict that while larger pharmaceutical companies could eat the losses for awhile, this executive order will put smaller companies/start ups out of business as they are far less likely to sustain the same kind of losses on their lesser established/developed products. Another parallel to this is whenever the minimum wage rises, it really does not hurt the Walmart's of the world since they can just adjust their prices/eat any temporary losses, instead it actually hurts small businesses whom could never sustain the same losses, let alone have enough bargaining power to increase their prices yet retain customers.



You have some valid points as usually when the Government gets involved into something the results aren't that great, but that's not always the case. I'm not too familiar with the biotech industry, but couldn't the smaller firms working on discovering new drugs simply profit off of their discoveries and not have to directly compete with larger entities. I mean, if you came up with the cure for HIV, wouldn't that be value enough? What would be the exact negative aspects that these smaller firms would have to deal with that you're speculating would happen?


----------



## Josshy0125 (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, you said it. You're not from America so I wouldn't expect you to respect our system of government. It would be like me judging your country based on no experience with your political system based solely on entertainment coming from tabloids masquerading as news organizations. However, if you read Sky or BBC they are pretty impartial, so kudos to those sites, but like I said, I'm not from your country, so judging it based on Internet hate and limited exposure to simply news articles wouldn't put me in any position to do so.


I've lived in America for a few years, so I understand plenty. Its very clear that you're just a trump fanboy. And just because hes president doesnt automatically mean he deserves our respect. How about those cases in which a doctor rapes his victims? Because hes a doctor he deserves respect? No. This oaf is the worst of humanity and it's clear that I know even more than you do about your own system, if you think that Obama is a self-righteous arrogant asshole, and think that defending trump is alright. I'd suggest you learn more about your own political system before backing a corrupt goon and believing in conspiracies that fox news throws about.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 11, 2019)

A few comments:

(I mentioned it earlier in this thread) Trump's use of sweeping executive orders is hypocritical, regardless of how you feel about the order itself. Obama's executive orders were called out for being tyrannical and the first step towards a dictatorship, even though they weren't nearly as sweeping as Trump's.
Trump's proposal is a Democratic idea that the Republicans have historically balked at. It flies in the face of the Republican ideal of an unencumbered free market where competition naturally drives down prices (spoiler alert: it doesn't work that way).
It's not entirely clear how much this would actually change (or what it _can_ change). We haven't seen the order yet, and an executive order has very real limitations. It might end up doing little to nothing.
On a similar topic, Trump just signed an executive order on kidney disease, and I think the order is good. However, it's being done through Medicare's innovation center, which only exists because of Obamacare. Without Obamacare, the order doesn't do anything.


----------



## morvoran (Jul 11, 2019)

Yes, the Great White Hope just keeps making America greater and greater everyday.  I hate to think what will happen when he leaves office in 2025.  Hopefully, another non-politician with true conservative values will continue to make America better just as Trump has done for us.

Too bad the hypocritical leftists keep fighting him on every issue that will help the people they are supposed to be "fighting for"?


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Hmm that’s weird I didn’t get any notifications for this thread.
> 
> Biotech Stocks Fell after Trump announced Executive Order. They fear the president will get something done.




Damn, seems like these Biotech firms are some greedy motherfuckers and don't care about anything, but money. I wouldn't blame their greed on Trump though. Raising prices or cutting availability, if that even happens, would be a really shit move for these businesses to do. Although, aren't we talking about an industry that built a business model around addicting patients to synthetic opioids and didn't mind a lot of them died because of their addictions? Talk about some really shitty people. 

I wonder if the generic alternatives would the replace the current drugs or if the time-frame in which generics could be introduced would be reduced. Maybe a new industry based on finding and creating new drugs to help people, opposed to simply making money would emerge? I'd like to speculate on the positive aspects here instead of thinking about the worse case scenario.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 11, 2019)

Lacius said:


> A few comments:
> 
> (I mentioned it earlier in this thread) Trump's use of sweeping executive orders is hypocritical, regardless of how you feel about the order itself. Obama's executive orders were called out for being tyrannical and the first step towards a dictatorship, even though they weren't nearly as sweeping as Trump's.
> Trump's proposal is a Democratic idea that the Republicans have historically balked at. It flies in the face of the Republican ideal of an unencumbered free market where competition naturally drives down prices (spoiler alert: it doesn't work that way).
> ...


Trunp has donated to both Democrats and Republicans. Before 2016 people joked around that Trump running as Republican was just a ploy by Hillary to make her look better. Since people thought he’d run as Democrat and didn’t take him seriously.


It may be hypocritical. But who cares about hypocrisy when it can be beneficial if it’s done.


Tightening up the boarders is a Democratic proposal and something Democrat’s like Bernie Sanders, Hillary, Obama campaigned on. So Trump supporting Democratic ideals isn’t too far out there.


Probably nothing will change and big pharma will persuade Trump the other way. So who knows what will happen.


----------



## Viri (Jul 11, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Yes, the Great White Hope just keeps making America greater and greater everyday.  I hate to think what will happen when he leaves office in 2025.  Hopefully, another non-politician with true conservative values will continue to make America better just as Trump has done for us.
> 
> Too bad the hypocritical leftists keep fighting him on every issue that will help the people they are supposed to be "fighting for"?


I just hope who ever is next, stays tough on China. I hope Trump and who ever is next becomes even tougher on China.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Trunp has donated to both Democrats and Republicans. Before 2016 people joked around that Trump running as Republican was just a ploy by Hillary to make her look better. Since people thought he’d run as Democrat and didn’t take him seriously.


Trump explained this as saying that, when one is rich, you give to lots of candidates because then they will listen to you. It's irrelevant to his policy positions as a staunch conservative. The executive order contradicts everything he and the Republicans have said over the past decade.



SG854 said:


> It may be hypocritical. But who cares about hypocrisy when it can be beneficial if it’s done.


I can praise an order (depending on what it actually ends up being) while also criticizing the hypocrisy.



SG854 said:


> Tightening up the boarders is a Democratic proposal and something Democrat’s like Bernie Sanders, Hillary, Obama campaigned on. So Trump supporting Democratic ideals isn’t too far out there.


The following are not things that Sanders, Clinton, and Obama campaigned on:

The wall
Child-separation
Child deaths
Deplorable holding conditions



SG854 said:


> Probably nothing will change and big pharma will persuade Trump the other way. So who knows what will happen.


I agree. I'm not optimistic this will go very far.

Edit: If we want this kind of change, we're going to need to elect a Democratic president and a Democratic congress.


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> I've lived in America for a few years, so I understand plenty. Its very clear that you're just a trump fanboy. And just because hes president doesnt automatically mean he deserves our respect. How about those cases in which a doctor rapes his victims? Because hes a doctor he deserves respect? No. This oaf is the worst of humanity and it's clear that I know even more than you do about your own system, if you think that Obama is a self-righteous arrogant asshole, and think that defending trump is alright. I'd suggest you learn more about your own political system before backing a corrupt goon and believing in conspiracies that fox news throws about.



I'm not defending any perceived negative aspects of Trump or trying to justify anything he's done that is wrong. I was taught, by impartial teachers long ago to respect our three branches of Government. I wasn't taught to only respect a certain party or certain political related beliefs. I defended Obama and the Presidents before them against full blind hatred and hypocrisy and still deal with stubborn people from both sides, which is why I don't belong to either side. I also don't limit my news intake to only certain entertainment companies websites. I actually intake a lot more than just cable network TV and internet gossip when it comes to educating myself about current events. There's a whole world outside of your window.

People are so blinded by their hatred they perceive anything related to Trump as being negative. He's not smart enough to be responsible for everything that happens bad in life. That's giving him way too much credit. Politicians in general, especially those with great power, act like elitist control freaks that are better than everyone else and know better. Obama had a smuck rich boy attitude, like he knew everything and was right about everything, just like most people in power do. I don't particularity like this sort of attitude, even if it's being displayed to gain people confidences. 

You seem to think because I'm not focusing on the negative aspects of our current President and blindly hating him, changing my entire belief structure to counteract his every move and doing so to fit into some PC culture that I'm some sort of blind fanboy. That's far from the case, but I understand how hatred can blind ones eyes and eat at their soul.


----------



## bitjacker (Jul 11, 2019)

Thoughts on this wont change the end result. Cause and effect will favor generic drug companies. Expect research and development to stop. Cancer won't get cured for 2 more decades. HIV drugs will cease to be.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 11, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Trump explained this as saying that, when one is rich, you give to lots of candidates because then they will listen to you. It's irrelevant to his policy positions as a staunch conservative. The executive order contradicts everything he and the Republicans have said over the past decade.
> 
> 
> I can praise an order (depending on what it actually ends up being) while also criticizing the hypocrisy.
> ...


People also use money and campaign contributions for Democratic ideals in politics.



Apparently George Soros and the Koch Brothers are teaming up to persuade politicians to end U.S. endless wars.

The Boogie Men of the Right and Left teaming up is just funny to me.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo.../soros-koch-end-interventionist-wars-military



The point about immigration and the basic premise was that tightening the boarders was a Democratic position and Trump has supported Democratic ideals. How he goes about it is a different topic, but none the less a Democratic position to limit illegals entering.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> People also use money and campaign contributions for Democratic ideals in politics.


I didn't say they don't. I also didn't criticize Trump's donation habits (although I don't condone giving money to Republican candidates). I don't know how any of this is relevant to the conversation.



SG854 said:


> Apparently George Soros and the Koch Brothers are teaming up to persuade politicians to end U.S. endless wars.


That's good. I can applaud this while condemning most of the other things the Koch Brothers have done.



SG854 said:


> The point about immigration and the basic premise was that tightening the boarders was is a Democratic position and Trump has supported Democratic ideals. How he goes about it is a different topic, but none the less a Democratic position to limit illegals entering.


I'd call the general goal of "having a secure border," without logistics, a bipartisan position, not specifically a "Democratic position."

Edit: To be clear, my point was that Trump was embracing an actual Democratic position.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 11, 2019)

Am I wrong, or don't executive orders only apply to institutions and agencies within the government?  I'm pretty sure that private entities, such as big pharma companies, can ignore this as nothing more than a suggestion; it might as well be a Tweet rather than an EO.


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

bitjacker said:


> Thoughts on this wont change the end result. Cause and effect will favor generic drug companies. Expect research and development to stop. Cancer won't get cured for 2 more decades. HIV drugs will cease to be.



.. and expect total nuclear Armageddon, the end of times and the Friends TV reunion to never happen.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> People also use money and campaign contributions for Democratic ideals in politics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you going to reply to my post, that was about your original subject matter, or turn this into another Democrat vs Republican debate on every current hot topic issue under the sun? It's already turned into a Trump-hate-jerkfest, which sadly, was to be expected. Did you even read my reply to the second video you posted?


----------



## SG854 (Jul 11, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I didn't say they don't. I also didn't criticize Trump's donation habits (although I don't condone giving money to Republican candidates). I don't know how any of this is relevant to the conversation.
> 
> 
> That's good. I can applaud this while condemning most of the other things the Koch Brothers have done.
> ...


When you mentioned that it’s irrelevant to his policy position as a staunch Conservative, I was making the point that it might not be irrelevant because he can use money to influence and support Democratic ideals. And using the George Soros and Koch brothers example as how it can be done.


Open Boarders was a Republican position because of cheap labor. But whatever, point being Trump does support Democratic ideas like you said.

I guess both Democrats and Republicans support lower Drug prices, and not just a Democratic position. But how they go about it is different.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> .. and expect total nuclear Armageddon, the end of times and the Friends TV reunion to never happen.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Ya I did read it. 

Sorry but people are always turning it into a dem vs republican, so I always feel the need to address it.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jul 11, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Am I wrong, or don't executive orders only apply to institutions and agencies within the government?  I'm pretty sure that private entities, such as big pharma companies, can ignore this as nothing more than a suggestion; it might as well be a Tweet rather than an EO.


Shh.... dont bring pesky facts into this. never thought that the free trade position (Bernie Sanders allowing pharmaceuticals from canada) would be the socialist position and The "exec order" position would be considered the small gubament position.

Truly bizarro world.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 11, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Am I wrong, or don't executive orders only apply to institutions and agencies within the government?  I'm pretty sure that private entities, such as big pharma companies, can ignore this as nothing more than a suggestion; it might as well be a Tweet rather than an EO.


I can also apply to the Private sector which Obama has done with private cyber security, gov working with private sector. 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...promoting-private-sector-cybersecurity-inform



It’s likely Big Pharma doesn’t think Trumps executive order will actually be enforceable, but the reason biotech stocks fell is because it signals Trump is pushing to get something done, executive order morphing into something else as they figure things out. Which they talk about in the second video I linked in this thread.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It’s likely Big Pharma doesn’t think Trumps executive order will actually be enforceable, but the reason biotech stocks fell is because it signals Trump is pushing to get something done, executive order morphing into something else as they figure things out. Which they talk about in the second video I linked in this thread.


Hopefully that is the case and this isn't just more smoke and mirrors.  Saying you've done something is a lot easier than actually doing it, and his fan base will believe him regardless.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 11, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Hopefully that is the case and this isn't just more smoke and mirrors.  Saying you've done something is a lot easier than actually doing it, and his fan base will believe him regardless.


I would say keep your hopes down for right now, so you aren’t smacked too hard with disappointment. Which I can see you already doing.


But stocks dropping and big pharma threatening to pull new drugs is a good sign, they feel actual threat. So a criticism of Trump is that pharma makes a deal with him but it’s a bad one that doesn’t change anything, but Trump being really dumb thinks is a good deal not because of malice intent but because he’s dumb.


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 11, 2019)

Lacius said:


> It's not entirely clear how much this would actually change (or what it _can_ change). We haven't seen the order yet, and an executive order has very real limitations. It might end up doing little to nothing.



Exactly this.  Executive orders are intended to order the executive around within the confines of Executive power.  In principle this means you can't simply dictate to companies what to do--like giving away free ice cream in the summer--and expect any results.  The whole idea of the bully pulpit is to proverbially bully/shame groups for doing the wrong thing even if one has no real power to do anything.  I guess this is why Obama came across as an elitist to some:  Republicans had such control over Congress that trying to speak force-ably to the public on his opinions, ideas, and beliefs is all he really could do.

Compare this to Trump who actually, at least for a while, had substantial power with Republican control of Congress.  Now that the House isn't Republican controlled, all he has are Executive orders that are likely toothless and a bully pulpit that only further demonstrates his general pestilence of others having a difference of opinion, how often he changes his opinion, how unclear he is of his opinion, and just how many times he blatantly lies or is so incompetent that he doesn't know what the truth is.

The only reason his Executive order has any real chance of having an effect is Congress, through the power of removing funding, is usually the most prominent rein on the power of the President.  Yet, they've clearly abandoned their job as evidence by the whole "emergency" border wall funding: when funding couldn't be obtained through Congress, Trump immediately used powers intent for emergencies to usurp Congressional power on funding (even going as far as explicitly saying it wasn't an emergency), and Congress refused to act to rescind that blatant money grab.  If Trump can do it once for one issue, what's to stop him from doing it again?

The only things stopping or slowing Trump at this point as far as abuse of Executive power are the Courts and those in his own administration who repeatedly refuse to do clearly illegal things--things like ordering the firing of the person investigating you for crimes for investigating you for crimes (it'd be another thing if it were about conflict of interest).  In a lot of ways, Trump's Presidency reminds me a lot of Grant's Presidency.  Honestly, though, scandal in the US government (like many governments) is very common.


----------



## DBlaze (Jul 11, 2019)

Pharmaceutical industry is one of the most corrupt areas i've ever seen, aynthing done against those shitheads is a good thing. 
And the fact that they threaten to pull new drugs (and the fact they raise prices to insane degrees) shows that it's all about money, there's next to no humanity in that industry.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 11, 2019)

The cost of medications in the US is obscene. The things I have seen people live with there, the financial burden I have seen people endure to manage not even chronic but passing conditions, the effects it has on business (low level/small-medium enterprise, high level and self employed), the things I have seen people modify to work around it* and so on and so on are things that would be considered bad in third word countries a lot of the time. The reason usually cited for these prices in the US is the lack of a coherent bargaining structure to do it from -- if insurers are lucky to have a few million in given coverage pool and have to bargain from that perspective then the UK (or just about any other place with it at country level**) being able to say 60 odd million people on our books and the main game in town... do it or don't.

*epi pens is a fun one -- some $600 at one point, UK is £8.80 for a prescription, albeit the government gets charged about £45 (about $60 at current rates), and said prescription is likely free for those under age, under income levels and if renewed more than a few times in a year it then becomes free. People with serious allergies then face serious choices about what they can do and where they can go if going to the wrong place can rinse you of $600 (maybe more if more than one is needed or you need to go to the hospital afterwards), and not just "oh damn, can't go to the peanut farm" but going to or going past places most of us would not think twice about, and taking jobs that only carry a low (but not effectively absent) risk.

**some places are noted as having a far more genetically coherent population (Japan, Singapore, and so forth), which can lower costs a bit, not got hard numbers in front of me but I don't imagine most big European countries and the big countries of the English speaking world don't differ and experience similar geographical conditions (extreme cold, extreme heat, dryness, altitude, snow, tropics... all available or made available by cheap holidays and ports).

To that end wanting to address the problem seems like something a politician should be doing.

That said is this likely to fix the problem? Is it likely to fix the problem long term? Is it likely to delay fixing it for real if it is not that effective?

There are also the questions of is this an overstep in terms of use of power? Back when Obamacare was being floated/implemented then many had cries of "muh free market" (because that was working so well before***). Even without that is this executive order lark designed for this sort of scenario? Most times I hear it described these executive orders are there to allow things to happen in very quick time if analysis paralysis will cause a moment to be lost. Setting long term policy by one then being the opposite of that -- the president is perfectly free to introduce and plump for legislation that would achieve the same goal.

***if you can get into it then the US does have a top tier system. Not by much though -- some things maybe have a few percentage points here and there over places with free care.



cots said:


> I was taught, by impartial teachers long ago to respect our three branches of Government. I wasn't taught to only respect a certain party or certain political related beliefs.


Is respect not one of those things that is supposed to be earned rather than given blindly, and that is before we do the respect as in authority and respect as in think positively of thing.


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 11, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> the president is perfectly free to introduce and plump for legislation that would achieve the same goal.



It's pretty straight forward:  Trump can't push for any progressive position because the Democrat House would potentially support it and the Republican Senate would invariably block it for being "communism" or some bullshit.  Better to push policy through Executive Orders, no matter how illegal, where Congress is too tied up to do anything and the Courts take months or years to act.  Again, this is precisely what Obama did which exactly the same problem.  The minor difference is where Republicans are wholesale (barring maybe a few mavericks) against such policies, most the Democrats are for the policy but there's enough "Blue Dog" "Centrist" Democrats that are so afraid of appearing "communist" and losing to a Republican to push most such stuff.  So, I blame almost all Republicans and a few Democrats for Congress being nearly wholly dysfunctional.   Oh, and the voters.  Especially the ones who keep voting in the same people out of a fear things will get "worse" where "worse" is exactly what always happens by their own standards.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 11, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> It's pretty straight forward:  Trump can't push for any progressive position because the Democrat House would potentially support it and the Republican Senate would invariably block it for being "communism" or some bullshit.  Better to push policy through Executive Orders, no matter how illegal, where Congress is too tied up to do anything and the Courts take months or years to act.  Again, this is precisely what Obama did which exactly the same problem.  The minor difference is where Republicans are wholesale (barring maybe a few mavericks) against such policies, most the Democrats are for the policy but there's enough "Blue Dog" "Centrist" Democrats that are so afraid of appearing "communist" and losing to a Republican to push most such stuff.  So, I blame almost all Republicans and a few Democrats for Congress being nearly wholly dysfunctional.   Oh, and the voters.  Especially the ones who keep voting in the same people out of a fear things will get "worse" where "worse" is exactly what always happens by their own standards.


While I don't disagree with that assessment as a general one (I would have said pretty much the same thing and indeed use it as a model to predict things myself) I would say that seeing the push back various places got (especially among the poorer states that form the present/remaining Republican base) when they were looking to repeal Obamacare as it saw people various survive or thrive that would not have done so without it might also weigh in here.

Indeed at this point I would be more worried about some of the really rather left wing types blocking it (or obviating the efforts of the mavericks or seeing the mavericks prevent themselves from leaping, missing and being torn apart by their own people) because it does not go far enough, or on some kind of principle for another issue.


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 11, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> seeing the push back various places got (especially among the poorer states that form the present/remaining Republican base) when they were looking to repeal Obamacare as it saw people various survive or thrive that would not have done so without it might also weigh in here.



The "funny" part about about that being how many of those same states rejected Medicaid dollars outlined in Obamacare?  Like I said, Republicans are often the platform of 'fear things will get "worse"'.  Republicans weren't even offering an actual replacement to Obamacare nor really a return to pre-Obamacare.  That wasn't just "worse", that was worse.  That they spent 7+ years on a platform of repealing Obamacare to finally be in a position to do it and not do so because they had no real plan also speaks volumes how unqualified all those people were to lead.  They went on the platform to act just to get elected but refuse to act for fear things will get "worse"...for their cushy political job come next election cycle.



FAST6191 said:


> Indeed at this point I would be more worried about some of the really rather left wing types blocking it (or obviating the efforts of the mavericks or seeing the mavericks prevent themselves from leaping, missing and being torn apart by their own people) because it does not go far enough, or on some kind of principle for another issue.



This I don't entirely disagree with.  Sadly way too many Democrats are just as vindictive as the Republicans, more interested in politics and making Trump look bad using some excuse of principle than acting.  Honestly, I'd have no problem if Trump served another 4 years if it meant the US got its shit together and pushed forward a lot of the needed reforms in taxes, services, etc.  As vindictive as Democrats can be, I honestly think that if Trump or the Republics acted conciliatory or "for the great good" there'd be enough Democrats to go along with it.  There's a lot less lock-step in the Democratic party.

The problem is, the President isn't the real problem nor the solution.  Obama was the principled (mostly) guy; that didn't work.  Trump is the unprincipled guy (mostly); that's not working.  We need an actual "deal maker", not a con artist.  That requires a Congress willing to act.  Sadly too few in Congress are willing to act and lose their cushy job.  Doing virtually nothing on just about everything is almost a certain way to stay in Congress for about a decade.  It's little wonder people like AOC scare the shit out of most people in Congress.


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Is respect not one of those things that is supposed to be earned rather than given blindly, and that is before we do the respect as in authority and respect as in think positively of thing.



Having trust in our system wasn't given blindly. I learned through schooling and over the years to respect our system, even if some aspects of it may be corrupt. I respect the three branches of Government. That doesn't mean I trust their every move, but it also doesn't mean that I get the luxury of picking sides or playing favorites based on my own bias standards. If I were living in Somalia or Venezuela, I may have a different viewpoint, but that's aren't that bad. I don't hate my country and I have trust in our system, there's nothing wrong with that. People that are filled with hatred are the problem.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> Having trust in our system wasn't given blindly. I learned through schooling and over the years to respect our system, even if some aspects of it may be corrupt. I respect the three branches of Government. That doesn't mean I trust their every move, but it also doesn't mean that I get the luxury of picking sides or playing favorites based on my own bias standards. If I were living in Somalia or Venezuela, I may have a different viewpoint, but that's aren't that bad. I don't hate my country and I have trust in our system, there's nothing wrong with that. People that are filled with hatred are the problem.


I have issues respecting something for what it is as much as what this particular iteration has done. After he was elected I often heard "I will respect him because he is president" which seems like a backwards way of setting about things, occasionally almost in a "nothing that happened before this matters" sense.
I am all for trying to get things to happen and not being an obstinate cunt but inherent/automatic respect for something that is a mere seat/room/building seems like a questionable approach to the world.

All that said in light of the later parts of the "education, free or not?" discussion the other day I going to find the bias standards claim a bit dubious, even if I don't disagree with the "boost that which you agree with" approach that such a topic seemed to indicate you preferred.


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> I have issues respecting something for what it is as much as what this particular iteration has done. After he was elected I often heard "I will respect him because he is president" which seems like a backwards way of setting about things, occasionally almost in a "nothing that happened before this matters" sense.
> I am all for trying to get things to happen and not being an obstinate cunt but inherent/automatic respect for something that is a mere seat/room/building seems like a questionable approach to the world.
> 
> All that said in light of the later parts of the "education, free or not?" discussion the other day I going to find the bias standards claim a bit dubious, even if I don't disagree with the "boost that which you agree with" approach that such a topic seemed to indicate you preferred.



It's pretty simple. I'm Patriotic. I love my country. I'd fight and die for it. I support our way of life and our system of Government. I do this because of the many years I've been alive and the great education and services I receive. Nothing is perfect, I've had my problems and don't blindly trust anyone, but I respect my country and like our way of life. Sure, you could think this is "brainwashed" or "isn't independent thinking", but actually, critically thinking skills and my own free will are what allowed me to come to this conclusion. 

I like to believe in something and hold values. If you don't that's fine, but I do, and if you can't understand or don't agree with it than that's your problem, not mine. I'm perfectly happy, sorry you're not. Maybe you'll find out what makes you happy some day down the road and if you do don't let anyone tell you different.


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 11, 2019)

Orange Man Bad seems to be the sum extent of the replies to this topic, barely any even cover the topic at all, most are "yeah but it's trump so whatever"


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Orange Man Bad seems to be the sum extent of the replies to this topic, barely any even cover the topic at all, most are "yeah but it's trump so whatever"



Haters are going to hate. It's what they do. Just treat them with pity. Being full of hatred blinds the eyes and consumes the soul.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> Having trust in our system wasn't given blindly. I learned through schooling and over the years to respect our system, even if some aspects of it may be corrupt. I respect the three branches of Government. That doesn't mean I trust their every move, but it also doesn't mean that I get the luxury of picking sides or playing favorites based on my own bias standards. If I were living in Somalia or Venezuela, I may have a different viewpoint, but that's aren't that bad. I don't hate my country and I have trust in our system, there's nothing wrong with that. People that are filled with hatred are the problem.



To accept the current system as it is, is to accept the multiple glaring issues which it has. The electoral college is an easy one to use as an example. All votes aren't equal as they should be in a democracy, and the result is inadvertent voter suppression in states which are overly blue/red, as people who are the opposite of the state's leaning will have a meaningless vote, and therefore not even bother voting. At the same time, the weight of each vote towards a seat is different, depending on the population of the state. The votes of people in large population states are much less valuable than people in rural states.

An overly extreme example is easy to understand. If 99% of the population decides to live in California, and the remaining 1% lives in the other 49 states, that 1% will have total control over the 99% in California. The hope when the electoral college system was created was that each state would grow at the same pace as the others. That couldn't happen in the long run. 

(From a Canadian that LOVES the soap-opera that is: American politics)


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> I like to believe in something and hold values. If you don't that's fine, but I do, and if you can't understand or don't agree with it than that's your problem, not mine. I'm perfectly happy, sorry you're not. Maybe you'll find out what makes you happy some day down the road and if you do don't let anyone tell you different.



What's with this assumption that someone disagreeing with your platitudes would cause them to be unhappy?


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> What's with this assumption that someone who disagrees with your platitudes would cause them to be unhappy?



Most people that are full of hate and distrust don't tend to be happy people, but you're right, it's an assumption and I could be wrong.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> It's pretty simple. I'm Patriotic. I love my country. I'd fight and die for it. I support our way of life and our system of Government. I do this because of the many years I've been alive and the great education and services I receive. Nothing is perfect, I've had my problems and don't blindly trust anyone, but I respect my country and like our way of life. Sure, you could think this is "brainwashed" or "isn't independent thinking", but actually, critically thinking skills and my own free will are what allowed me to come to this conclusion.
> 
> I like to believe in something and hold values. If you don't that's fine, but I do, and if you can't understand or don't agree with it than that's your problem, not mine. I'm perfectly happy, sorry you're not. Maybe you'll find out what makes you happy some day down the road and if you do don't let anyone tell you different.


Not that my happiness came up at all, or is that relevant in all this, not to mention I am plenty happy if it should somehow be a factor in this.

Similarly I would not have laid a charge of brainwashed or hive mind/follow the herd thinking, more at the merits of the approach selected. If I had to trust in things I would be the underlying principles, and every step taken would need to be justified based on those and the will of the people, saving where the will of the people contradicts the principles for some reason and with considerable more effort put into the justification if the people lack the capacity (we have experts for a reason) or will to act; the degree of these being where more of the interesting debate happens.

"I receive"
OK but what about the others? Are there being done right by? Be it in said services or treatment at large? Could what you have got been better still? If I look at the US it is lacking, or perhaps lagging, in a lot of areas the rest of the world has sorted. If a system is not producing good results despite all the advantages or essentially the same starting points I have to start questioning the system to some extent, or seeing where it might need some grease to get going again.


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

titan_tim said:


> To accept the current system as it is, is to accept the multiple glaring issues which it has. The electoral college is an easy one to use as an example. All votes aren't equal as they should be in a democracy, and the result is inadvertent voter suppression in states which are overly blue/red, as people who are the opposite of the state's leaning will have a meaningless vote, and therefore not even bother voting. At the same time, the weight of each vote towards a seat is different, depending on the population of the state. The votes of people in large population states are much less valuable than people in rural states.
> 
> An overly extreme example is easy to understand. If 99% of the population decides to live in California, and the remaining 1% lives in the other 49 states, that 1% will have total control over the 99% in California. The hope when the electoral college system was created was that each state would grow at the same pace as the others. That couldn't happen in the long run.
> 
> (From a Canadian that LOVES the soap-opera that is: American politics)



I understand that there are negative aspects to the system, but overall I still respect it. There's tons of stuff I disagree with and I don't blindly trust anyone, but I respect our system and way of life and respect the law of the land. I know that our voting system isn't perfect, but I also understand that depending on who actually wins, that the problems then are non-existent for them, that's if they win, which just demonstrates they can't handle losing (aka they are poor losers).

I could go on about particular things I agree with or disagree with, but I'm not addressing single issues, I'm addressing the overall respect I have for our country and way of life. Which, I do on my own free will using the acclaimed critically thinking skills, that are supposed to be so necessary for a superior viewpoint (which, they aren't, but I'm using them anyway, just to make a point).


----------



## drewby (Jul 11, 2019)

This is good for all Americans, unless it doesn't actually lower drug prices for middle/lower class. Then I will be sad


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> "I receive"
> OK but what about the others? Are there being done right by? Be it in said services or treatment at large? Could what you have got been better still? If I look at the US it is lacking, or perhaps lagging, in a lot of areas the rest of the world has sorted. If a system is not producing good results despite all the advantages or essentially the same starting points I have to start questioning the system to some extent, or seeing where it might need some grease to get going again.



When it comes down to it most people only care about the services they receive. I know it's "cool" to discuss issues that are irrelevant to ones personal self and claim you're out to save the human race, but when it comes down to it you're only really looking out for yourself and only saying these things just to satisfy you own position and ego, which is naturally how it usually goes, so it's understandable. Not many people live their lives to serve others and would otherwise discourage doing so. 

Most people in our system aren't suffering by any extent. We're a first world country. Sure, we have minorities that have problems, but the world isn't perfect and you'll find them everywhere. It's not possible to create an Utopia or a perfect world, because everyone is different and like I said, most people don't fight for the betterment of mankind, only for themselves, with is natural and in baked into our instinct. So I understand that. It's also natural to want to control everything and play God.

Even when times get tough or I find something that I don't like going on, I still trust in our Government and respect our way of life. I don't change my core values or beliefs on a dime based on the popular opinion or to fit in, I don't seek to be "cool", especially if that means I have to go around blindly hating things. Hell, I've been jailed for things I haven't done, I've been abused, my childhood wasn't ideal, I've been homeless, I'm a minority, but I still have faith and have hope. Those are things I chose hold onto which in turn makes me happy. Sure, not all of time, but at least I'm not full of hatred and vile all of the time and let it consume me to the point where I am not doing anyone any good, especially myself.


----------



## seany1990 (Jul 11, 2019)

Ah yes its the exact same play as the midterms and again the right wing will obviously fall for it

What happened to that lower/middle class tax-cut that was promised before the midterms? Fox news talked about it extensively and then I guess forgot about it after the country-wide humiliating midterm defeats. This is just a campaign promise to rile up some votes, theres literally 0% chance Trump will do anything that that hurts the bottom line of already made multi-millionaires.


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

Drew That Gamer said:


> This is good for all Americans, unless it doesn't actually lower drug prices for middle/lower class. Then I will be sad



Yes, it'll be great for everyone, if it effects everyone, but right now rich people aren't the ones suffering from high prices of medications. If you're rich and in power, high drug prices don't effect you much. If the prices do get decreased, it'll literally be saving lives, including mine, if I ever lose my health insurance. Hey, I'm not going not bitch about the person who's doing this or try to prevent it, because I rather stay alive.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jul 11, 2019)

He wants a pat on the back for 100 drugs getting cheaper last year, ignoring that over 3000 hiked prices. 

Meanwhile, just yesterday, they once again tried to cut people with preexisting conditions out of Healthcare. 


This order will just be another nothing burger.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jul 11, 2019)

He wants a pat on the back for 100 drugs getting cheaper last year, ignoring that over 3000 hiked prices. 

Meanwhile, just yesterday, they once again tried to cut people with preexisting conditions out of Healthcare. 


This order will just be another nothing burger.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> I understand that there are negative aspects to the system, but overall I still respect it. There's tons of stuff I disagree with and I don't blindly trust anyone, but I respect our system and way of life and respect the law of the land. I know that our voting system isn't perfect, but I also understand that depending on who actually wins, that the problems then are non-existent for them, that's if they win, which just demonstrates they can't handle losing (aka they are poor losers).
> 
> I could go on about particular things I agree with or disagree with, but I'm not addressing single issues, I'm addressing the overall respect I have for our country and way of life. Which, I do on my own free will using the acclaimed critically thinking skills, that are supposed to be so necessary for a superior viewpoint (which, they aren't, but I'm using them anyway, just to make a point).



Yep, overall, I like the way of life over there. It's basically the same mindset of how to live your life as Canada. 

Canadian's grumble if their party isn't in power, but it's nowhere near as bad as the anger in the US (Both sides are guilty of it). It will take a true person of the people to be able to bridge the gap between the two parties in the future. Trump definitely isn't the one to do that though.

If I had to choose, I'd prefer to live in Canada, as they do more things right than they do wrong within the government in comparison. Lifestyles are basically the same, and the laws of the land are basically the same as well. The only reason I'm not living there now, is the damn weather. God I hate winter!


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> When it comes down to it most people only care about the services they receive. I know it's "cool" to discuss issues that are irrelevant to ones personal self and claim you're out to save the human race, but when it comes down to it you're only really looking out for yourself and only saying these things just to satisfy you own position and ego, which is naturally how it usually goes, so it's understandable. Not many people live their lives to serve others and would otherwise discourage doing so.
> 
> Most people in our system aren't suffering by any extent. We're a first world country. Sure, we have minorities that have problems, but the world isn't perfect and you'll find them everywhere. It's not possible to create an Utopia or a perfect world, because everyone is different and like I said, most people don't fight for the betterment of mankind, only for themselves, with is natural and in baked into our instinct. So I understand that. It's also natural to want to control everything and play God.
> 
> Even when times get tough or I find something that I don't like going on, I still trust in our Government and respect our way of life. I don't change my core values or beliefs on a dime based on the popular opinion or to fit in, I don't seek to be "cool", especially if that means I have to go around blindly hating things. Hell, I've been jailed for things I haven't done, I've been abused, my childhood wasn't ideal, I've been homeless, I'm a minority, but I still have faith and have hope. Those are things I chose hold onto which in turn makes me happy. Sure, not all of time, but at least I'm not full of hatred and vile all of the time and let it consume me to the point where I am not doing anyone any good, especially myself.



If we are to take it back to the topic at hand then as far as medicine prices go I am seeing plenty of people throughout US society suffer in ways that are almost unimaginable to most of the rest of the developed world, similarly for what you get then education is expensive and social safety nets are not all that great there either. Worse on the healthcare front is it is not even just a stylistic choice -- the US government alone pumps out crazy sums per person compared to similarly tech based medicine countries of wildly varying genetic makeups, go from just gov based stuff and instead look at GDP and it is worse still.

Similarly it is not hippy drippy feelings that mainly drive me -- I want nice roads that no company will care enough to fund for my leisure, I want to be able to start a business and have a wide selection of highly trained people competing for my jobs and able to afford the swish ends of my services, I want educated people being able to do things I don't even know about but ultimately benefit from... and I am unable to make that happen by myself. What little remains of what some might call empathy in me does cause me to pause when I see someone with an effectively trivial to solve problem not have it solved despite everywhere else in the world seeming to manage OK but ultimately it is pragmatism that goes further for me.


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> Ah yes its the exact same play as the midterms and again the right wing will obviously fall for it
> 
> What happened to that lower/middle class tax-cut that was promised before the midterms? Fox news talked about it extensively and then I guess forgot about it after the country-wide humiliating midterm defeats. This is just a campaign promise to rile up some votes, theres literally 0% chance Trump will do anything that that hurts the bottom line of already made multi-millionaires.



Ask Fox? I don't see why so many people focus on a single cable TV channel that runs a website that happens to have three real news broadcasts a day, followed by opinion based entertainment shows as some sort of definitive source for a particular party. That's sort of like saying CNN is the #1 default resource and mouthpiece for the Democratic party. That's hilarious.

You'd also imagine if the only people benefiting from the current administrations policies were the ruling class and the 1% that the other 99% wouldn't be voting for more moderate candidates that will keep the current system going just about the way it's currently going. I'd imagine if the rest of us were actually suffering that this would be reflected in the way we're voting, but as this isn't the case I'd say people are simply claiming the "sky is falling", when it's not.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> If we are to take it back to the topic at hand then as far as medicine prices go I am seeing plenty of people throughout US society suffer in ways that are almost unimaginable to most of the rest of the developed world, similarly for what you get then education is expensive and social safety nets are not all that great there either. Worse on the healthcare front is it is not even just a stylistic choice -- the US government alone pumps out crazy sums per person compared to similarly tech based medicine countries of wildly varying genetic makeups, go from just gov based stuff and instead look at GDP and it is worse still.



I've luckily not ever been in the position were I couldn't afford the medication I take on a daily basis that keeps me alive, but I've seen what not having the various medications I take daily can do to people that can't afford it. It's horrible. I don't see any reason why lowering the medications prices is going to be a bad thing. If in your country it costs 75% less to purchase the same medication it does in the USA, than I see no reason why we should be paying that extra amount when the only reason it's more expensive is that the drug company simply wants a higher profit.


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> You'd also imagine if the only people benefiting from the current administrations policies were the ruling class and the 1% that the other 99% wouldn't be voting for more moderate candidates that will keep the current system going just about the way it's currently going. I'd imagine if the rest of us were actually suffering that this would be reflected in the way we're voting, but as this isn't the case I'd say people are simply claiming the "sky is falling", when it's not.



Democracy and the Lizards  The sky doesn't have to be falling for the system to be terrible.  People put up with a lot of horrible--European serfdom was really horrible.  Just being alive and eeking out an existence that's about as good as your dad or mom, that's all people expect.  When things turn out bad, they can always look at their neighbor doing okay and figure they were just the unlucky one.  It takes something like a Great Depression or a World War before people suddenly see that a dramatic shift can happen, and then people start really rioting.  Also, plenty of deflation..  The system has been mostly rigged through the Federal Reserve to avoid most that stuff.  Same with the UN and the security council.

If that's all you want or need, no matter how terrible things are, that's obviously your business.  It's rather absurd to pretend, though, that people don't take mediocre and convince themselves what they vote for is moderate when what they constantly vote for stability at all costs.  Stability at all costs is terrible.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> I've luckily not ever been in the position were I couldn't afford the medication I take on a daily basis that keeps me alive, but I've seen what not having the various medications I take daily can do to people that can't afford it. It's horrible. I don't see any reason why lowering the medications prices is going to be a bad thing. If in your country it costs 75% less to purchase the same medication it does in the USA, than I see no reason why we should be paying that extra amount when the only reason it's more expensive is that the drug company simply wants a higher profit.


While affording is one thing, and I will lump simple burdens in that, it is also what I see keep people working soul or body crushing jobs because insurance (or past debts from healthcare) for them or their family, not go self employed (or put more effort into it rather than keep it as a side project), not take the job at the fun company that might go pop if it does not have the next project go OK, not take the job that involves moving because of gaps, not search longer to find a decent job because of gaps, opt to live at 60% with serious medication bills because surgery will bankrupt them, delay things until it is critical for the same reasons... there are so many knock on and hidden effects.

The question from me however is is this action likely to be a long term solution (or be the thing that kicks off on/covers people until it is there) in addition to the questions of use of power for it. The reason it might cost 75% less is because they are negotiating in bulk (even the biggest insurance providers seem to be a fraction of what smaller countries bring to the table), able to put down contracts (predictable income), maybe have a bit less red tape (don't know if the insurance providers have their own regs here, though they do limit usage of a lot of things. FDA regs are usually in line with the rest of the world) and that is far easier. If arbitrarily capping a market (for a nation so fond of "freedom" a rather strong act) then is that likely to do much good in the long term or all those other things mentioned in the first sentence?
I have wondered at times if the US paying so much also means other companies are more likely to negotiate outside the US as the US provides the bulk and everything else is just gravy on top of it all.


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> If that's all you want or need, no matter how terrible things are, that's obviously your business.  It's rather absurd to pretend, though, that people don't take mediocre and convince themselves what they vote for is moderate when what they constantly vote for stability at all costs.  Stability at all costs is terrible.



Well, you stated the mid-term defeats. If you were referring to Republican's vs Democrat's then there were some areas that Democrats did win more positions, but like I said, they were moderates who are supportive of most the current policies, not extreme radicals who want to destroy everything our country stands for, so I don't see that as a major loss, but I don't vote for just one party (I vote for people with policies that would be generally productive regardless if they are red or blue), so being impartial and non-bias in this situation is sort of in my nature.

If stuff does get unstable due to radicals pushing their agendas and we sees riots or another civil war then I'm ready to protect myself and my property. I'm not too worried about being able to defend myself, but I'm not looking for a fight, so I'll leave that to the "far left or far right" to start and keep voting for stability and hope for the best. I don't want conflict, but I won't back down from it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> The question from me however is is this action likely to be a long term solution (or be the thing that kicks off on/covers people until it is there) in addition to the questions of use of power for it. The reason it might cost 75% less is because they are negotiating in bulk (even the biggest insurance providers seem to be a fraction of what smaller countries bring to the table), able to put down contracts (predictable income), maybe have a bit less red tape (don't know if the insurance providers have their own regs here, though they do limit usage of a lot of things. FDA regs are usually in line with the rest of the world) and that is far easier. If arbitrarily capping a market (for a nation so fond of "freedom" a rather strong act) then is that likely to do much good in the long term or all those other things mentioned in the first sentence?
> I have wondered at times if the US paying so much also means other companies are more likely to negotiate outside the US as the US provides the bulk and everything else is just gravy on top of it all.



Good questions, much better than speculating that everything is going to end up bad and we're all doomed. I'm not sure what the future will bring, but hopefully it involves lower prices across the board and that people get the medication they need to stay healthy and alive at reasonable prices they can afford.


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, you stated the mid-term defeats.



Uh, never really brought up the mid-terms.  I was speaking of moderates and conservatives that fear change, even change for the better.



cots said:


> like I said, they were moderates who are supportive of most the current policies, not extreme radicals who want to destroy everything our country stands for,



What does our country stand for?  Three branches of government?  Democracy?  Mostly free market capitalism?  Nothing about universal healthcare is radical or against that.  No more than national regulations on pollution, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc.  Honestly, I so rarely know what people mean with "[what] our country stands for"?  Perhaps imperialist interference in other countries, since we've being done that since day one.  Subsidized products to manipulate or control other economies?  General efforts to have dominion over the whole world?  Really, if we just go by actions, the US stands for generally maniacal things; freedom and justice are so far down the list it's a joke if it doesn't involve people within American borders, and even then we tend to try oppress large minorities of the population (or even the majority that is women for quite a while).  Oh, and let's not forget all the money fueled corruption.  Maybe throw in some slavery and racism for the kicks, although we mostly replaced that with just racism.

Radicals that strive to destroy the US?  They're an irrelevant minority.  Radicals that could, by accident, destroy the US?  Always a risk, as much as stability for stability sake can destroy a nation.  Change is an inherent part of existence that if fought against blindly merely leads to self-destruction.  Real moderation doesn't mean leaning towards a meaning that argues to do nothing any more than real skepticism means listening to the majority of people while ignoring all evidence.  If each situation were being considered on its own merit there wouldn't be political blocks voting on social issues.  People would vote for those actually following the moderate line they profess.


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 11, 2019)

How is that man not assasinated yet?
Poor Lincoln, poor JFK.



Josshy0125 said:


> Really hate that guy. As an outsider, I am still in shock that this child is president. Waste of garbage human being. Should be in jail.



Goes to show that everybody can become a president in the US.
Even clowns like Donald Fart.


----------



## jurai (Jul 11, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> He wants a pat on the back for 100 drugs getting cheaper last year, ignoring that over 3000 hiked prices.
> 
> Meanwhile, just yesterday, they once again tried to cut people with preexisting conditions out of Healthcare.
> 
> ...



Looks like they backed out of this plan? Even with insurance my current medications got extremely expensive for my existing condition, was on a plan that actually covered them and was paying about $20 for 3 to be filled, company switched providers and they were all denied so now it's about $350 for me to fill all 3 of them, feelsbadman


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> Uh, never really brought up the mid-terms.  I was speaking of moderates and conservatives that fear change, even change for the better.
> 
> What does our country stand for?  Three branches of government?  Democracy?  Mostly free market capitalism?  Nothing about universal healthcare is radical or against that.  No more than national regulations on pollution, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc.  Honestly, I so rarely know what people mean with "[what] our country stands for"?  Perhaps imperialist interference in other countries, since we've being done that since day one.  Subsidized products to manipulate or control other economies?  General efforts to have dominion over the whole world?  Really, if we just go by actions, the US stands for generally maniacal things; freedom and justice are so far down the list it's a joke if it doesn't involve people within American borders, and even then we tend to try oppress large minorities of the population (or even the majority that is women for quite a while).  Oh, and let's not forget all the money fueled corruption.  Maybe throw in some slavery and racism for the kicks, although we mostly replaced that with just racism.
> 
> Radicals that strive to destroy the US?  They're an irrelevant minority.  Radicals that could, by accident, destroy the US?  Always a risk, as much as stability for stability sake can destroy a nation.  Change is an inherent part of existence that if fought against blindly merely leads to self-destruction.  Real moderation doesn't mean leaning towards a meaning that argues to do nothing any more than real skepticism means listening to the majority of people while ignoring all evidence.  If each situation were being considered on its own merit there wouldn't be political blocks voting on social issues.  People would vote for those actually following the moderate line they profess.



Yeah, you didn't bring up the mid-terms, that was another member, sorry. I'm all for universal health care, I don't think heath care is a human right, no more than that everyone needs to own a cell phone or needs an Internet connection, but I support it none the less. Saying it's a human right means that you're wrong for not supporting it, which isn't the case. I don't see people that don't want to pay for others health care as wrong, it's their money, they earned it, but personally, I'm willing to have my taxes spent on it and since I require medical care, more than some others, I can take advantage of it, therefor, it's a worthy investment.

Things change, but not always for the better. The radicals on the left and the right mainly want the implement policies that would harm our way of life, so I generally don't support most of what they stand for. I question the legality, moral standing and any sort of interference polices may have with the Constitution before considering them. I also tend to vote for things that would personally effect me or my quality of life (as opposed to stuff that a certain party pushes that would never effect me).

Selfish? Maybe, but most of the people that are bickering about policies that never effect them, in all reality, are just bickering and would not lift more than a finger to type on a keyboard to actually address the issue personally, because it doesn't personally effect them. It's just "cool" to bitch, for whatever current popular reason, but I don't really care much for what's "popular" and "cool", as I've been both of those and they never really last or work out in the long term so it's not something I'm looking for. I rather be myself and not fake and if you don't like that than I don't really care (that's sort of the point).


----------



## SG854 (Jul 11, 2019)

DBlaze said:


> Pharmaceutical industry is one of the most corrupt areas i've ever seen, aynthing done against those shitheads is a good thing.
> And the fact that they threaten to pull new drugs (and the fact they raise prices to insane degrees) shows that it's all about money, there's next to no humanity in that industry.



They say they will pull the introduction of new drugs which they blame expensive prices on R&D, and the U.S. pays the lions share of those costs so other countries won’t have to.


They say they pull them because they can’t afford R&D and creation of new drugs if they lower prices. And since some of these drugs are created in the U.S. this will also affect other countries also, no new drugs for them either. That’s the argument big pharma is presenting. Which you can believe them or not.


----------



## seany1990 (Jul 12, 2019)

cots said:


> You'd also imagine if the only people benefiting from the current administrations policies were the ruling class and the 1% that the other 99% wouldn't be voting for more moderate candidates that will keep the current system going just about the way it's currently going. I'd imagine if the rest of us were actually suffering that this would be reflected in the way we're voting, but as this isn't the case I'd say people are simply claiming the "sky is falling", when it's not.



Republicans represent the elite only, they get votes because they suppress education in southern states, pretend to care about christian values and created a culture of punching down so the real people screwing them (corporations (including big pharma obviously) and bankers) get to live their rich privileged lives in peace knowing they have an entire army of useful idiots in Alabama and Texas ready to march against their own interests when election day comes.

If you ignore how disgusting that is, it's actually quite impressive with what they've done.


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 12, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> Republicans represent the elite only, they get votes because they suppress education in southern states, pretend to care about christian values and created a culture of punching down so the real people screwing them (corporations (including big pharma obviously) and bankers) get to live their rich privileged lives in peace knowing they have an entire army of useful idiots in Alabama and Texas ready to march against their own interests when election day comes.
> 
> If you ignore how disgusting that is, it's actually quite impressive with what they've done.



Something tells me you voted remain, you have this aura of "I know better than you, I'm smarter and you're a dumbass" here's a pointer, telling people they're stupid, they dont know what they voted for or generally calling them idiots who vote against their own interests won't make them change their minds.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Jul 12, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Something tells me you voted remain, you have this aura of "I know better than you, I'm smarter and you're a dumbass" here's a pointer, telling people they're stupid, they dont know what they voted for or generally calling them idiots who vote against their own interests won't make them change their minds.




While I agree with you, I'm going to be quite honest. If you voted for Trump, you're probably a dumbass, in the literal sense. At the VERY least, it's a 100% given that you voted for him with ignorance. Had one known who he was, or even anything about his election, or hell, if they had even watched one speech, or even a single quote of his, they would learn real quickly that hes a horrible human being who's not fit to even be a burger flipper. 

So yes, in many ways, I believe fully that if you voted for Trump, you're not smart. If you continue to support him, you're not only not smart, but you're an asshole and an actual moron, mentally. At the VERY VERY least, its a given that if you voted for him, you know nothing about him nor politics. At the VERY least you're politically-challenged and voted for him to soothe some form of racism, bias, or just flat-out ignorance. So yeah. If you voted for trump, you're already in the "you're not very smart, are you?" Category. And that's not wrong of me to say. I feel that's an understandable assumption to make.


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 12, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> While I agree with you, I'm going to be quite honest. If you voted for Trump, you're probably a dumbass, in the literal sense. At the VERY least, it's a 100% given that you voted for him with ignorance. Had one known who he was, or even anything about his election, or hell, if they had even watched one speech, or even a single quote of his, they would learn real quickly that hes a horrible human being who's not fit to even be a burger flipper.
> 
> So yes, in many ways, I believe fully that if you voted for Trump, you're not smart. If you continue to support him, you're not only not smart, but you're an asshole and an actual moron, mentally. At the VERY VERY least, its a given that if you voted for him, you know nothing about him nor politics. At the VERY least you're politically-challenged and voted for him to soothe some form of racism, bias, or just flat-out ignorance. So yeah. If you voted for trump, you're already in the "you're not very smart, are you?" Category. And that's not wrong of me to say. I feel that's an understandable assumption to make.



The fact that the UK flag is by my name and with it also saying I'm in Manchester I thought might have been a clue as to the fact that I clearly didn't vote for Trump as I'm not eligible. But please do continue telling me how I'm the stupid ignorant one.

Some of the words you used: "dumbass" "not smart", "asshole", "actual moron", "politically challenged", "racism" "flat out ignorance"

Please continue telling me how wrong I or anyone else with the "wrong opinion" is, thy bastion or moral intellect, that is if you can still see us, It's a long way down when you're looking past your nose at us.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Jul 12, 2019)

shamzie said:


> The fact that the UK flag is by my name and with it also saying I'm in Manchester I thought might have been a clue as to the fact that I clearly didn't vote for Trump as I'm not eligible. But please do continue telling me how I'm the stupid ignorant one.


I'm not saying "you" as in _you_, I'm stating in general.I'm from Britain too...


----------



## seany1990 (Jul 13, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Something tells me you voted remain, you have this aura of "I know better than you, I'm smarter and you're a dumbass" here's a pointer, telling people they're stupid, they dont know what they voted for or generally calling them idiots who vote against their own interests won't make them change their minds.



I did vote remain but that has nothing to do with my post. I also don't buy into this whole "My entire world-view is based on countering someone or someones saying mean things about people." The truth is what happens within the USA doesn't really concern me all that much, I have some understanding of American subculture because of how polarising Trump is and how he still has such support from a large portion of the country despite only doing 1. Golf and 2. Giving a 2 trillion dollars over 10 years tax cut to the top 1% and 3. locked up immigrants in cages.

So lets do some simple mathematics, he has roughly 40% favourability in the USA country-wide.

We will assume he gets 0% support for golf, we have 40% left to find
He gets 1% support from the wealthy who he gave the tax cut to.
So that leaves 39% from.....???? racist trash who support locking up children in concentration camps.

And you are really going to call me out for saying "mean things" about these people? Get real


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 13, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> I did vote remain but that has nothing to do with my post. I also don't buy into this whole "My entire world-view is based on countering someone or someones saying mean things about people." The truth is what happens within the USA doesn't really concern me all that much, I have some understanding of American subculture because of how polarising Trump is and how he still has such support from a large portion of the country despite only doing 1. Golf and 2. Giving a 2 trillion dollars over 10 years tax cut to the top 1% and 3. locked up immigrants in cages.
> 
> So lets do some simple mathematics, he has roughly 40% favourability in the USA country-wide.
> 
> ...



It's asinine, retarded shit like this that's going to get him reelected you fucking dolt.

The base he built that got him elected in 2016 wasn't due to muh racism or other idiotic sound-byte talking points - he was seen as a possible third path by an increasingly isolated and desperate (largely white) non-metropolitan lower-middle/middle class.

Did they get jipped? Fuck yes - they nearly always do. Plenty that got overly wrapped up by the prospect of genuine 'change' (rubes still donning their MAGA hats etc...) still belong to his personality cult, but an incredibly large portion are so (further) disillusioned by the political process that it's a fantastic period for radicals to gather a following.

Exciting times ahead.


----------



## mixelpixx (Nov 17, 2019)

If Trump were King it would work that way.  He's not, so it doesn't. He doesn't control the "purse strings", that would be congress, then pass it to the senate, then the President gets it and signs it -- gubmint 101..


----------



## cots (Nov 17, 2019)

mixelpixx said:


> If Trump were King it would work that way.  He's not, so it doesn't. He doesn't control the "purse strings", that would be congress, then pass it to the senate, then the President gets it and signs it -- gubmint 101..



Some people blame Trump for gaining weight and claim it was also racism.


----------

