Good Morning America, how are you ...

[Highlander]

Yep... that works...

BTW... latest news over here is that the "Special Relationship" is over... (does that mean all the MacDonalds will be packing up and going home...?)

BTW2... AUTO-TUNE = the final nail in the coffin for "musicianship"...?

[Dave W]

if traditionally conservative corporate entities like the insurers and drug companies had a part in this, then there is plenty of blame to go around for those not happy with this bill.

"It's the most money ever spent by a business sector for federal lobbying," (and most of it was lobbying in favor of the bill).

Plus, I've read that the multimillion dollar ad campaign that was launched last spring in favor of the bill was actually financed by industry groups with ties to Sen. Max Baucus.

[Freuds_Cat]

Ken, the singer that I've been working with recently is living proof that even Auto Tune cant make some things right. 

[Pilgrim]

It strikes me that the health care system is beset with paperwork, most of which has the purpose of tracking who gets paid for what.  I don't see that changing under the new system, and I wonder how much of the overhead cost in our systems is simply paper tracking. 

[Chaser001]

I've been around a few political science departments.  This is a generalization, but I think it has some validity.  Political science students tend to gravitate toward either domestic or foreign policy.  If you understand the former, you might not understand the latter very well and vice versa.  When I see a president such as Obama who actually has a political science background, it is pretty easy for me to assume that the study of foreign policy most likely was not his specialty.  However, it is often the case that a president will get into office expecting to spend more time on domestic policy than foreign policy.  I see this quite a lot and it always bothers me.  However, Obama actually seems obsessed with domestic policy.  In my memory I can't ever recall a president spending the entire first year strictly focused on getting one bill passed.  In the meantime, foreign policy has been so neglected to such a degree that I find myself almost in shock.  So far Obama's foreign policy seems to consist of alienating America's closest allies.  I'm actually more open to what Obama is trying to do with health care than may appear on the surface.  The theory of trying to provide health care to everyone is something that I totally support.  But as has already been pointed out here, the health care bill as it now stands really doesn't look too good.   

[Psycho Bass Guy]

 In the meantime, foreign policy has been so neglected to such a degree that I find myself almost in shock.  So far Obama's foreign policy seems to consist of alienating America's closest allies.

How is functional democracy in Iraq, an exit strategy from Afghanistan, and an international consensus aginast Iran's nuclear weapons progam negligent to foreign policy? Just because the US finally called a spade a spade in regards to Isreal does not make us any less supportive of constructive efforts for peace in the Middle East.

[Chaser001]

How is functional democracy in Iraq, an exit strategy from Afghanistan, and an international consensus aginast Iran's nuclear weapons progam negligent to foreign policy? Just because the US finally called a spade a spade in regards to Isreal does not make us any less supportive of constructive efforts for peace in the Middle East.

I was referring to Kenny's comment as much as anything else. I should have made that clear.  While the U.S. is fixated on the health care debate, other very important foreign policy events are taking place that many people are not aware of.  I speak specifically of the talk that the special relationship between the U.S. and Great Britain may be ending.  I believe in health care as much as anybody, but it troubles me greatly that foreign policy issues such as this are being neglected. 

[Dave W]

Let's please stay away from foreign policy. Thanks.

[Denis]

I received this in an email, but I haven't been able to verify it yet.

    "The government will not be allowed to impose any kind of price controls over the health insurance providers, so they can hike the cost of insurance as much as they want without fear of governmental intervention."

So far in the brief search that I tried I couldn't find a real answer to it. Does anyone here know for sure if it's true or false?

Hadn't heard that but it wouldn't surprise me and the reason it wouldn't surprise me is that Congress screwed the pooch on prescription drugs when they decided they couldn't (or woudn't) negotiate the price of medications with the big pharma companies.

I read the other day the healthcare bill amounts to around 2700 pages. I can only imagine how long it would take to read it.

[Pilgrim]

Obama certainly has focused to an unusual degree on domestic policy - however, I think it has been apparent that the economic situation has demanded that.  Sometimes events just pre-empt a President's priorities.  I would assume Bush didn't intend to focus on internal security and other issues before 9/11...but that was the way things worked out.

I would offer the thought that (regardless of whether one likes the law or not) the only way the health care bill could have been passed was for the Obama administration to spend the time on it that they did.  No other administration has been willing to spend the time and political capital on health care that this administration has - and I think that's the reason they got a bill passed.  It was highly unusual - but that's what it took (like or or dislike it).

Hadn't heard that but it wouldn't surprise me and the reason it wouldn't surprise me is that Congress screwed the pooch on prescription drugs when they decided they couldn't (or woudn't) negotiate the price of medications with the big pharma companies.

Yes, that has to be the stupidest and most inexplicable decision in recent memory.  It throws away the entire bargaining might of these huge programs. 

[Denis]

Yes, that has to be the stupidest and most inexplicable decision in recent memory.  It throws away the entire bargaining might of these huge programs. 

That one boggled my mind when I learned of it. Congress gave away something which would have been astronomically helpful to many Americans but yet punish those who go to across the border into Canada for prescription meds.

[Pilgrim]

That one boggled my mind when I learned of it. Congress gave away something which would have been astronomically helpful to many Americans but yet punish those who go to across the border into Canada for prescription meds.

I think that's one of the next areas where we'll see change.  The cost of prescription drugs is too high in the US for that exemption to last for very long....and I would love to see it change.  But it's a two-edged sword, because the profits they generate in the US have a big influence on which drugs are developed and commercialized.

I've had the chance to discuss the process by which drugs are developed with both doctors and pharma reps.  There are a number of really helpful drugs that would be wonderful for small portions of the population that never get developed and brought to market.  The reason is simply numbers - the target market isn't big enough that in the opinion of the drug companies, it justifies the years of clinical trials and other expenses.  That process is incredibly expensive. Commercial development is pretty limited to drugs which benefit the many rather than the few.  I don't have a solution for this under our current system of drug development...the money to repay the costs of commercialization has to be there.

[OldManC]

Besides the billions spent developing drugs that end up not working or being viable for anything else, millions are spent getting past the FDA before any single drug can get to market in the U.S., which is why many drugs that might be helpful (but that wouldn't be widely needed or used) never see the light of day. I don't know the answer, but I'm pretty sure it's not just 'big pharma' being greedy and mean (not that anyone here insinuated that).

I've read so many horror stories of people in the U.S. dying while the FDA denies them the right to use non-approved therapies that have been successfully used elsewhere. I know there's the Steve McQueen argument as well, but if I'm dying I'd think that would be a worse outcome than any 'unforeseen' side effects...

One thing I wonder about; U.S. based companies seem to develop a dis-proportionately large amount of helpful drugs and medical advances that are used worldwide (note: I didn't claim all). What happens when the profit incentive (which pays for those developments) is removed from the equation?

[OldManC]

"And the 'horrible socialist' that was FDR brought this country out of an agrarian past into winning a world war and dominating the globe in finance, culture, and technology."

Good point. 

I know this is old but I'd like to point out that the U.S. was well on its way beyond that agrarian past by the time FDR came on the scene. Henry Ford and others like him might have something to say about who was actually responsible for that as well. 

[gweimer]

If anyone is interested, I have a link to the entire 2,000 page bill.  I was actually looking through it for a while.  I didn't get far.  You can read for yourselves exactly what the bill contains.