Two big reasons are that (1) we subsidize Europe’s social programs by being their military force; (2)we subsidize Europe’s R&D costs for medicine because of the way prescription drug and medical device pricing and intellectual property works.
Universal healthcare would be easier if we had the same military budget as the UK and Canada’s high prescription drug prices paid for all of our research.
Europe isn’t “great”. It’s just the people demand stuff is prioritised in a different order.
I fail to see how the narrowing of the race on the Democratic side is a “bad” thing. The very last thing I wanted heading into the '16 election was a fucking coronation of Hillary Clinton. That she will have to actually work for the nomination - and could even (not inconceivably) lose it to Bernie - is a net positive IMO.
This is bullshit, btw. If the people want the USA to be an empire imposing it’s will across the word, then go with that.
We’ve had the discussion about medical advances a hundred times. Just more bullshit.
No, it isn’t bullshit. In a world without the USA’s disproportionate military spending, Europe would likely spend more. You may think that is bad policy (and I do too!), but doesn’t change the reality.
And the fact that you’ve repeated your opinion a lot doesn’t make it true. The connection between high medical spending and R&D is certainly complicated. But there is indeed some degree of causal relationship there. Denying it altogether is what’s bullshit.
We can - we clearly have the capacity - but we won’t simply because we do not have the political will. A long history of ‘American exceptionalism’ has left us with a country that is not as politically mature as that of much of Europe.
Bernie’s “We need a revolution to …” is quite accurate. Sadly, this is not a revolutionary country. And I say this as someone who has donated more than once to his campaign.
It’s either the will, or the system - I don’t know how you can effect meaningful change while the political class is bought way, way before a ballot is drawn up.
I was responding to someone who expressed disgust at having to share the party with the likes of me. Bu I am the one who has to tiptoe around on eggshells and not point out he demographic profiles of the respective candidates’ supporters? Give me a break.
I was not describing disgust at moderates, I was doing so at not voting for someone simply because they are of a certain religion or race. I thought this was relatively well understood that this kind of behavior is not desirable in the Democratic Party.
“I will not vote for someone because they are Islamic.” is not “moderate” in any sense of the word, and I certainly hope you’re not suggesting that such conduct is acceptable.
I’m not entirely sure HOW you read my post, but I’m certainly getting the feeling you did so incorrectly.
Nominating a Muslim for president, or VP, would be a huge tactical error. (So would nominating an atheist. And I say this as an atheist myself.)
It would be now, but that will change eventually. After all, we now live in a time when the sitting president is black, and a woman and a Jew are serious contenders – any of which would have been unthinkable not too many decades ago.
That’s not what I’m arguing. Of course it would be. Nominating is quite different than voting.
To clarify, I’m not criticizing being reluctant to nominate a Muslim president, or a lesbian one, etc. I’m criticizing not voting for one in a general election because they are Muslim or LGBT.
If the Democratic Party acts that way, it will continue to lose elections.
And why would Hillary Clinton want “legislative achievements” that will serve to piss off her base and spell disaster in turnout for the Democratic Party come reelection time in 2020? Obama’s doing fine with the Democratic base due to holding firm and being the goalkeeper against the Kochservatives while he was vilified when he heeled to the Mammonists during the debt ceiling crisis in 2011.
The Kochservatives evidentally hate anybody with a (D) next to their name. if anything they should hate Clinton more considering Obama deliberately ran on a postpartisan strategy.
And yet the pharmaceutical companies still spend more on marketing than on R&D. Possibly if we banned “Ask your doctor about…” ads we’d save even more on drugs, and still be able to have R&D. Win-win.
Then I think you are the one who misread a comment. I did not interpret that comment as being from a Democrat who was threatening not to vote for such a person in the general election. It looked a lot more to me like a warning that nominating such a person would be a mistake. And that, as I say, I agree with.
Continue? Democrats have won the popular vote in the presidential election five out of the last six times–and I expect it to be six of seven by the end of this year. They won the popular vote for House races three out of the past five cycles, and they controlled the Senate for 8 out of the past 10 years, and have a good chance to retake control this fall, despite the wildly uneven distribution of population in states making it easier for the GOP.
If Doc Brown went back to January 2005, after Bush won reelection and took control of the House and Senate, and gave me a political almanac showing all election results, SCOTUS appointments and decisions, and legislation passed through Nov. 2015, my 2005 self would have been thrilled. Other Democrats have short memories, are spoiled/greedy, or are just “half empty” type people.
Considering the past posting history of the poster in question, I think you’re being exceedingly generous with your interpretation, but if you wish to read it as such that’s your prerogative.
I don’t know anything about their past history (I can keep track of screen names for about one page or a day or two max, whichever comes fastest), so you might have the jump on me there.
Interesting to see Bernie Sanders on* ABC This Week* disavow his political positions from when he ran for Vermont Governor in the 1980s. I don’t see anything wrong with those positions on the merits–in fact, I would be all for them if I thought they were politically feasible–but Bernie seems embarrassed of them and is running away from them as fast as he can. Also note that Karl Rove’s super-PAC is clearly more afraid of Hillary:
That is probably not true.
LARGE pharmaceutical companies spend more on the “Sale General & Administrative” than they do on R&D item of their income statement but SG&A includes a whole lot of stuff (including executive compensation, rent, legal, accounting, etc) in addition to marketing (of which TFV commercials are only a small part). They also INDIRECTLY spend money on R&D when they buy small drug companies that spend almost everything they have on R&D.
The decision to spend money on R&D has NOTHING to do with how much you are spending on marketing. The decision is entirely based on how much money you think you might make if this drug gets approved. If the drug is not attractive to the US market, it is not likely to get funded for R&D because no one will pay enough to make it worth your while.
We are in effect subsidizing the drug pipeline for the rest of the world but that drug pipeline is tailored for the USA. So we see a lot more development in diabetes type 2 drugs than the world incidence of diabetes type 2 (and other obesity related drugs) would indicate a demand for.
We not only overpay for drugs we also give very strong long lasting protection for patents. This makes us very attractive consumers and while drugs are not cheap, they only account for 5-10% of our health care costs.
Sure, it bothers me that we are getting fleeced by drug companies but I’m not sure the alternative is better unless we can somehow get all the other industrialized nations to share paying the premium that drug companies need to justify investing in a new pipeline of drugs.
I think he’s trying to tone down the left wing rhetoric, because as nice as all that is, I think he’s genuinely trying to win this thing. He’s even turned up the dial on attacks on Clinton, granted he’s not exactly running a Rove-esque ad campaign, but still.
And while I think you have somewhat of a point re the Rove ads, I would think they’re currently targeting Clinton because she is (admittedly even if these outlier polls prove to be true) the clear Secretariat of the horserace.