Trump vs Biden 2020, Day 64 of the Pennsylvania count (pt 5) Read OP

ExMachina1000

From the financial times:

"President Donald Trump has announced reforms aimed at tackling high drug prices in the US, including a controversial measure to try to set prices for American seniors at the lowest level in the developed world. 

The administration said it would impose a so-called most favoured nation model, in which the government-run Medicare programme would pay no more for 50 popular medicines than drugmakers receive in the lowest-priced developed country"

This has been condemned by both Democrats and the pharmaceutical industry.

I can understand pharma companies condemning it because it really hits their profits but Democrats condemning the move is odd. It would benefit all Americans

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

From the financial times:

"President Donald Trump has announced reforms aimed at tackling high drug prices in the US, including a controversial measure to try to set prices for American seniors at the lowest level in the developed world. 

The administration said it would impose a so-called most favoured nation model, in which the government-run Medicare programme would pay no more for 50 popular medicines than drugmakers receive in the lowest-priced developed country"

This has been condemned by both Democrats and the pharmaceutical industry.

I can understand pharma companies condemning it because it really hits their profits but Democrats condemning the move is odd. It would benefit all Americans

Link? Isn't this related to a bipartisan Senate bill?

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Link? Isn't this related to a bipartisan Senate bill?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/20/politics/trump-unveils-controversial-drug-price-rules/index.html

Not bipartisan. All Trump.

Will save consumers 28 billion dollars over 7 years.

Big pharma and Democrats have condemned

It's a bit of a strange one because it has the potential to completely change the industry and save consumers billions in the Us but because it's from Trump people don't know how to react. They might say why didn't he do it 4 years ago?
The answer to that would be why didn't Obama/Biden do anything about drug prices in their 8 year administration.

Boggles

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/20/politics/trump-unveils-controversial-drug-price-rules/index.html

Not bipartisan. All Trump.

Will save consumers 28 billion dollars over 7 years.

Big pharma and Democrats have condemned

Yes.

While the coronavirus surges across the country, President Trump is spending his twilight days in office pushing through half-baked proposals that will likely be struck down in court because he's desperate to cover up his administration's failure to actually lower drug prices

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/20/politics/trump-unveils-controversial-drug-price-rules/index.html

Not bipartisan. All Trump.

Will save consumers 28 billion dollars over 7 years.

Big pharma and Democrats have condemned

"While the coronavirus surges across the country, President Trump is spending his twilight days in office pushing through half-baked proposals that will likely be struck down in court because he's desperate to cover up his administration's failure to actually lower drug prices"

They are condemning his actions both because they believe it won't go through and because he should be focusing on Covid, not because they are against the policy itself.

And it is related to a bipartisan bill, I had a quick Google.

ExMachina1000

Boggles wrote: »

Yes.

If it is struck down in court because it's full of holes then it's just a rushed farce to divert attention.

Would it be a good thing if it passed court challenges?

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

If it is struck down in court because it's full of holes then it's just a rushed farce to divert attention.

Would it be a good thing if it passed court challenges?

Given the lack of work done to avoid it being struck down, that's pretty much bad legislation. Particularly since it's gonna be caught up in a legal limbo. You're doing your usual thing where you think you're showing up the Democrats while you actively omitted their concerns.

Boggles

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

If it is struck down in court because it's full of holes then it's just a rushed farce to divert attention.

Would it be a good thing if it passed court challenges?

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Will the incoming Joe Biden administration keep the newly placed pharmaceutical drug price legislation announced by Trump yesterday?

What do people think?

Let's stick with your original loaded question by asking you a couple.

Why would Biden go forward with Trumps folly that would be appear not be legal and just an absolute waste of time?

Why would he not adopt his own parties proposals on lowering drug costs and you know actual lower drug costs instead of pretending to?

The truth is that prescription drug spending in the U.S. has risen almost inexorably throughout Trump’s term, generally at a faster pace than during President Obama’s first term and toward the end of his second term

It will be a relief for most and a radical change for some.

But not having a massive man child in the White House who only cares exclusively about himself will be a very good thing.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Given the lack of work done to avoid it being struck down, that's pretty much bad legislation. Particularly since it's gonna be caught up in a legal limbo. You're doing your usual thing where you think you're showing up the Democrats while you actively omitted their concerns.

It's in the post you quoted. If its legally full of holes and is pulled apart in court then it's a farce designed to distract. Just like I said.

Will the Biden administration tackle drug pricing?

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Will the Biden administration tackle drug pricing?

Yes. You are not making the point you think you are making.

https://apnews.com/article/8fd715d394586e41a7adc32740af3d1b

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes. You are not making the point you think you are making.

https://apnews.com/article/8fd715d394586e41a7adc32740af3d1b

Obama administration?

That was years ago. Obama is long gone and is irrelevant. I think he writes books now.
I'm talking about if the BIDEN administration will tackle pharmaceutical pricing.

Thanks

Guy:Incognito

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

If it is struck down in court because it's full of holes then it's just a rushed farce to divert attention.

Would it be a good thing if it passed court challenges?

Hes had 4 years to get something organised that wouldnt fail in court.

In fairness, he was busy playing golf. One cant exactly expect him to take time away from that to look after the people he all of a sudden claims to care about almost a full 4 years in.

Considering he most likely did **** all of the actual work himself, the only conclusion is that he deliberately didn't bother with it, unless you think he was so busy for the last 4 years he couldn't take the time to tell someone to do it?



Maybe the time spent putting reams of blank paper in to folders could have been better used on this.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Obama administration?

That was years ago. Obama is long gone and is irrelevant. I think he writes books now.
I'm talking about if the BIDEN administration will tackle pharmaceutical pricing.

Thanks

I know what you are talking about, but I also know what you are attempting to suggest, namely Trump is doing more in this regard than the previous administration.

Regardless, if I must do a Google search for you, then yes the Biden administration will tackle drug pricing.

https://joebiden.com/healthcare/

Too many Americans cannot afford their prescription drugs, and prescription drug corporations are profiteering off of the pocketbooks of sick individuals. Biden will put a stop to runaway drug prices and the profiteering of the drug industry by:

• Repealing the outrageous exception allowing drug corporations to avoid negotiating with Medicare over drug prices.
• Limiting launch prices for drugs that face no competition and are being abusively priced by manufacturers.
• Limiting price increases for all brand, biotech, and abusively priced generic drugs to inflation.
• Allowing consumers to buy prescription drugs from other countries.
• Terminating pharmaceutical corporations’ tax break for advertisement spending.
• Improving the supply of quality generics.

ExMachina1000

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Hes had 4 years to get something organised that wouldnt fail in court.

In fairness, he was busy playing golf. One cant exactly expect him to take time away from that to look after the people he all of a sudden claims to care about almost a full 4 years in.

Considering he most likely did **** all of the actual work himself, the only conclusion is that he deliberately didn't bother with it, unless you think he was so busy for the last 4 years he couldn't take the time to tell someone to do it?

In that case it sounds like a farce . A distraction.

Will the Biden administration tackle drug pricing or is it part of his election promises?

Guy:Incognito

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

It's in the post you quoted. If its legally full of holes and is pulled apart in court then it's a farce designed to distract. Just like I said.

So you knew it was nonsense? Did you post it in the hope no one would check?

Timberrrrrrrr

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Obama administration?

That was years ago. Obama is long gone and is irrelevant. I think he writes books now.
I'm talking about if the BIDEN administration will tackle pharmaceutical pricing.

Thanks

Yes they will.

Thats your question answered, now how about you answer some questions that have been asked of you that you keep dodging?

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Will the Biden administration tackle drug pricing or is it part of his election promises?

How do you expect us to answer this question?

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I know what you are talking about, but I also know what you are attempting to suggest, namely Trump is doing more in this regard than the previous administration.

Regardless, if I must do a Google search for you, then yes the Biden administration will tackle drug pricing.

https://joebiden.com/healthcare/

Excellent. Hopefully they can put something together. By the looks of it Trumps plan wont survive a court case

I had a quick look there. That bloody donations request that keeps popping up is annoying but once you get to the page it's well laid out.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How do you expect us to answer this question?

The "is it part of his election campaign promises " bit?

Another poster answered. Turns out it is.

Guy:Incognito

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Excellent. Hopefully they can put something together. By the looks of it Trumps plan wont survive a court case

Is this thread your sole source of information that isnt provided via the means of Trumps twitter or press conferences?

For someone so willing to go all in on Trump, you seem to completely block out any information regarding his rivals.

Inquitus

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

It's in the post you quoted. If its legally full of holes and is pulled apart in court then it's a farce designed to distract. Just like I said.

Will the Biden administration tackle drug pricing?

To be fair the Drug Pricing initiative is one of the better things Trump has done as president!

ExMachina1000

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is this thread your sole source of information that isnt provided via the means of Tumps twitter or press conferences?

For someone so willing to go all in on Trump, you seem to completely block out any information regarding his rivals.

I posted a link to where I read about the plan and the condemnation by Democrats and the pharmaceutical industry. It was a CNN link?

I also wrote that if it was full of holes then it would be a farce just designed to distract.

Someone posted Bidens campaign promises re drug pricing which I acknowledged.

You might be looking for an angle that simply doesn't exist

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is this thread your sole source of information that isnt provided via the means of Tumps twitter or press conferences?

For someone so willing to go all in on Trump, you seem to completely block out any information regarding his rivals.

Agreed. Most of your questions in the last hour could have been answered in seconds if you typed them word for word into Google. Not quite sure why you prefer to wait for someone to answer it instead.

astrofool

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed. Most of your questions in the last hour could have been answered in seconds if you typed them word for word into Google. Not quite sure why you prefer to wait for someone to answer it instead.

I honestly don't know if it's someone pretending to ask loaded questions, and then answers them in the negative for Biden and positive for trump based off their own thoughts, or someone who genuinely doesn't know how to search for stuff on the internet.

ExMachina, can you answer the above and put us all at ease? I mean, if it's the former, at least we can understand and run searches for you.

Timberrrrrrrr

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I posted a link to where I read about the plan and the condemnation by Democrats and the pharmaceutical industry. It was a CNN link?

I also wrote that if it was full of holes then it would be a farce just designed to distract.

Someone posted Bidens campaign promises re drug pricing which I acknowledged.

You might be looking for an angle that simply doesn't exist

Lmao, thats priceless coming from you :pac:

ExMachina1000

astrofool wrote: »

I honestly don't know if it's someone pretending to ask loaded questions, and then answers them in the negative for Biden and positive for trump based off their own thoughts, or someone who genuinely doesn't know how to search for stuff on the internet.

ExMachina, can you answer the above and put us all at ease? I mean, if it's the former, at least we can understand and run searches for you.

Consider me a someone who doesn't particularly like Trump or Biden but is unwilling to just go along with the anti either posts for the sake of it.

An example would be the grifting for donations that Trump is doing. I acknowledge this put also pointed out that Biden is doing same.

Both deserve the same level of scrutiny and I'm happy to be proved wrong either way.

This whole negative for Biden put positive for trump line isnt true. An example would be me saying if Trumps drug pricing plan is pulled apart in court because it is full of holes then it is a farce designed to distract.

Asking if Biden has a plan is not a crime is it? I read the link to his website and acknowledged that yes he does have a plan.

Too much of this you are with us or against is mentality going on with some posters on both "sides"

astrofool

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Consider me a someone who doesn't particularly like Trump or Biden but is unwilling to just go along with the anti either posts for the sake of it.

An example would be the grifting for donations that Trump is doing. I acknowledge this put also pointed out that Biden is doing same.

Both deserve the same level of scrutiny and I'm happy to be proved wrong either way.

This whole negative for Biden put positive for trump line isnt true. An example would be me saying if Trumps drug pricing plan is pulled apart in court because it is full of holes then it is a farce designed to distract.

Asking if Biden has a plan is not a crime is it? I read the link to his website and acknowledged that yes he does have a plan.

Too much of this you are with us or against is mentality going on with some posters on both "sides"

But you do concede that most of the questions you ask can be answered in a few seconds?

As this is a discussion forum, most people expect a certain level of being informed from people who post on the subject, your pattern has been "ask question", talk about your question as if the answer was negative, get answered correctly to the positive, say "right, so", disappear for a day, and then come back with a similar question.

It's fine not to know, but then lead with that, instead of making baseless accusations at both sides, people will then know they can link you back to facts and figures. You're not the only one, there's a few people over on the COVID forum who do similar, but people have learned to filter them out or ignore them.

ExMachina1000

astrofool wrote: »

But you do concede that most of the questions you ask can be answered in a few seconds?

As this is a discussion forum, most people expect a certain level of being informed from people who post on the subject, your pattern has been "ask question", talk about your question as if the answer was negative, get answered correctly to the positive, say "right, so", disappear for a day, and then come back with a similar question.

It's fine not to know, but then lead with that, instead of making baseless accusations at both sides, people will then know they can link you back to facts and figures. You're not the only one, there's a few people over on the COVID forum who do similar, but people have learned to filter them out or ignore them.

You are saying it's a discussion forum but at the same time are saying you don't want to talk about anything because I'm asking questions that in your opinion I should already know the answer to.

My "right so" replies as you put it in reality are me acknowledging someone else's point which may prove me wrong. I think that possibly the frustration on your side is because I'm not digging my heels in and spending hours arguing. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. I accept that. Iv already said this.

A poster replied to me this morning saying I refused to answer his question about immigration.

I replied that if answered it twice but will happily answer again if he wants to ask me.

He disappeared after that. What am I supposed to do?

astrofool

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

You are saying it's a discussion forum but at the same time are saying you don't want to talk about anything because I'm asking questions that in your opinion I should already know the answer to.

My "right so" replies as you put it in reality are me acknowledging someone else's point which may prove me wrong. I think that possibly the frustration on your side is because I'm not digging my heels in and spending hours arguing. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. I accept that. Iv already said this.

It's not a discussion if it's just "Here's a question", "Here's the answer", but it's fine (that's what Google does), everyone knows how to answer your questions now, or can just ignore and move on with discussion.

ChikiChiki

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Nancy calling POTUS a psycho

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1329846083124662275

It is a reasonable assessment and should be levelled at him from all quarters.