I just heard that rumor has it John Edwards is planning on endorsing Senator Clinton. Gosh I hope it isn't true. I wavered back and forth between him and Senator Obama and he made my choice easy by dropping out. Apparently he plans on making the announcement in Wisconsin this weekend.

Ahh. I'm disappointed. I was hoping for an Obama/Edwards ticket.

__________________
@@@
l/ l/ l/
Dont go through life,
GROW through life

Real eyes...realize...real lies.

Am I the only one on here that thinks it would be great if Edwards indorses Hillary? But I thought he would endorse Barack. Who I also like. I also was disappointed Edwards left. I like them all but prefer Hillary. Whats the source of the rumor?

Source of the rumor was a guest on the Rachel Maddow show on Air America radio. Haven't heard it mentioned on MSNBC tonight so hoping it isn't true. It just seemed to me that Senator Edwards has more in common with Senator Obama.

On the other side of the aisle Senator Romney endorsed Senator McCain today and I thought they had no respect for each other.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows for sure.

If he endorses HIllary, I will truly lose all respect for him.

Why? His policies and especially his health care program are closer to Hillary's than Baracks.

I disagree with that premise, right off the bat. Of course, many may think that, since she continually misrepresents Obama's plan. Why anyone would believe her on health care is beyond me, since she's already screwed that up once and there's no reason to believe she'll do any better next time around. Moreover, she is highly devisive, having already gone way negative and is not nearly as likely to win in November as Obama. If Edwards trusts her to keep any promises she's made him, he's a fool.

My beliefs on their health care plans came from research. Plus also out of Edwards and Baracks mouths during one of the debates. Barack admitted his didnt cover everyone and Edwards said his like Hillary's does.

I have not heard negatives out of her mouth any more than Baracks. If we believe the media Barack is more electable but I dont take what the media to say as truth. The have their own agendas.

Well, I disagree, obviously, but that's what makes the world go 'round, right?

Barack's doesn't make coverage mandatory (nor will he garnish wages to pay for it like Hillary said she would), but it's available to all. That's different from not covering everyone. It's not mandatory for all.

I don't see how you can require someone to buy insurance. If you don't have the money then you don't have the money. But she does want to prevent "cherry picking" by the insurance companies, which I think is an absolute must in any plan for health insurance. I don't remember that being in Obama's plan.

She has said she will garnish wages if necessary to pay for the insurance. She will not only require you to have it, whether you want it or not, she will force you to pay for it, no options.

To do that, you first need to have wages. What will she do then?

You and I will pick up the slack for those people. Essentially, she'll tax ME to pay for YOUR insurance, even if you don't want it.

We are already picking up the tab for those people who go to the ER for care.

Whether someone has insurance or not, if they get care, someone is paying for it one way or another and that someone is you. You may not pay for it through income taxes but you will pay.

You have several choices to deal with the un/under insured. One is to let them go to emergency rooms for their problems, big or small or to let them slide until the small problems become big. A second is to provide some sort of coverage for them. A third is to send them home to deal with it themselves and possibly die. The only one that keeps taxpayers from spending much money is the last. That one is probably only the cost of a cardboard casket. There may be other choices that I haven't thought of and I'm more than willing to hear them, as long as they allow people to get some help.

Right now, one and three are the most likely to happen for many. The most economical and the most humane is probably two.

What needs to happen and what will happen are worlds apart. What might work is catastropic coverage for everyone. Free or sliding scale clinics for those with minor complaints. And those who don't want to or can afford not to, can go to regular doctors, but pay for the visits out of pocket. One of the reasons health care is so out of touch is that we don't pay for our health care. We have no incentives to shop around, or not rush to the doctor with every twinge or cough.

And have you ever tried to decipher a hospital bill? Much less know whether what is on the bill was actually necessary or received? The time before last, I asked for an itemized bill, out of curiousity and could never get one.

Then there are the pharmaceutical companies. My SIL has leukemia. She is 54. Insurance is paying over $3000 a month for her medication. There's no way that they could afford that on their own. The same drug is produced in India for a fraction of the cost here. India will not allow patents on most drugs in their country. Why don't we do that here?

What will happen is some sort of universal coverage. Which will cost more than it should and the insurance companies will get richer and the health care will likely decline. But for me, universal coverage is probably the best we can hope for with the mind set of the political animal and the lobbying from the health care industry.

True. But with Hillarycare 2008, we'll be picking up the tab for people who don't go to the ER and never need to seek medical treatment as well.

IF they get care and can't cover it. That's radically different from Hillarycare.


Agreed. Obama's does!

Actually, yes. It's part of my business, in fact.

Because if you don't allow the company to have a patent for X number of years, there's no financial incentive to spend the money on research and development to create the drugs in the first place. I have no problem with drug companies making a profit. They take the risk and incur the cost, sometimes for decades, before a drug gets to market and they have a relatively tiny window of opportunity to make their money back and a profit. Patents expire. And most companies, if you investigate, have substantial quantities of drugs being disbursed free to patients who otherwise would do without.

I agree, but I like Obama's version FAR more than Hillary's "I know what's best for you, take this whether you need, want or like it or not."

Well the next time we have a hospitalization here, at least I know who can decypher my bill for me..

I may have mispoke about India. I think maybe they allow patents for a set time but with no extensions. That's something I came across when my brother was looking at how on earth he was going to afford $3000 a month for meds. But in this country the patent is for 20 years with any number of extensions if I remember. And the company that produces it was not going to give my brother any breaks on the price.

Now to the pharmaceutical companies. They spend very little on R&D. They get most of their ideas from taxpayer funded programs or the NIH. There have been very few new drugs developed in the last few years. Most are just copies with slight variations of each other. Look at the cholesterol lowering drugs. They are pretty much the same drug. They patent it and get 20 plus years with extensions, change one molecule and low and behold have a "new" drug and the 20 year clock starts all over again. Another thing of note, is that the drug prices are much higher in this country than they are in any other for exactly that same pill.

Another problem is that they have no incentive to "cure" a problem, only to "treat" a problem. Once you cure a problem that person no longer is buying your product. So a lot of probably wonderful products never make it to the market because they are cures. People die but who cares, take some viagra. Who was the charmer who thought producing that was more important than developing a drug for something serious?

I'd like the see the sources for your statements if you have them handy. They don't jibe with what I've learned over the years.

http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/econ/dimasi2003.pdf

This is an interesting piece explaining why drugs can be cheaper in India.

Khaleej Times Columnist - virendraparekh

And an interesting piece about how the drug patents work.

Solving The Drug Patent Problem - Forbes.com

As to your Viagra point -- contrary to your statement, no one created Viagra with the notion that curing ED was more important than curing AIDS. A drug to treat one condition is discovered by accident while trying to cure another condition. Viagra was discovered while trying to find a drug to treat angina.

Modern Drug Discovery: From hypertension to angina to Viagra

Gosh, I hope he doesn't endorse her. I'll be sad. But at least he will have finally quit sulking and made a choice.

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

I looked at the first one you listed and I'm sorry but my eyes glazed over at about page 8 or 9. I need things explained in two syllables or less and in 7 or 8 paragraphs preferable.

The second, oddly enough, is about Novartis and Glivec, which happens to be the drug I mentioned that my sister-in-law has to take daily for the rest of her life. Novartis was of no help when my brother tried to find out if they would help subsidize the cost of the meds for her.

The article explains the situation in India very well. I think India did the right thing and it will be interesting to see what falls out of that tree as a result. I knew there was a suit before the high court, but I hadn't realized there had been a decision made. That must have happened right after I was doing my research to find a cheaper alternative for my SIL.

I like the Forbes suggestion. I'm not totally sure it would work, but I doubt it could be worse than what we have now.

The Viagra article was interesting as well, but I still question the use of R&D money, (not to mention advertising money), to give men a better sex life instead using it for life-threatening issues.

And that brings up the amount of money spent on advertising instead of R&D. I am not great with sources, since I read bits and pieces all over the place and can seldom remember what I did with my glasses much less where I read what. Which also means that at times, what I remember about what I've read may be wrong or out of date. I would not make a good debater. I did find this article about R&D versus promotional spending that was interesting. I'm old enough to remember when the drug companies did little or no advertising for prescription drugs and I often wonder if anyone has done a study to see how much the two are entwined.

Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds

Right now between all these articles and all the other things I've been reading about lately, I'm mainly just befuddled.

Ever since Edwards dropped out I thought he might become Hillarys VP running mate. Has she talked about VP's at all?

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

I personally don't think she screwed that up. Clinotn was trying to put a health care plan in place, when people weren't really even talking about universal health and when there was a republican house and senate in power.
I also believe that it is a relevant issue, because of her efforts in the early 90's.

__________________
Chicago Bears!!!!
We are the Bears Shufflin' Crew
Shufflin' on down, doin' it for you.
We're so bad we know we're good.
Blowin' your mind like we knew we would.
You know we're just struttin' for fun
Struttin' our stuff for everyone.
We're not here to start no trouble.
We're just here to do the Super Bowl Shuffle.