| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| How to conduct a town hall meeting: a guide for Democrats by one of their own |
| 2009-08-10 |
| Jim Geraghty, "Capmaign Spot" @ National Review Boldface emphasis added. It may surprise you to learn that some Democratic members of the House are managing to run into large crowds, full of people who are skeptical of the health-care bill, without fleeing in terror. At least one, Rep. Eric Massa (D., N.Y.), managed to get through pretty much unscathed by making clear he had read the bill, had some signficant concerns, and wanted to make sure his constituents' worries were addressed. Initially Massa's staff decided to move a health care town hall meeting from Mendon Town Hall to the Mendon Community Center to accommodate more constituents. And that venue, with a capacity of around 100, proved nowhere near big enough either: About 500 people gathered to hear the congressman's thoughts on health care reform, forcing a move to a shelter . . .The meeting focused on health care reform and the bill, with constituents listening to Massa's views and asking questions. "Harumph! What's he got that I ain't got?" "It's called 'maturity,' Nancy." "I'll send one of my staff over to GNC to get some." "Uh, Nancy, it doesn't quite work like that." |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #10 a pharmaceutical company spends $500 million and 8 years to get a candidate drug from bench to market. Not every drug that makes to market is a big winner. Most drug candidates never make it to market for one reason or another, after spending that much money. Then, too, how many years does the developing company have a monopoly on its product before generics are allowed to horn in, taking the majority of sales? The cost of wasted research, always a risky endeavour, is added to the sales price of those drugs that do make it, amortized over the fairly short time the company has before it loses the market. How many Rantburgers, other than me, are currently taking medications that were simply not available a decade or two ago? There are legitimate reasons for the pharmaceutical companies' pricing patterns. You want low priced meds, you'll get the old stuff that's been around for fifty years, and there won't be any new ones in the pipeline. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-08-10 20:04 |
| #9 Pelosi calling Rep. Massa "unamerican" in 5, 4, 3 ... |
| Posted by: DMFD 2009-08-10 19:01 |
| #8 There may be a few reasonable people in the donk party. Well, at least one. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-08-10 16:08 |
| #7 They better listen to this guy. Obama said today Government/SEIU takeover of your health care will pass. If it does, talking is over, and I will gaurantee you this, in my neck of the woods the Government and SEIU will feel the some "heat". |
| Posted by: Percy Spons4194 2009-08-10 15:29 |
| #6 Moose: a pharmaceutical company spends $500 million and 8 years to get a candidate drug from bench to market. Not every drug that makes to market is a big winner. When the risk is big the payout has to be big. Otherwise, no new drugs. Bigger problem for the Pharma industry is that Canada, Europe and much of the third-world insists on buying drugs at marginal costs, not including R & D. We Americans pay full freight. There's an obvious solution, but don't expect the Canadians and Europeans to go for it. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-08-10 15:07 |
| #5 It has pushed them to be like movie studios, dependent on a few, very expensive high budget blockbusters, Note when the FTC allowed the companies to directly advertise to the public and the rise in the cost of pharmaceuticals. Just like Hollyweird a lot of money/'piece of the action' goes into advertising and promotion as well. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-08-10 14:52 |
| #4 The Feds should not be in Healthcare - except perhaps to insure the quality of certain things like Medications, processes, and/or devices. And even then they should only be a facilitator for the states to agree on national standards. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-08-10 14:32 |
| #3 49 Pan: Much of the health care mess is *caused* by government already. Instead of a government takeover, what is needed is a systemic evaluation. For example, some doctors, working as independents, have discovered that by refusing insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, they can offer a better quality of care at HALF the going rate. Instead of having to employ half a dozen clerical workers, they can go back to just one. Another point is that insurance should be limited to contingency, only, not general health care. This eliminates a primary driver of higher costs. But in exchange, insurance companies cannot be coerced into insuring people their underwriters reject. Yet another problem is that big pharma has for decades been stuck in an industry bubble approach, where the norm is to *expect* a 200% minimum net profit. This is ridiculous. Nobody should have an expectation like that in any stable economy. It has pushed them to be like movie studios, dependent on a few, very expensive high budget blockbusters, instead of a slew of modest profit products. It has also led to horrific business practices like dumping shiploads of expired or condemned drugs into the African black market. And far from least, the medical legal environment is still hopelessly out of control. This adds billions in costs and even forces doctors to quit practicing, because they cannot afford nonsensical malpractice insurance costs. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-08-10 14:20 |
| #2 ^^ what 49 said. Plus the fact it gives the dhimocrats vast amounts of power over your life and will use the leash to tug you into voting how they want with the fear of it being taken away (see Welfare). |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-08-10 14:05 |
| #1 Healt care is a mess, all we are asking is methodical approach to fixing it, a simple plan that Mr. Massa seems to understand. For some reason I smell Hillary all over this bill and I bet her standing down from the election so quickly has someting to do with it being puched so fast. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2009-08-10 12:43 |