All Things SCOTUS

[Irish_Mickey]

You Idiot Reporters Are Making It Worse

Great article, this guy nails it:

"I could go on for pages about all of this, but here’s the point: On nearly every question and issue, the tenor of the press — shockingly — mirrors the tenor of the Democrats who insist that it falls to Kavanaugh to disprove these allegations. That is an understandable (albeit morally grotesque) position for partisan Democrats who’ve made it clear they will do whatever it takes, again, as Chuck Schumer admitted, to block Kavanaugh.


But that’s not your job, you supposedly objective journalists. You should care every bit as much about disproving the allegations of Swetnick, Ramirez, and — yes — Ford as proving them. Your job — as you’ve said countless times, preening in your heroic martyr status in the age of Trump — is to report the facts. If Swetnick is lying, you should want to report that every bit as much as you would if you could prove that Kavanaugh is. Because you’re not supposed to have a team. It’s fine if you support the #MeToo movement in your private time, but you’re not supposed to lend any movement aid and comfort, never mind air cover, in your reporting.

Now, I get that most journalists are liberal, even if they deny it. I understand that most think they’re just seeking the truth. But, dear champions of the Fourth Estate, you might take just a moment to understand that you need to be fair to the other side of the argument even if you disagree with it."

 

[Irish#1]

No dog in this fight.

I only hope for the truth and good law.

I was sent this link and found it quite shocking and plausible. This cannot be good for Due Process. Lots of interesting observations in the Comments section. Any thoughts?

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...-together-during-accusation-letter-construct/

Cheers and Go Irish!!

Wow, this is some crazy stuff. Former FBI agent and friends trying to derail DJT? Seems plausible, but a little far fetched. It certainly explains why Ford can't remember anything. If true, it shows how dumb Ford is for getting involved.

 

[Irish YJ]

The other countries can only do what they do because we do what we do. When an American pharmaceutical company develops a new drug, it's sold all over the world. Americans subsidize the research and the rest of the world piggy-backs on the products like a bunch of freeloaders. If America weren't bearing the R&D costs, the R&D would stagnate. We pay a huge premium but we're paying the premium for the sake of legitimate medical breakthroughs. The profit motive applies to corporations as well as individuals. Without the "obscene" payoff at the end of a drug that works, the companies aren't going to invest the billions of dollars it costs to develop them.

Sorry, but the world market can adjust. I find this argument to be one of the biggest piles of horse shit out there. The current global drug climate is in place because we've allowed it to become what it is.

Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, GSK, and MSD are all top 10 drug companies located outside of the US. We pay twice as much for their drugs as the rest of the world too. Why are we subsidizing European R&D too. So you're saying the Europeans would fold up R&D simply because the US stopped paying more than double the going rate? You think they would just tell the Europeans, "hey, sorry, the US won't bend over any more, so we're just going to stop R&D"... Of course not. If we paid less, others would pay more. And the market would adjust. Oh, and profits don't have to be as much either.

You're getting sucked into the believing exactly what the drug companies want you to believe. Don't even get me started about all the middle men money grabbing of distribution, and sleazy sales.

 

[Irish YJ]

Oh, I agree with you on the middle man. The insurance companies are the worst. But one thing both insurance companies & the govt will have in common is that they’ll both want patients to die before doling out for expensive biologics or procedures. For example, say a patient has metastatic breast cancer. Unfortunately, she will die from that ultimately. That doesn’t mean there aren’t novel treatments that can afford this patient anywhere from six months to six years of prolonged quality life.

A few months don’t mean much to us. But to a person with a terminal disease, it could mean seeing a child graduate or a child being born or a child getting married or some other life event.

So...I’m with you on all that. But one of the reasons (not the only) of the increased spending in relation to the rest of the industrialized nations is no one makes worse lifestyle choices than Americans. No one eats the crap we eat. And I suspect no one has more Type 2 Diabetics. The idiot that came up w/ the Food Pyramid set this country on a deadly path. He was convinced that heart failure was atrributed to fat. America believed him & his cherry-picked trials so the Food Pyramid was accepted as Gospel. He was wrong...dead wrong. Now look at this country’s dietary habits.

I’m fine w/ trying the free healthcare for all though a lot of us on this board would be reduced to worse healthcare while the elites would keep their gold-plated coverage. Again, I like it in theory, but it always leads to a 2-tiered system and most of us would be on the shitty tier. Which is ok until something major happens. Meanwhile, the 5’10”, 320 lb man who eats 10,000+ calories per day, smokes & drinks w/ Type II diabetes isn’t going to become healthier when his healthcare becomes free. And unfortunately, that’s a lot of Americans.

I don't disagree that we are unhealthy. That's not the driver of why we spend more per capita though. Our life expectancy is 79+ years old. Only four years behind the number one ranked country (Japan). While we can improve, I think we're fine in that area, especially as unhealthy as we are.

In terms of what kind of system to use,,, we don't have to have a two tiered system. We can create whatever we want. There's enough other countries and enough data out there for us to look at, and pick what works. By the way, the country (Japan) that has the highest life expectancy in the world, also has a top 10 health care system, and spends less than half per capita than the US. Think about that.

 

[ACamp1900]

I don't disagree that we are unhealthy. That's not the driver of why we spend more per capita though.

Our habits do play into our overall health outcomes though, something those who say 'overhaul everything' constantly point to as being a clear sign our health care model sucks. I don't fully disagree really, I just think it's disingenuous to ignore our cultural habits, chemicals and food inc etc...

 

[RDU Irish]

My wife was telling me this AM about some Medicaid folks getting InVitro for their 4th kid recently born in her unit. But yes, let's have free health care for all. I want to pay for more abortions, high risk multiple births, ED treatment, opioid abuse etc. Boner pills and abortions for all - that is the Democrat platform.

 

[MJ12666]

Sorry, but the world market can adjust. I find this argument to be one of the biggest piles of horse shit out there. The current global drug climate is in place because we've allowed it to become what it is.

Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, GSK, and MSD are all top 10 drug companies located outside of the US. We pay twice as much for their drugs as the rest of the world too. Why are we subsidizing European R&D too. So you're saying the Europeans would fold up R&D simply because the US stopped paying more than double the going rate? You think they would just tell the Europeans, "hey, sorry, the US won't bend over any more, so we're just going to stop R&D"... Of course not. If we paid less, others would pay more. And the market would adjust. Oh, and profits don't have to be as much either.

You're getting sucked into the believing exactly what the drug companies want you to believe. Don't even get me started about all the middle men money grabbing of distribution, and sleazy sales.

Having spent the majority of my career with Fortune 500 pharm. companies, I can tell you that the bolded would not happen. Basically when a company introduces a new drug in Europe the company meets with what is basically a country's drug pricing committee and they negotiate a price. If they agree on a price the company's drug will be included in the country's "approved" list and government will pay the company the agreed upon price. If they cannot agree on a price than the drug will not be approved for reimbursement. The drug could still be marketed but if an individual wanted to acquire the drug they would be responsible for the entire cost as determined by the company. Obviously since the vast majority of citizens get government healthcare it is in the company's best interest to get the drug approved which is why drug prices in Europe are much cheaper then in the US. Reducing prices in the US will have no impact on prices in Europe.

Additionally, many of the European companies that you list have R&D facilities in the US.

 

[Irish YJ]

Our habits do play into our overall health outcomes though, something those who say 'overhaul everything' constantly point to as being a clear sign our health care model sucks. I don't fully disagree really, I just think it's disingenuous to ignore our cultural habits, chemicals and food inc etc...

Bad eating habits, alcoholism, smoking, drugs.... all huge things that need to be dealt with. To me though, it's a separate issue from overhauling the HC model. Bad habits are choice issues with huge complexities, driven a lot buy our culture of excess. Overhauling HC is something we should do regardless of what our bad habits are, or aren't.

Bad eating habits start with parents. And poverty and obesity have a very close relationship. Which is sadly ironic. It starts with education, but that only goes so far. The left would throw a fit, but I think welfare needs to be overhauled, and food/beverage selection (what kinds of foods and drinks are eligible) is key. Simply make only healthy foods eligible.

 

[ACamp1900]

Bad eating habits, alcoholism, smoking, drugs.... all huge things that need to be dealt with. To me though, it's a separate issue from overhauling the HC model. Bad habits are choice issues with huge complexities, driven a lot buy our culture of excess. Overhauling HC is something we should do regardless of what our bad habits are, or aren't.

What is in our foods versus all these places we compare ourselves to as well but yeah... i think ultimately if the goal is outcomes, which is usually stated, the HC model won't impact much imo if everything stays as is.

 

[Irish YJ]

My wife was telling me this AM about some Medicaid folks getting InVitro for their 4th kid recently born in her unit. But yes, let's have free health care for all. I want to pay for more abortions, high risk multiple births, ED treatment, opioid abuse etc. Boner pills and abortions for all - that is the Democrat platform.

Definitely not a dem. I'm not saying I support IVF (especially to a family with 4 already), abortions, droopy dick, or anything like that. I'm talking basic health and life saving. Opioid treatment, I'm supportive of. It's silly to let that scourge grow in America.

 

[ACamp1900]

Bad eating habits start with parents. And poverty and obesity have a very close relationship. Which is sadly ironic. It starts with education, but that only goes so far. The left would throw a fit, but I think welfare needs to be overhauled, and food/beverage selection (what kinds of foods and drinks are eligible) is key. Simply make only healthy foods eligible.

COMPLETELY agree here... this is where you can tell the left is full of shit in their intentions on welfare too (revisiting the point I made earlier today). If the goal is substantive food while someone is hitting hard times you shouldn't be able to get two liters of soda, cheetos, doritos and any ice cream the heart desires at greater quantities than many working Americans. You should be able to get a much more narrow scope of healthy foods, en masse,... that's not the actual goal though so....

 

[Irish YJ]

What is in our foods versus all these places we compare ourselves to as well but yeah... i think ultimately if the goal is outcomes, which is usually stated, the HC model won't impact much imo if everything stays as is.

The choice of model impacts quality and availability.
Not everybody that needs HC, abuses food/drugs/boos/cigs.
Sounds harsh, but I'm not concerned with the 3 pack a day smoker that eats McDs 10 times a week. That's a whole different problem in itself. I'm sad for them, but I'm more concerned with the 70 year old woman on a fixed income, and the 3 month old in rural BFE.

 

[Irish YJ]

COMPLETELY agree here... this is where you can tell the left is full of shit in their intentions on welfare too (revisiting the point I made earlier today). If the goal is substantive food while someone is hitting hard times you shouldn't be able to get two liters of soda, cheetos, doritos and any ice cream the heart desires at greater quantities than many working Americans. You should be able to get a much more narrow scope of healthy foods, en masse,... that's not the actual goal though so....

I've always said this. It's radical, but it's needed. It breaks my heart to stand in line behind families at Walmart, Krogers, Sams, etc. and see carts full of pure crap, and then they pay with SNAP. Harsh, but I think, I'm paying for their junk food now, and will be paying for their unhealthy choices for years to come.

 

[ACamp1900]

I've always said this. It's radical, but it's needed. It breaks my heart to stand in line behind families at Walmart, Krogers, Sams, etc. and see carts full of pure crap, and then they pay with SNAP. Harsh, but I think, I'm paying for their junk food now, and will be paying for their unhealthy choices for years to come.

and we are all ultimately paying Kroger, Frito lay, Coca-Cola, Kellogg's, General Mills etc... not the 'poor and disfranchised.' Even Anheuser Busch gets their share with the cash options.

 

[irishog77]

Somebody wake me up when the discussion moves back to SCOTUS...

 

[Irish YJ]

Somebody wake me up when the discussion moves back to SCOTUS...

Sorry. I got excited when I found something that Acamp and I finally agreed on. lol. Seriously though, should have taken that dialog to the HC thread. Clean up on aisle 6.

 

[ACamp1900]

Sorry. I got excited when I found something that Acamp and I finally agreed on. lol. Seriously though, should have taken that dialog to the HC thread. Clean up on aisle 6.

Nah, let's talk sandwiches and make sure og stays away a while longer....

 

[ACamp1900]

Lindsey Graham out there trolling hard... using Clinton's own words to rile up leftists.

At this point he should come back to the chamber with a video summarizing the investigation's formal findings and play this:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FYFy8Tp2Log" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Irish YJ]

Nah, let's talk sandwiches and make sure og stays away a while longer....

I'm down.
Seriously though, you should try blood/black sausage on crackers with cheese. Didn't know what it was when I ate it, but at a shit load with the warm wine. It's worth it just to say you've had thickened blood lol.

 

[Irish YJ]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Amid Kavanaugh drinking controversy, video of Obama admitting heavy drinking, drug abuse resurfaces <a href="https://t.co/2fNg6U8jVD">https://t.co/2fNg6U8jVD</a></p>— TheBlaze (@theblaze) <a href="https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1047595927815512064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 3, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irishize]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/unc-char...found-not-guilty-of-rape-other-charges-report

 

[wizards8507]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Fox News confirms the FBI supplemental background investigation report shows no evidence to corroborate the allegations of sexual assault or misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. <a href="https://t.co/pKzX18jINu">https://t.co/pKzX18jINu</a></p>— Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) <a href="https://twitter.com/foxnewspolitics/status/1047824501768110080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish#1]

COMPLETELY agree here... this is where you can tell the left is full of shit in their intentions on welfare too (revisiting the point I made earlier today). If the goal is substantive food while someone is hitting hard times you shouldn't be able to get two liters of soda, cheetos, doritos and any ice cream the heart desires at greater quantities than many working Americans. You should be able to get a much more narrow scope of healthy foods, en masse,... that's not the actual goal though so....

A while back, what food a person could buy with welfare stamps was limited. Grocery stores couldn't accept stamps for prepared foods like fried chicken, cakes, alcohol, etc. IIRC soda was not allowed either. The basic guideline was if you had to prepare it, it qualified. If you could eat it immediately it didn't qualify.

 

[wizards8507]

A while back, what food a person could buy with welfare stamps was limited. Grocery stores couldn't accept stamps for prepared foods like fried chicken, cakes, alcohol, etc. IIRC soda was not allowed either. The basic guideline was if you had to prepare it, it qualified. If you could eat it immediately it didn't qualify.

SNAP is a scam perpetuated by PepsiCo and Frito Lay.

School lunch is a scam perpetuated by Sodexo and Aramark.

SNAP should consist of ten items. Spinach, tomato, chicken, rice, beans, potatoes, eggs, milk, seasonal fruit, almonds.

 

[Irish#1]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Fox News confirms the FBI supplemental background investigation report shows no evidence to corroborate the allegations of sexual assault or misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. <a href="https://t.co/pKzX18jINu">https://t.co/pKzX18jINu</a></p>— Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) <a href="https://twitter.com/foxnewspolitics/status/1047824501768110080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Wasn't expecting anything different to be reported. Report given only to the senate in closed chambers. Someone is probably taking pics with their phone to get it out to the public.

 

[wizards8507]

Wasn't expecting anything different to be reported. Report given only to the senate in closed chambers. Someone is probably taking pics with their phone to get it out to the public.

Grassley is the only one in there right now and he only got in at 8:00. Feinstein goes in at 9:00. I'm guessing the leak is on the FBI side, not the Senate side.

 

[Irish#1]

Grassley is the only one in there right now and he only got in at 8:00. Feinstein goes in at 9:00. I'm guessing the leak is on the FBI side, not the Senate side.

What's up with these lazy ass senators? I'm in at work every morning at 6:45! No doubt it will get leaked somewhere.

 

[wizards8507]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“Brett Kavanaugh, you stand accused of causing bee colonies to collapse. You have the power to destroy bees merely by touching them.”<br><br>*swarm of bees is released*<br><br>Kav: “Get these fucking bees off me!”<br><br>“Maybe you didn’t kill our bees, but this foul language is quite unbecoming.”</p>— Boofieleaks (@notwokieleaks) <a href="https://twitter.com/notwokieleaks/status/1047620084720697344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 3, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I'm in at work every morning at 6:45!

...he said, as he goofed of on IE for two hours before doing anything productive.

 

[Irish YJ]

Having spent the majority of my career with Fortune 500 pharm. companies, I can tell you that the bolded would not happen. Basically when a company introduces a new drug in Europe the company meets with what is basically a country's drug pricing committee and they negotiate a price. If they agree on a price the company's drug will be included in the country's "approved" list and government will pay the company the agreed upon price. If they cannot agree on a price than the drug will not be approved for reimbursement. The drug could still be marketed but if an individual wanted to acquire the drug they would be responsible for the entire cost as determined by the company. Obviously since the vast majority of citizens get government healthcare it is in the company's best interest to get the drug approved which is why drug prices in Europe are much cheaper then in the US. Reducing prices in the US will have no impact on prices in Europe.

Additionally, many of the European companies that you list have R&D facilities in the US.

The system you describe above in Europe is the way it is, BECAUSE we subsidize. The systems will change, and globally adjust. The industry just doesn't stop, or fade. Demand will drive. Being in pharma has conditioned you to believe their narrative. Many industries rely heavily on R&D, and they exist globally without US subsidy. Believing it's the responsibility of US tax payers to subsidize the world is simply ludicrous. And US based companies have R&D facilities in Europe and other places. Those jobs go where the best talent, and least regulations are present.

If you want to continue to debate, head to the HC thread so we don't clog this us anymore.

 

[Irish YJ]

Wasn't expecting anything different to be reported. Report given only to the senate in closed chambers. Someone is probably taking pics with their phone to get it out to the public.

The room is basically a tech clean room. No phones, cams, tech watches, etc. allowed. You are watched while you read.