85 percent:
By on Dec 9th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
85 percent:
Number of Americans who support “allowing the government to negotiate prescription drug prices for the Medicare program, suggesting there will be considerable political pressure on the next Congress to do so.” The Kaiser Family Foundation poll found “substantial majorities of Democrats (92%), Independents (85%), and Republicans (74%)” support such negotiations.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Interesting how once reality affects people, they love Government intervention…
I just hope we’ve elected a Government capable of this task.
December 9th, 2006 at 3:35 pmThat is what should be. Perscription drug prices are higher in the US than any other country on Earth. That’s average. The prices under the Medicare plan are well above the average.
December 9th, 2006 at 3:36 pmWho were the 15 percent that don’t want to negotiate? The insane? Those with too much money? Big Pharma employees? It always baffles me when people do things that are counter to common sense.
December 9th, 2006 at 3:38 pmThe same 15% that believes we shouldn’t talk to Iran and Syria. The same 15% that believes that a dictatorship in America is just fine.
December 9th, 2006 at 3:43 pmBut, but, but
December 9th, 2006 at 3:44 pmThe Wise Men of Washington tell us that such negotiations would destroy the economy…
They have to be right! Look what they said about the Clinton tax raises!
Yes, Kaiser held a meeting to discuss the 110th Congress’ healthcare agenda. More discussion at Universal Health. Also, the CDC has twice refused to provide the House Energy and Commerce Committee with requested post-Katrina agency performance reports. It was in the Friday news dump and was discussed here.
December 9th, 2006 at 4:02 pmWho were the 15 percent that don’t want to negotiate?
The staffs of pajamas media, the WSJ editorial page, the weekly standard, the national review, power line, littlegreen f*cktards, freepers…
And the list goes on. Unfortunately the above list and others like them, out of touch with reality as the they are have control of our national dialogue
December 9th, 2006 at 4:13 pmInteresting how once reality affects people, they love Government intervention…
Comment by unbelievable — December 9, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
Very true. It is also interesting to see the paradox they like to live in: The “rugged individualism” they take so much pride in is only possible in an affluent modern society that offers them many comforts.
I would like to throw all these “rugged individualists” together in the outback, Greenland, or the Gobi Desert for a month or so, and see how much they stick to their “I don’t need nobody” mindset.
December 9th, 2006 at 4:24 pmGolly, where’s Rick Santorum when Big Drug really needs him?
December 9th, 2006 at 5:02 pmI’m one of those Medicare creeps. Turns out, I can get my medication cheaper on the street. Not saying I do. Just saying.
December 9th, 2006 at 5:22 pmMedicare should be able to negotiate in behalf of its people and EVERYONE SHOULD GET MEDICARE. It’s called a single-payer plan and it would work fine for Universal Healthcare in America. People would be free to choose any medical provider they want, go to any hospital they want, etc. Overhead for Medicare is something like 3 or 4% compared to the insurance-based system, which has an overhead of more than 15%.
December 9th, 2006 at 5:46 pmAll of the blatantly corrupt and stupid things done by Republicans under Bush, forbidding negotiations on drug prices paid by Medicare ranks at the very top.
December 9th, 2006 at 6:16 pmURGENT – email needs response ASAP!
Dear Friends,
I would like to first thank you again for your support in securing my re-election as Illinois State Comptroller. Because of your help, I will continue fighting for working families, life saving medical research and real ethics reforms in Illinois. I am excited and invigorated for another term as your State Comptroller. However, the reason for my letter today is to ask for your help in what seemed like a very unlikely scenario 2 ½ years ago.
Many of you probably remember that I ran for the U.S. Senate against Barack Obama in the 2004 Democratic Primary, along with several other candidates. While we both ran spirited campaigns, Barack’s message of hope and change in Washington captivated voters across Illinois. While I was disappointed in our second-place finish, I quickly realized that Barack had the capability of offering our country something more.
As Barack’s opponent in 2004, I had a unique perspective to observe Barack emerge from a State Senator from Chicago into what can best be described as a national phenomenon. Throughout our 2004 campaign, I was able to witness firsthand how people from all walks of life were drawn to Barack and his message. Like many other Americans, I witnessed the culmination of Barack’s emergence at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when his keynote address captured the sense of hope and optimism that people across the country have long been yearning for.
Since he was elected to the Senate, Barack has proven himself as someone who tackles difficult issues, successfully works in a bipartisan fashion, and isn’t afraid to articulate his true convictions. The real belief that Barack could serve our country well as President was never more evident than during his trip to Africa this past summer. The images of thousands of people flooding the streets in adoration of the Illinois Senator made me realize that not only can we count on Barack on the domestic front, but he can restore the United States’ image around the globe.
It was for these and other reasons why I decided to write Senator Obama in September and urge him to run for the President of the United States.
On the eve of his trip first trip to the state of New Hampshire, I encourage you to join me and other Americans in demonstrating to Senator Obama how much support he enjoys in Illinois. Please go to http://www.runobama.com and sign the petition urging Senator Obama to run for President of the United States. You can help the folks at runobama.com achieve their goal of 10,000 signatures to present to Senator Obama this Sunday when he arrives in New Hampshire. Together, we can ensure that we have the best candidate in 2008 who will be able to bring positive change for all Americans.
Thank you and God bless you and your family during this holiday season.
Sincerely,
Daniel W. Hynes
IllinoisState Comptroller
P.S. You can help this worthy effort further by forwarding this email to your friends and colleagues.
December 9th, 2006 at 7:44 pmMedicare negotiating prices should be one of the first items in the new congress agenda. The citizens of the U.S. are paying for research and development of new drugs for the entire world.
December 9th, 2006 at 8:28 pmThe citizens of the U.S. are paying for research and development of new drugs for the entire world.
Comment by darby1936 — December 9, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
More than most people realize. The drug companies don’t actually do very much research on their own dime. A lot of it is paid for directly by NIH. But the drug companies get full patent rights, even when part of the research bill was paid for by Uncle Sam. This sweet arrangement was set up by the Reagan administration. It is absolutely outrageous. And to think that the pathological liars at the drug companies dare to claim that they need huge profits to pay for research.
December 9th, 2006 at 9:32 pmand R & D is a relatively small part of the pharma budget…
December 9th, 2006 at 9:45 pmthe largest – at one time the largest of any major corp, at 20% – is the advertising budget… you know, those damned tv ads…
and they are still making record profits…
The next time you visit your doctor, take a look around. Those Pharma reps are taking up his or her time as well as yours. In addition, they, the reps, are well paid, very well. Also be wary of the newest and the latest. A daily dose of 81 mg aspirin is still the most effective anti-coagulant known to man is safer and cost a fraction of the ‘in’ meds which devour muscle tissue and clog the kidneys.
December 10th, 2006 at 1:31 amUniversal Press Syndicate
By Ann Coulter
THE CHAIRMAN of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, recently said: “To contend that [Miguel] Estrada, a young attorney with no judicial experience, is the only Hispanic who could be a nominee to a potential vacancy on the Supreme Court does a disservice to the many outstanding Hispanic judges serving in our federal and state courts.”
Actually Bush was just looking for top legal talent, not models for a Benetton ad. And not even a Supreme Court justice. Estrada has been nominated to a federal court of appeals by President Bush. It’s rather churlish for Leahy to complain that Estrada has no judicial experience. He can’t develop judicial experience until he’s on the bench, where the Democrats refuse to put him because he has no judicial experience.
It’s interesting that Leahy complained about Estrada’s youth. After an utterly undistinguished legal career prosecuting cow-tipping cases in Chittenden County, Vt., Leahy was, his Web site boasts, “also the youngest senator (34) elected from the Green Mountain State”!
To be sure, Estrada, 40, has no cow-tipping prosecutions under his belt. But he has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court, often considered even better experience than practice before the Chittenden County bench. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Clinton, for example, the media briefly stopped hailing Hillary Clinton as the greatest legal mind in the universe in order to rave about Ginsburg’s six arguments before the Supreme Court.
Back when Estrada was first nominated – one year ago – Leahy said: “The nominees who were selected for their qualifications are likely to be confirmed. Those who were selected primarily for their ideology are not likely to be confirmed.” But in the succeeding year, Leahy has refused to grant hearings to a slew of lawyers with astonishing legal qualifications.
Almost 40,000 students graduate from law school every year. Each year, only 33 will clerk for the Supreme Court. Indeed, only three sitting members of the Supreme Court – also a good credential – did so. Estrada is among this elite group, as are at least three other of the nine lawyers Bush chose for appellate courts one year ago.
Estrada clerked for Justice Kennedy and has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court. John Roberts clerked for Justice Rehnquist and has argued more than 30 cases before the Supreme Court. Jeff Sutton clerked for Justice Scalia and has had 15 arguments before the Supreme Court. Michael McConnell clerked for Justice Brennan and has argued 11 cases before the Supreme Court. None of them have even been given hearings by Leahy.
It turns out what the Democrats mean by “selected primarily for their ideology” means the nominee went to top law schools, had prestigious federal clerkships, went on to distinguished legal careers – but are believed to be Republicans. Evidence of “extreme views” consists of association with the Federalist Society, a group of intellectuals that holds racy legal debates on the privileges and immunities clause, and issues publications with edgy titles like “Reciprocal Compensation Decision Resolves Little.”
As legal scholar Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., explained: “We don’t want this to be a judiciary jammed and packed with people who’ve come out of the Federalist Society with extreme views.”
Consequently, Bush had already purged his list of judicial nominees likely to incite a Democratic witch-hunt. He withdrew the names of two Harvard Law School graduates – one a Supreme Court clerk, one a U.S. congressman – after Democrats discovered with alarm that the two had suspicious associations with the Federalist Society. To get a fair shake from the Democrats, the Federalist Society should change its name to “Communist Party U.S.A.”
In addition to the first nine he chose, Bush even included two Clinton nominees – an unprecedented concession. The Senate Democrats responded to Bush’s olive branch by quickly confirming the two Democrats and refusing to confirm all but one of Bush’s nine nominees.
When that first batch of judicial nominees was announced one year ago, Democrats said they would refuse to hold hearings until the candidates had been vetted by the Democratic Party’s legal adjunct, the American Bar Association. OK: All four of these nominees have been reviewed by the ABA. Three received unanimous “well qualified” ratings (Estrada, McConnell, Roberts), and one received a mixed “well qualified/qualified rating (Sutton).
Still, no hearings.
When Bush recently complained about the massive resistance to his judicial nominees, Leahy angrily denied the accusation, saying: Republicans did it first! In point of fact, Republicans held up nominations of jurists like Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of Philadelphia, who shouted obscenities at prosecutors from the bench. (”Shut your f***ing mouth,” she exclaimed.) Which Clinton nominee with a half-dozen arguments before the Supreme Court did Republicans refuse to confirm?
But moreover, even if it weren’t a lunatic comparison, what kind of argument is that? The Republicans did it too? This must be the sort of finely honed legal argument one develops prosecuting cow-tipping cases. Perhaps the Federalist Society could finally gain the admiration of Senate Democrats if it too began showcasing the legal logic of bratty 4-year-olds.
December 10th, 2006 at 2:55 amI must say watching these right wing closet cases melt down is quite amusing…. reality is painful eh pal? Your a biblehumper quite clearly, so you don;t beleive in reincarnation..so this life your wasting typing this inane psychobabble is the only one you have… you realize you will never get the time you spent spamming back right?
December 10th, 2006 at 7:15 amSome states have Insurance and health as Govt. responsibilities. All sections of socity should be covered by it.
December 10th, 2006 at 8:00 amSouth American leaders study unity
South American leaders have agreed to create a high-level commission to study the idea of forming a continent-wide community similar to the European Union.
Chavez expressed opposition to Washington-backed free market prescriptions and said that the left-wing leaders in the region had “buried” US hopes of a hemispheric free trade agreement, an effort launched a decade ago.
He joked that nations signing a free trade pact with the US are subsequently “flooded with chickens’ hind quarters”.
After the summit, Chavez joined Morales in addressing thousands jammed into a football stadium for a rally in which they both knocked US “imperialism” in the region.
AT LAST PEOPLES OF THE WORLDS ARE UNITING AGAINST AMERICAN BACKWARDNESS TO PROGRESS
December 10th, 2006 at 9:04 amIs it possible that all dissenters are drug company employees or stockholders?
December 10th, 2006 at 12:54 pmJoe: “Is it possible that all dissenters are drug company employees or stockholders?”
According to Krugman, one of the primary reasons why insurance-based healthcare has a high overhead is that thousands of people are employed for the express purpose of PREVENTING your access to healthcare. A single-payer plan would eliminate that. And, as Sinclair said, (paraphrasing) it’s hard to get a man to agree on something if his paycheck depends on disagreeing.
December 10th, 2006 at 2:14 pmPerhaps what the 15% suspect is that letting this crowd negotiate drug prices they will do such a “heck of a job” that the prices would rise 25%. remember who we are dealing with here.
Still perhaps we could have a drug negotiating committee run by Howard Dean, or some other honest Doctor.
December 10th, 2006 at 10:48 pmOf course, if we mandate it, this administration will find a way to screw it up and end up paying more to their friends in the drug industry rather than less. Then they will say, “hey, you wanted us to negotiate and we did!”
December 11th, 2006 at 9:47 amhispanic radio advertising for lawyers
Most lawyers are in private practice, concentrating on criminal or civil law. In criminal law, lawyers represent individuals who have been charged with crimes and argue their cases in courts of law.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:13 pm