Having the GOP do his dirty work on this one proves that he has not made up his mind on these very important issues, and wants the wiggle room to say that he didn’t actually stand behind what the GOP was saying should the polls require him to do so.

1) Elimination of access to key medications.
2) Elimination of access to NEW medications.
3) Forced use of less effective “alternatives.”
4) Lower quality care.
5) A prescription drug benefit that fails to address the healthcare requirements of his beneficiaries.

That’s change I can believe in.

Wow.

“As a former Marine and Iraq vet, I will fix social security responsibly, on a case-by-case basis.”

What’s Paulsens’s? Apparently nothing since he believes “Social Security absolutely has to be preserved.”

Hurray! Paulsen finally has a position (even though that position is directly in conflict with how he has previously voted.) H.J. p. 4367, 5/10/01.

It’s nice to see the Republicans (Coleman AND now Paulsen) coming around to the what Democrats have argued for for years.

You know, except Chestnut.

They also can’t get a sex change operation. So? This is exactly the same scenario anyone in a large insurance program faces. You get your necessities, you don’t get all of the frills. Some programs have less frills than others. If you really want drug X vs. drug Y than you can go out any buy it. But, medicare is not going to give you drug Y when only drug X will work for a medically necessary treatment. That would be illegal. Notably, they could alter the formularies in the status quo if this were really a threat.

But, given the scenario where there are alternative solutions, you’ve provided zero reason why the Federal government shouldn’t be allowed to negotiate between competing options.

“What good are lower prices if I can’t get the drugs I need?”

Again, you attempt to insert the word “need” into it. That’s a false problem. You have access to needs. You don’t have access to all of the possible alternatives for dealing with that need.

“So, in addition to drug rationing, you’re also comfortable with lower quality. Thanks for clearing that up.”

Access to 10 drugs that do the same thing at a much higher cost has nothing to do with quality. Thanks for playing though.

What is his brave responsible plan for fixing social security? Will he do it on a case by case basis?

Madia is turning into a joke candidate.

Oh, so not buying X is proof that X won’t be unavailable how? Are you kidding me with this argument?

By the way… they’re called “formularies” for a reason. They may generally treat similar symptoms, and belong to the same class of drugs but that doesn’t mean their comparable… or even suggested for the same disease in different patients.

“Drugs don’t disappear for two reasons: (1) Most people aren’t on medicare, meaning, there are plenty of other markets for those drugs;”

You’re not sure what you’re arguing anymore are you? … I never said the drugs would disappear… but they will NOT be available to Medicare/medicade recipients… which is the same thing, for those people.

“The Federal government is opening markets for drug companies. They can choose to participate if they want.”

Yep, and if it’s not profitable enough, they won’t… and your medicare recipients will be without the drugs they need.

Thanks for agreeing.

“In the alternative, the Federal Government could find itself without a drug if it isn’t willing to meet the market demand. That’s the free market at play.”

I got no response to that, other than to say that’s the most non-sensicle statement you’ve ever made… and that’s saying something.

If you refuse to meet market demand, that’s pretty much anathema to free market principles.

You clearly don’t know what the hell you’re talking about… and making shit up as you go along.

“Notably, there’s always the private insurance market which provides an avenue and market for drugs that don’t want to play with Medicare. You want drug X? Come over here, we’ll sell it to you. Again, the free market at play.”

That’s a good argument for dismantling medicare and leaving the whole thing to private insurers.

“Yes, look at it. Less selection (like a lot of big insurance plans) but significantly lower prices.”

What good are lower prices if I can’t get the drugs I need?

“The key, however, is that the selection is adequate.”

So, in addition to drug rationing, you’re also comfortable with lower quality. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think the rest of your comments speak for themselves. Specifically, it is clear that you have not even a fifth-grader’s grasp of the free market system.

Say what you will about Madia, but, at least he takes a position on issues.

Is he for negotiating even though he was against them (ie, like Coleman). Is he against negotiations? Is he for privatizing social security? What does this even mean? “Social Security absolutely has to be preserved and protected, without a doubt.” Many republicans say that right before saying “therefore we should privatize it.”

Again, if this is the case, Wal-Mart is anti-free market. Wal-Mart says I will pay X and only X. If you don’t give it to me for X, then I will buy Y. That works when there is a Y. The government will have no more power to negotiate than Wal-Mart when there lacks an alternative. In those situations, the drug company holds the cards. But, to counter-act the high costs you would expect when Medicare has to buy a drug because it is (a) needed; and (b) lacks an alternative it should be given the power to negotiate drug companies does when there is a Y.

“Second, the direct result of your “price negotiation policy” is really worse than just a simple undermining of our economic system — it will ELIMINATE KEY DRUGS from the menu. What good are cheap drugs if the drugs you need aren’t an option?”

Drugs don’t disappear for two reasons: (1) Most people aren’t on medicare, meaning, there are plenty of other markets for those drugs; and (2) the drug company can lower its price to preserve its market share. Companies don’t have to sell to Wal-Mart, but, if they don’t they are choosing to give up some significant markets. The Federal government is opening markets for drug companies. They can choose to participate if they want. In the alternative, the Federal Government could find itself without a drug if it isn’t willing to meet the market demand. That’s the free market at play.

Notably, there’s always the private insurance market which provides an avenue and market for drugs that don’t want to play with Medicare. You want drug X? Come over here, we’ll sell it to you. Again, the free market at play.

Look to the VA where drug rationing is already the net result of its price negotiations. ”

Yes, look at it. Less selection (like a lot of big insurance plans) but significantly lower prices. The key, however, is that the selection is adequate. You don’t walk into the VA and here, man, we could totally solve that headache, but, we don’t do pain relief drugs.

“You really don’t understand the difference between government and private enterprise, do you? Your ignorance is staggering. ”

I understand that they operate nothing like one another now. Putting the government in the same boots as Blue Cross would allow it to operate like Blue Cross. Ie, negotiate its prices.

Again, do you not think Blue Cross creates price ceilings for drugs? Those ceilings are directly proportional to its market power (they say to drug companies want us to buy your drugs and make it accessible to X number of patients? Meet this price). Drug companies get the same power back. They say, want your customers to have access to our drug? Pay this price. The Federal government should get the exact same relationship as Blue Cross does to providers.

“Moreover, because BSBC negotiates its prices, it’s insured don’t have access to certain drugs, procedures and care facilities. ”

Exactly. So? You want more insurance? Go get it. But, you’re not going to be left for dead under BCBS. You are paying less because they can bully suppliers. That means you might not have access to a Lexus at Wal Mart, but, you’ll get your necessities a helluva lot cheaper.

First, that’s a finely spun statement. Government price controls are anathema to the free market concept. Second, the direct result of your “price negotiation policy” is really worse than just a simple undermining of our economic system — it will ELIMINATE KEY DRUGS from the menu. What good are cheap drugs if the drugs you need aren’t an option?

Look to the VA where drug rationing is already the net result of its price negotiations.

“Would you prefer it if Blue Cross (or whatever you private insurer) is couldn’t negotiate cost of treatment with providers or drug companies?”

You really don’t understand the difference between government and private enterprise, do you? Your ignorance is staggering. Moreover, because BSBC negotiates its prices, it’s insured don’t have access to certain drugs, procedures and care facilities.

That you want want to take that service denial to a national scale seems pretty stupid.

“Will Medicare be able to eliminate necessary drugs that lack an alternative?”

Actually, yes. If the manufacture won’t sell at the price the government fixes to, the drug will be eliminated. Again, look at the VA for your model.

The depths of MouthDem’s stupidity are limitless.

Does, for example, Paulsen now disagree with his previous vote to disallow the state of Minnesota to negotiate drug prices?

Because his record and his statements in the debate sure as hell aren’t clear on either point and it certainly would be a break from the Republican party (minus Norm who apparently recently changed his position).

Would you prefer it if Blue Cross (or whatever you private insurer) is couldn’t negotiate cost of treatment with providers or drug companies?

It’s illogical not to allow the Federal Government who is the customer of the drugs for delivery to Medicare to not negotiate its prices.

Could it reduce choice? Yes. Just like it does/could when you have any insurance. Will Medicare be able to eliminate necessary drugs that lack an alternative? No, just like your private insurance.

But, hamstringing the Federal government form being able to negotiate a price (and just accept what the drug companies will give them) and further hamstringing the government by saying you can ask for lower prices but you can’t alter formularies goes against every concept of free market Republicans usually hold dear.

– drug negotiation legislation what would remove key drugs from the list of medications available to anyone in a federal government health program?

That’s pretty stupid.

– rejecting real efforts to reform the broken and bankrupt social security system.

That’s also pretty stupid.

Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to establish or require a particular formulary.”

Translation: the government can’t say I won’t buy your drug. It’s not exactly easy to negotiate prices when one of the parties can’t walk away form the table. It’s the exact same power a company like Wal-Mart exercises. Give me X or I won’t buy it.