• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Minimum wage hikes trigger 'payroll tsunami,' as small businesses cut back

Or whether they're willing to forego a good thing on the hope the next guy/gal will do better? You think that's a serious possibility?

Again, the binary choice whether a new candidate will mean the end of the economic upswing. The perception of policy implementation will affect the wall street speculators; much will depend on that perception as well as the policies a candidate is proposing.


And which of their policies/positions will improve the economy?

Yang's ideas on dealing with the effects of automation at a macro level are interesting, but I need to read more before going fully on board with anyone.
 
You're one of those posters who just resort to condescension when presented with ideas you don't like. What's funny is you remind me of the old man who yells about change and anything that's different from what they know. Much of the change that's happened in this country has faced the same opposition. Whether any of the plans (Green New Deal, Medicare for All) are programs we can fund effectively is an entirely different conversation, but that requires smart people putting their heads together instead of listening to those who are resistant. As much as you may hate it, presidential campaigns are a giant popularity contest; on either side of the political spectrum. Many thought the chances of a black president were pretty slim; things change. Whether or not this will be the time people vote against a president sitting on a solid economy remains to be seen; and no one thought Trump would win either so strange things can happen.

Look, since the 2016 elections it has been 24/7 Trump bashing and return fire by a President who isn't going to take the crap the liberals are throwing at him. Lost are the results generated on people in this forum but not the public or he wouldn't have a 51.6% approval rating on the economy. Now if you want to address that issue, the thread topic which has nothing to do with your post, or answer my question about any President with a 50+% approval rating on the economy losing re-election we can continue this discussion and debate but doubt that is going to happen.
 
Again, the binary choice whether a new candidate will mean the end of the economic upswing. The perception of policy implementation will affect the wall street speculators; much will depend on that perception as well as the policies a candidate is proposing.
Yeah, the perceptions of economic decision makers - consumers, employers, investors, etc. is important. And changing horse in midstream is risky.


EC said:
Yang's ideas on dealing with the effects of automation at a macro level are interesting, but I need to read more before going fully on board with anyone.
Read a short piece on him earlier in the week. Nothing really notable from my viewpoint.
 
Everyone understands and accepts the fact that corporations have to show profits, otherwise nobody would buy their stock and the CEO's wouldn't be able to give themselves multi-million dollar bonuses. But there has to be some oversight on corporate greed, otherwise, we will all be working for virtually nothing more than a basic existence of survival while the top 10% enjoys a hedonistic, lavish lifestyle at the cost of the suffering of 90% of the population.

Just one example, and there are literally thousands that I can site. Insulin.

Insulin is an old drug, it was discovered in 1921, nearly 100 years ago, when a medical student injected the hormone extracted from the pancreas of a dog into a diabetic dog and found that it effectively lowered the dog's blood glucose levels to normal. When inventor Frederick Banting discovered insulin in 1923, he refused to put his name on the patent. He felt it was unethical for a doctor to profit off a discovery that would save lives. Banting's co-inventors, James Collip and Charles Best, sold the insulin patent to the University of Toronto for a mere $1. Banting and Macleod were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1923 for the discovery, sharing the prize money with Best and Collip. For the next 60 years, people with diabetes relied on animal insulin – usually from pigs or cows – to survive.

Insulin also became the first protein to be chemically synthesized, in 1963. Researchers were unable to produce it in large quantities, however, so people continued to rely on animal insulin to treat diabetes. Although animal insulin worked well, it wasn’t an exact match to the human hormone and some patients suffered minor side-effects, including immune reactions to the hormone.

Nobel Prize winner Dorothy Hodgkin deciphered the molecular structure of insulin in 1969 using X-ray crystallography. The type of insulin used today came about in 1978 when researchers were able to manufacture a form of human insulin using biotechnology. Scientists genetically modified bacteria to produce the separate A and B chains that make up human insulin and combined these through a chemical process. The result? The mass production of synthetic human insulin. This revolutionised the treatment of diabetes because it meant that insulin could be produced on a mass scale and used without the side-effects associated with animal insulin.

Why does insulin cost so much to patients in the USA and around the world? Why is insulin, a widely sold drug of which most forms are now off-patent, so incredibly expensive? 8 Reasons Why Insulin is so Outrageously Expensive - T1International

1. Only 3 Companies Control 90% of the Global Insulin Market
2. No Generic Insulin
3. Pay-for-Delay Schemes & Lawsuits
4. Patents
5. Politics
6. Price Fixing
7. Pharma Marketing Schemes
8. Payment for Influence (or Silence)

This simple graph illustrates how the 4 phama companies have raised the prices of their insulin.

4ebfe428-295b-4ce5-8538-ce880f1bde66.png


A Yale study found that one in four patients admitted to cutting back on insulin use because of cost. The consequences have been proven deadly. Three people died in 2017 while rationing their insulin. Three more died in 2018, and just recently, in Jan 2019 a young man died because he couldn't afford his insulin and was rationing it. Alec Holt turning 26 meant his parents' insurance would no longer cover the cost, shooting his monthly cost for insulin and supplies up to $1,300 per month.

Corporate greed is not only immoral it's virtually creating such hardships for people that it's resulting in deaths.

There’s insulin available at Walmart for $24.88 a vial, so I can’t believe people are dying over insulin “rationing”. Other forms of insulin are expensive, but that story just doesn’t add up, literally.


Sent from my iPhone XXX Turbo using Tapioca
 
There’s insulin available at Walmart for $24.88 a vial, so I can’t believe people are dying over insulin “rationing”. Other forms of insulin are expensive, but that story just doesn’t add up, literally.


Sent from my iPhone XXX Turbo using Tapioca

From Snopes; FACT CHECK: Did Alex Smith Die at Age 26 Because He Couldn't Afford Insulin?

Smiths518.jpg


This is Alec Smith. He died this year (2017) at age 26 because he couldn’t afford insulin in America. He made $35,000 a year as a restaurant manager, and couldn’t afford his $450 a month health insurance with a $7,600 out-of-pocket deductible. The insulin he needed for diabetes was $1,300 a month. When he turned 26 and was kicked off his mom’s insurance, he started rationing his life-saving insulin. He died a month later.

Statement from Alec Smith's mother;

"For Alec, this meant that his insulin and supplies cost almost $1,300 a month. He and I together researched for months in advance about his health insurance options. They weren’t good. The best plan we found would cost him $450 a month for the premium with a whopping $7,600 deductible. That deductible meant he would be paying out-of-pocket for his medicine for many months anyway, so he decided to go without the plan until he could find a different job with benefits."
 
The only question I see you asking which I did respond to, 27 years ago, GHW Bush had an approval rating below 50% on the economy and LOST which is the point. I asked you to find any President running for re-election with a 50+% rating on the economy that lost re-election, Go back as far as you want or can go, waiting for an answer?
Here's a hint: my questions are followed by a question mark. There are two of them in the post you just replied to. My very first post only had two sentences and one of them was a question...

Here they are again:
So is the economy doing well or not?
How far back does this specific poll answer on the economy even go?

Talking about GW Bush having a low approval rating does not answer either of those questions ( unless you mean to imply that that polling metric goes back EXACTLY 27 years ago?!). There's no point in answering your challenge unless you can show some kind of validity to your theory. So far, you've only come up with one instance of a President losing a re-election bid. I mean, if a President is going to get re-elected 3 out of 4 times anyway, it's easy to come up with all kinds of nonsense correlations, like years ending in '92' for example. Did you know that no US President has won a re-election bid in a year ending in "20"? It's a fact, but guess what? It doesn't prove anything.

You've asked me to prove you wrong, without doing the work of proving yourself right to begin with, which is a waste of people's time.
 
exoplanet;1069957078]Here's a hint: my questions are followed by a question mark. There are two of them in the post you just replied to. My very first post only had two sentences and one of them was a question...

Here they are again:
So is the economy doing well or not?
How far back does this specific poll answer on the economy even go?

Yes, as the results show since January 2017, 5 million NEW jobs created, 2 trillion added to GDP dollar growth, GDP percentage growth almost double and that is with 7 interest rate changes in 2017-2018 leading to a 51.6% approval rating for Trump on the economy

Talking about GW Bush having a low approval rating does not answer either of those questions ( unless you mean to imply that that polling metric goes back EXACTLY 27 years ago?!). There's no point in answering your challenge unless you can show some kind of validity to your theory. So far, you've only come up with one instance of a President losing a re-election bid. I mean, if a President is going to get re-elected 3 out of 4 times anyway, it's easy to come up with all kinds of nonsense correlations, like years ending in '92' for example. Did you know that no US President has won a re-election bid in a year ending in "20"? It's a fact, but guess what? It doesn't prove anything.

Didn't say GW Bush, said GHW Bush, you do know that George Herbert Walker Bush was a one term President, what was his approval rating on the economy when he lost in 1992? It proves that people will always vote their pocketbooks and further you are incapable of finding a President with 50+% approval rating that didn't win re-election

You've asked me to prove you wrong, without doing the work of proving yourself right to begin with, which is a waste of people's time.

I have proven myself right by even giving you the answer, Ford, Carter, GHW Bush all lost their re-election bids because their approval rating on the economy was less than 50%, so was Obama's in October 2016 costing the Democrats the WH and the Congress.
 
Look, since the 2016 elections it has been 24/7 Trump bashing and return fire by a President who isn't going to take the crap the liberals are throwing at him. Lost are the results generated on people in this forum but not the public or he wouldn't have a 51.6% approval rating on the economy.

It's not just lost on the people in this forum, but across the country. Clearly there isn't an overwhelming majority who think he deserves full support based on his results either on the economy or as a leader. If this were the case we'd be seeing much better numbers than he's currently getting. This is why I continue to challenge your notion of "results matter" because it's too one dimensional; people care about more than just results in one particular area. Ultimately the election results in 2020 will be the definitive answer on how the country feels the economy's success would falter with a change in leadership.

Now if you want to address that issue, the thread topic which has nothing to do with your post, or answer my question about any President with a 50+% approval rating on the economy losing re-election we can continue this discussion and debate but doubt that is going to happen.

I was responding to a comment made that had already deviated from the thread topic, and it would be pretty rich you accusing anyone of derailing threads since most of the time you're contribution is a wall of text with unformatted economic figures. I'd have to look up which president lost an reelection despite an over 50% approval rating, but what would be interesting to note is what that president's approval rating was as well. What's unique about Trump is he's disliked for his handling of many other things, so there's a chance that hurts him if there's another choice. 2016 was a choice between two undesirable candidates for many; their lackluster approval ratings clearly indicated as much. What remains to be seen is whether there will be someone who can maintain the momentum and be more palatable for the independents.
 
From Snopes; FACT CHECK: Did Alex Smith Die at Age 26 Because He Couldn't Afford Insulin?

Smiths518.jpg


This is Alec Smith. He died this year (2017) at age 26 because he couldn’t afford insulin in America. He made $35,000 a year as a restaurant manager, and couldn’t afford his $450 a month health insurance with a $7,600 out-of-pocket deductible. The insulin he needed for diabetes was $1,300 a month. When he turned 26 and was kicked off his mom’s insurance, he started rationing his life-saving insulin. He died a month later.

Statement from Alec Smith's mother;

"For Alec, this meant that his insulin and supplies cost almost $1,300 a month. He and I together researched for months in advance about his health insurance options. They weren’t good. The best plan we found would cost him $450 a month for the premium with a whopping $7,600 deductible. That deductible meant he would be paying out-of-pocket for his medicine for many months anyway, so he decided to go without the plan until he could find a different job with benefits."

there are MANY types of insulin....

and his doctor may have wanted him to take the newest and best...but the cheaper and older would have saved his life
 
there are MANY types of insulin....

and his doctor may have wanted him to take the newest and best...but the cheaper and older would have saved his life
So, did he and his mother talk to the Dr. about alternatives?
 
So, did he and his mother talk to the Dr. about alternatives?

dont know...but that is why i posted about the two choices earlier in thread

novolog and novolin are very similar....novolog just works faster in the system

my doctor wanted me to take novolog at over $600 a month on my cadillac insurance plan

i asked about alternatives....we choose novolin as a good alternative for me at less than 1/10 the cost
 
dont know...but that is why i posted about the two choices earlier in thread

novolog and novolin are very similar....novolog just works faster in the system

my doctor wanted me to take novolog at over $600 a month on my cadillac insurance plan

i asked about alternatives....we choose novolin as a good alternative for me at less than 1/10 the cost
Thanks, good info. I've heard similar stories where the Dr dashes off a prescription and the patient find the cost prohibitive but just make do, rather than going back to the Dr. and explain the situation.
 
there are MANY types of insulin....

and his doctor may have wanted him to take the newest and best...but the cheaper and older would have saved his life

There are also many types of diabetes. This man and the others who have died trying to ration their insulin may have had brittle diabetes which is much more difficult to manage.
 
There are also many types of diabetes. This man and the others who have died trying to ration their insulin may have had brittle diabetes which is much more difficult to manage.

could be....i dunno

i know my endocrinologist said the cheaper one would work for me

my point was patients need to be aware, and ask if there are alternatives

not just settle for what their doctor is telling them
 
From Snopes; FACT CHECK: Did Alex Smith Die at Age 26 Because He Couldn't Afford Insulin?

Smiths518.jpg


This is Alec Smith. He died this year (2017) at age 26 because he couldn’t afford insulin in America. He made $35,000 a year as a restaurant manager, and couldn’t afford his $450 a month health insurance with a $7,600 out-of-pocket deductible. The insulin he needed for diabetes was $1,300 a month. When he turned 26 and was kicked off his mom’s insurance, he started rationing his life-saving insulin. He died a month later.

Statement from Alec Smith's mother;

"For Alec, this meant that his insulin and supplies cost almost $1,300 a month. He and I together researched for months in advance about his health insurance options. They weren’t good. The best plan we found would cost him $450 a month for the premium with a whopping $7,600 deductible. That deductible meant he would be paying out-of-pocket for his medicine for many months anyway, so he decided to go without the plan until he could find a different job with benefits."

Thanks for the cut and paste, but that's not an answer. Insulin that he could buy at Walmart costs $24.88 a vial. Maybe 6 a month, 4 R and 2 N, $149.28. He didn't die because he couldn't afford insulin, that is clear.
 
there are MANY types of insulin....

and his doctor may have wanted him to take the newest and best...but the cheaper and older would have saved his life

This is like someone dying of dehydration because he would only drink Perrier water, which he couldn't get, and wouldn't drink from the tap.
 
Thanks for the cut and paste, but that's not an answer. Insulin that he could buy at Walmart costs $24.88 a vial. Maybe 6 a month, 4 R and 2 N, $149.28. He didn't die because he couldn't afford insulin, that is clear.

Well, just so you know, everything I 'cut and pasted' is from an article, why would I type it all out?

Are you covered by an type of insurance either private or Medicare? And you do not know the circumstances of his death. If his mother says he died because he was rationing his insulin why would you or anyone else doubt her word?
 
Well, just so you know, everything I 'cut and pasted' is from an article, why would I type it all out?

Are you covered by an type of insurance either private or Medicare? And you do not know the circumstances of his death. If his mother says he died because he was rationing his insulin why would you or anyone else doubt her word?

I just posted why I would doubt that. Once again, there is affordable insulin available.

Also, all you posted was a link and some of an article, which I didn't ask for, and I don't care about. I wasn't debating with a snopes article. I made a point and you haven't replied to it.
 
Thanks for the cut and paste, but that's not an answer. Insulin that he could buy at Walmart costs $24.88 a vial. Maybe 6 a month, 4 R and 2 N, $149.28. He didn't die because he couldn't afford insulin, that is clear.

His mother clearly states that he died as a result of rationing his insulin. That should be sufficient as an answer. I don't know him personally, I don't know if he could have afforded insulin or not. Obviously 'not' because that's what his own mother said. I don't care whether you pay $28.44 a vial or $284.44 a vial, we're not talking about you. I'm talking about a man who died for lack of sufficient insulin.
 
His mother clearly states that he died as a result of rationing his insulin. That should be sufficient as an answer. I don't know him personally, I don't know if he could have afforded insulin or not. Obviously 'not' because that's what his own mother said. I don't care whether you pay $28.44 a vial or $284.44 a vial, we're not talking about you. I'm talking about a man who died for lack of sufficient insulin.

I just don't know why they didn't buy the available insulin. The news reports seem to have no information at all about that. It's hard to believe that the reporters don't know about the insulin available at Walmart. It's no secret. Yet, it's completely ignored. Very strange. These people claim to have done all kinds of research, and they didn't know? Very weird.
 
I just don't know why they didn't buy the available insulin. The news reports seem to have no information at all about that. It's hard to believe that the reporters don't know about the insulin available at Walmart. It's no secret. Yet, it's completely ignored. Very strange. These people claim to have done all kinds of research, and they didn't know? Very weird.

High Price Of Insulin Leads Patients To Ration The Drug. That Can Be Lethal : Shots - Health News : NPR

You can read the article about this particular young man yourself.

and this one,

High insulin costs are killing Americans - Right Care Alliance

or this

https://wapo.st/insulin
 

probably doesnt help that doctors prescribe the newest almost always

and it ALWAYS has the highest cost

maybe it is better in some ways for the patient....but the patient can do fine with the older drug

the patient needs to be his/her own best advocate, and not leave all the decisions up to their doctor
 
I just don't know why they didn't buy the available insulin. The news reports seem to have no information at all about that. It's hard to believe that the reporters don't know about the insulin available at Walmart. It's no secret. Yet, it's completely ignored. Very strange. These people claim to have done all kinds of research, and they didn't know? Very weird.

Sorry, it is not "completely ignored". The Walmart insulin doesn't work for every diabetic
Drug prices are killing diabetics. ‘Walmart insulin’ isn’t the solution.

As those of us within the Type 1 diabetes community know, and as a subsequent Snopes entry clarified, “Walmart” insulin is an older form, one that few Type 1 diabetics use. The chain store sells short- and long-acting human insulin (commonly known as R and N), rather than short- and long-acting analog insulin, which is the variety that costs over $300 per vial. Human insulin was created in the 1970s to better imitate a human pancreas over the animal insulin that was initially used. While that might seem like a good thing, synthetic insulin poorly approximates the insulin secretion of a healthy pancreas. Among other things, it can take an hour to begin absorbing, while more recently developed rapid-acting analog insulin starts to take effect in 20 minutes or less after an injection.
 
Sorry, it is not "completely ignored". The Walmart insulin doesn't work for every diabetic

So, it's even worse that ignoring the insulin that is available. (And, yes, it does work. Nothing there says it doesn't work.) Seems the choice was made to not use any insulin, instead of using the Novolin? Sounds like these people just were not aware of that option, and they were unaware how dangerous it was to take less than they needed instead of using the Novolin.
 
Back
Top Bottom