@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
The problem arises from demokkkrat plans to turn the US into a peasant society which they can control, and the designated peasants in that scheme would come from the South. Criminals and terrorists might in fact start coming in from the North as you suggest but there would never be enough of them to constitute a demokkkrat voting block.
You're concerned about them voting? I'm concerned about them trafficking drugs and prostitutes.
@coldjoint,
Agreed. I never said the courts implement policy.
If progressive policies get passed and signed into law. We ALL know that a conservative judge and another one, will say that X law is unconstitutional (this happens with literally every slightly controversial law).
Ultimately something like free-college or Medicare for All will end up in front of the Supreme Court, from which a conservative court would gut it.
We all know this would happen. It’s why a lot of you voted for Trump. It’s why a lot of us voted for Clinton.
The protest votes in 2016 will have succeeded in nothing except destroying whatever chances of their policies being implemented.
Again, it’d be funny if it weren’t so unfortunate.
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
Agreed. I never said the courts implement policy.
If progressive policies get passed and signed into law. We ALL know that a conservative judge and another one, will say that X law is unconstitutional (this happens with literally every slightly controversial law).
Ultimately something like free-college or Medicare for All will end up in front of the Supreme Court, from which a conservative court would gut it.
We all know this would happen. It’s why a lot of you voted for Trump. It’s why a lot of us voted for Clinton.
The protest votes in 2016 will have succeeded in nothing except destroying whatever chances of their policies being implemented.
Again, it’d be funny if it weren’t so unfortunate.
What's funny is you and probably many other people have no chance of understanding why such policies would be unconstitution. You only see the constitution as either a tool to achieve policy goals or an obstacle to doing so, depending on whether you're getting your way or not.
Do you have any sense that the constitution represents something deeper, which protects against abuses; so if a policy achieves some social good in an abusive way, it's going to get struck down? Don't you think that is a good thing about the constitution? You do, but only when something you don't like gets struck down, like some state law restricting abortion in some way.
@gungasnake,
My,my. Xenophobia and misogyny both in the same day.
@coldjoint,
Why do you think I’ve forgotten that or that I wouldn’t know it would be supported by some citizens?
I swear, you either don’t know how to process thoughts/words or you think you’re being clever.
@coldjoint,
No...you were telling me that I was “forgetting” something.
Far from a fact.
Hi guys. Sorry, I've been away for a while. I'm working on a screenplay featuring a new Marvel-style superhero - ASSTEROID!
I'm hoping to cast one of the Kardashians for the lead role.
Bad guys in a castle?! No problem. Not for ASSTEROID! Click of heels on the drawbridge, a wink up at the evil Overlord, a glowing hoola hoop comes flying out of nowhere and ASSTEROID nimbly catches it and slides it provocatively down over her shoulders and her breasts and her waist and down to her CENTER Of POWER which she begins to swing until it hits the castle door...
(chaos, dust, falling blocks of stone, spinning splinters of oak, screams and, then finally.....just the dust. And the quiet)
(cue Henry Mancini's Peter Gunn. Emerging, queen like, from the dust cloud, ASSTEROID! Credits role.)
Just keeping you all posted. Bernie.
Court Rejects Trump’s Cuts in Payments for Prescription Drugs
President Trump and Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of health and human services, exceeded their authority in cutting payments to hospitals for drugs given to Medicare beneficiaries, a federal judge ruled.
Credit
Sarah Silbiger/The New York Times
President Trump and Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of health and human services, exceeded their authority in cutting payments to hospitals for drugs given to Medicare beneficiaries, a federal judge ruled.
By Robert Pear
Jan. 7, 2019
WASHINGTON — A federal court has rejected President Trump’s first major effort to cut payments for prescription drugs, saying the administration went far beyond its legal authority.
The Trump administration made a “drastic departure from the statutorily mandated rates” when it reduced payments to hospitals for drugs given to Medicare beneficiaries in outpatient clinics, Judge Rudolph Contreras of the Federal District Court here said in the decision, issued late last month.
Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of health and human services, “may not end-run Congress’s clear mandate,” the judge said.
The court is still considering how to compensate hospitals for the money lost, estimated at $1.6 billion for last year. The cuts are still in effect, but the court has asked the government and hospitals to propose a remedy.
At issue is a federal program that allows hospitals serving large numbers of low-income people to get discounts from drug manufacturers on certain prescription drugs, including many used to treat cancer and H.I.V./AIDS.
Medicare pays for the drugs when Medicare beneficiaries receive them as outpatients at more than 1,000 hospitals that participate in the program. The Trump administration concluded that Medicare was paying hospitals much more than they spent to acquire the drugs.
So federal officials cut the reimbursement rate last year — to 77.5 percent of a drug’s average sales price, from 106 percent.
Hospital executives told the judge that as a result of the reductions, they would have to cut back or eliminate some services.
Under the Medicare law, Judge Contreras said, federal officials have the power to “adjust” reimbursement rates. But, he said, they abused that power and “fundamentally altered the statutory scheme established by Congress for determining” reimbursement rates.
Mr. Azar “may either collect the data necessary to set payment rates based on acquisition costs, or he may raise his disagreement with Congress,” but he may not circumvent the mandate of Congress, said Judge Contreras, who was appointed by President Barack Obama. The government had acknowledged that it did not know the precise amount of the difference between what hospitals were paying for the drugs and what Medicare was reimbursing them.
The program, created under Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act, is commonly known as the 340B program.
Caitlin Oakley, a spokeswoman for Mr. Azar, said Monday: “We are disappointed with the court’s ruling and are evaluating next steps. As the court correctly recognized, its judgment has the potential to wreak havoc on the system.”
Ms. Oakley said the decision could increase costs for Medicare patients, who are generally responsible for 20 percent of the Medicare-approved amount for outpatient drugs covered by the program. Most people on Medicare have supplementary insurance, like a Medigap policy or retiree health benefits, to help pay their share of the bill.
The lawsuit challenging the Medicare cuts was filed by the American Hospital Association; by two trade groups representing teaching and public hospitals; and by three providers: Henry Ford Health System, based in Detroit; Park Ridge Hospital, in Hendersonville, N.C.; and Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems, now known as Northern Light Health.
Dr. Robert A. Chapman, a medical oncologist at Henry Ford Health System, described the administration’s action as an example of “reverse Robin Hood.” Under the policy, he said, the government took money from hospitals serving large numbers of low-income people and redistributed most of it to hospitals that did not qualify for the program.
When Medicare cuts its payments to hospitals, Dr. Chapman said, it tends to offset the discounts that hospitals receive from drug manufacturers.
Melinda R. Hatton, a senior vice president and the general counsel of the American Hospital Association, said the court was “holding the administration’s feet to the fire to comply with the law.” Hospitals use savings from the program to pay for myriad services in low-income communities, she said.
In a speech in May in the Rose Garden, Mr. Trump announced what he called “the most sweeping action in history to lower the price of prescription drugs for the American people.” He persuaded some pharmaceutical executives to roll back or postpone price increases over the summer.
And at a campaign rally in October in Wisconsin, Mr. Trump said: “You will see, very soon, drug prices will go plunging downward. You wait, you watch.”
But drug makers have increased prices on hundreds of products this month, provoking an angry reaction from the president.
In a Twitter post over the weekend, Mr. Trump said: “Drug makers and companies are not living up to their commitments on pricing. Not being fair to the consumer, or to our Country!”
Many of those commitments were carefully hedged and temporary. Pfizer, for example, said in July that it was rolling back price increases to give Mr. Trump time to work on his “blueprint to lower drug prices.”
Pfizer said then that its prices would remain at the lower level until the president’s blueprint took effect or until the end of 2018, “whichever is sooner.”
Members of Congress from both parties, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said they were hoping to work with Mr. Trump to rein in drug prices. But so far, Trump appointees have generally expressed more interest in unilateral administrative actions than in legislative solutions.
@livinglava,
Quote:You're concerned about them voting? I'm concerned about them trafficking drugs and prostitutes.
That too... Glad you're concerned about that, the demokkkrats certainly aren't.
@maporsche,
The alternative to Socialism is so much better, people dying from preventable diseases, rivers full of mercury, carcinogenic food additives, kids being butchered in schools, Nazis marching the street and no public services.
Those lickspittles sure love the taste of ****.
@izzythepush,
Say, izzythepush, I'm just wondering if David Cameron is held in sufficient contempt for his unbelievable arrogance and carelessness in setting up the Brexit referendum? I sure hope he is. It might have taken some time but a detailed referendum could have been drawn up which spelled out exactly how the exit would be managed, something on the order of the vote on independence for Scotland or the abortion referendum in Ireland.
Millions of US taxpayers will still receive refunds despite an ongoing partial government shutdown, the White House has said.
Cynical. Trump knows people will be up in arms if they don't think they're going to receive their tax refunds. But he callously denies government workers their pay checks, labeling them as "mostly Democrats".
