monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Since Trump said this on March 9, the number of cases in the US have skyrocketed 12,906%, and number of deaths 3,991%. In those terms since he likes to throw around big numbers. Going to be interesting to see the numbers collide with his Eater-immaculate resurrection plan as they will likely be multiplied many times. I hope not, but the trajectory is staggering. He can't campaign the virus away.

In my area it's taking 12 days to get test results back so case confirmations are going to linger.

The more cases reported the lower the mortality rate will become. Until we get an accurate number we will have no idea how serious this virus really is.

False. Dems have fought against big pharma for years. It wass the repub w. bush who forbade by lawmedicare to negotiate for lower crug prices similar to the prices in all the other developed countries with government directed healthcare.

How about some examples of that fight?

Yes. I’d like to see that.

Do you analyze how Democrat policies affect markets and thus demand-driven pricing? When you subsidize something, or even just proclaim that central governmental power will be used to enforce demand, as in the case of ACA insurance mandate, the price goes up because business knows they are guaranteed sales at higher prices.

Prices come down when business is afraid it will make less money at higher prices.

Show me a Democrat policy that threatens to revoke business licenses, import rights, etc. to businesses that charge too much for pharmaceutical drugs.

That was the policy that GOP were advancing, but it hasn't been implemented yet as far as I know. There was an index of pricing in a range of developed countries, such as Australia, and prices had to be set within a certain percentage of that range.

Why didn't Democrats support that policy? Because trading partners told them it would cut into profits and investment, I'm guessing.

Have you ever noticed how Europe likes Democrats and hates Republicans? Do you think it might be because they can make more money in US markets when Democrats control government?

Now maybe there is something to this claim that pharmaceuticals have to invest a lot in R&D and testing, but why isn't that global industry more fair with pricing within the US and other markets? Answer: because US government and Insurers are rich while so many regular citizens aren't, so they price drugs high to get the government and insurance to pay more, without caring that uninsured people get priced out of the market as a result.

The Democrats' solution is to insure everyone, but that just launches the discussion of socialism and whether the rich should pay for everyone else's party, or whether prices should be brought down to levels poor people can afford without subsidies, insurance, etc.

Do not hold your breath, I can't recall him backing up anything he says.

the w bush admin removed drug pricing from market forces by enabling companies to charge whatever price they wanted to. The f\government was not allkowed to negotiate prices. It was not a question of subsidies at all. the government had to go along with whatever price pharma wanted to charge and then had to subsidize costs so that patients could actally afford them. It was pure corporate welfare for pharma.

How did they "remove drug pricing from market forces companies to charge whatever price they wanted to" by not negotiating prices? If the government negotiates prices, they are by definition interfering with market pricing.

Your point seems to be that market prices will go higher if government doesn't intervene, but that ignores that there are ways for markets to undercut higher-priced suppliers, such as having more competition and/or prohibiting imports that don't price-conform to other countries' pricing.

Saying that "government had to subsidize costs so patients could actually afford them" just assumes that the pharmaceuticals have the upper hand and government has to submit to them. If that's the way the market works, then it's definitely not a free market with price competition driving down pricing.

Certainly there are a lot of monopoly positions on new drugs whose patents haven't yet expired, but there are many older drugs that can be produced and sold as generics by anyone, but they aren't because producers basically avoid competing so they don't have to lower prices.

Free markets involve a game of chicken between supply and demand; one that favors the supply side in the case of medicines because if the supply side has your life and/or health in its hands, it can hold out until you are desperate enough to cough up the money (maybe literally).

That is a bad way to do business, though, and really what should happen is that new producers should enter markets and produce generic drugs at a low cost and sell them without manipulating markets to get more money because they can. In free markets, if someone tries to hold out for more money, a competitor gets the sale with a lower price. That's how it's supposed to work with generic medicines but for some reason it isn't working that way, and the question is why.

He's a nutcase. In my little ole county is KY, we already have five confirmed cases. I didn't think it would get to such a nothing place, but it did.

Let me ask you a question, please.

There are about 200k ventilators in the United States today. Experts are saying we are going to need about one million.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/03/18/coronavirus-ventilators-us-hospitals-johns-hopkins-mayo-clinic/5032523002/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/health/ventilators-coronavirus.html?0p19G=2870

Donald Trump has decided to let the states bid against each other for this limited amount of equipment, rather than federalize and centralize the distribution by enacting the Defense Production Act which would allow ordering of mass
production of any equipment needed.

That decision is going to cost the lives of the people who can’t get that equipment.

What do you think his reasoning is, for not using the DPA, which has been re-enacted 50 times since 1950?

the feds did it when section D was set up. OUR govt cannot negotiate prices. Other countries can and do. Yes, pharma does have the upper hand. <Look at epi pens or the pig "Pharma Bro" Martin Skrelly, now serving time for unrelated faraud, who bought a small company that made a decades old drug for a rare disease and then increased the price something like 700%.

It is their (states) job to take care of themselves. Federalizing it would only cost more money and create confusion. The Federal government is back up, not the front line. Also it was Trump's decision. How you plan to calculate how many lives that takes?

What kind of percentages are those? Is that a typo?

The SOB is rolling the dice. He is betting people will ignore the hundreds or thousands that will die for a better economy. Neither he or any republicans have an Christian bone in their body. Its all about money and power.

Do you think the media will let that happen? 60% approve of Trump's handling of Corona.

So they care about workers and small business. Guess which oarty it was that wanted more support for workers and small business in the stimulus bill and which party it was that favored concentrating on stimulus for the pplutocrats. Hint: the Dems were the good guys.

They were? They are not now. I have posted the garbage they wanted and are still holding out and shitting on Americans. The virus has nothing to do with voting rights.

You do realize I trust the major hangup now is a group of dissident Republican senators, not Dems. GOPers are the ones delaying passage.

the gop obstructionists are obstructing passage of the stimulus because they think it's too generous iunemployment comp for low wage workers, who of course are the ones who need it the most. bless their greedy little gop hearts.