Leilin

Firstly, the rest of the Western world pays, without insurance, on average, between 1/5 and 1/20 of what a person in the US pays for US developed Pharmaceuticals. Secondly, it certainly is the corporation's fault that our tax laws are lax in reference to them when they lobby to keep them that way. This is most definitely not a case of "what the market can bear." It is a case of what happens when a monopolistic system gets out of hand.

I meant the video you linked.

The problem there is that the big pharma companies are frequently spending public money and resources to develop these drugs and then, in turn, selling these drugs back to Americans at a higher cost than what they are provided for anywhere else in the world. Considering the rather obscene profits that they make by doing this, it's unlikely that they're going to fail to turn a profit anytime soon. Then they should have no problem paying a fair corporate tax, which they do not, or creating these drugs without public assistance, which they do not, or charging US citizens the same rate that they charge others, which they do not.

Can't watch that in the US, for what it's worth

Errr... any doctor who said that shouldn't have a degree.

Ah. Gotcha

In general, there are also specific rules allowing identically formulated generics after a specific amount of time if the Chemcos used public resources to design the medications, if I recall correctly. Yup. The patents on drugs only last 12 years and cannot be renewed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Firstly, it was around before Christmas was celebrated. Secondly, Jesus wasn't born on the Winter Solstice, but actually in the Fall (late September-October).

I tried to explain myself three or four times, but the words would have not done justice. Suffice it to say that while I believe you are correct that the thread is not what would be called civil, I also believe that certain things merit the way things have been said in this thread. Alexandra: That won't happen even after the election. Neither side is particularly good about that. Remember the birther movement?

Yes. That automatically makes him a spokeperson for the DNC, amirite? Also, Obama should be impeached for this and Sarah Palin is automagically president for life now. Do you even get why that is not on the same scope as Rush's position? Firstly, do you understand how SuperPACs work? Secondly, no he didn't. Talking about yourself in third person is an entertaining habit. Irrellevant, since almost everybody knows that Maher is a douche and people who aren't possessed of three braincells to rub together or a remote modicum of critical thinking are invariably sucking continuously off of Rush's teat.

We have several members who are UCSC alum (like myself) and return often (like myself) as well as some who are currently in Santa Cruz (sadly, unlike myself. I moved to Vegas!) In my experience, Porter was the best place on campus to find an AB or DL. It lended well to our nature, I guess.

Not a big sitcom fan, but I love a wide range of stand-up, ranging from Larry the Cable Guy to old school Bill Cosby stuff to Jim Gaffigan, etc. etc. etc.

What doctor gave you a perscription for Birth Control, or is this the part of the conversation that you pretend it is available OTC? http://health.costhe...trol-pills.html You realize that's redundant, right? Her motivation, the prices of Birth Control, the "fact" that you have to pay for it, the cost of the pills, and the supposition that a college student can typically get Birth Control for free. For goodness sake, at least try to act as if you've even read the woman's statements before going all righteous misogynist on her.

And this is why you should stop getting ALL of your opinions from Rush Limbaugh. Not a single word of that waste of typing energy, other than Fluke's name and age, was based in fact or even based in opinions surrounding facts. You should really not talk about things that you are so obviously ignorant of. People might think you're stupid, or something. I bolded every statement that you made that was the opposite of fact so you can bother to do even a modicum of research before saying something so retardedly, pants-on-head stupid again. Somehow, I don't think it will be effective, but that's okay. 'Tis better to have outed a baldfaced lie than to let it sit and fester like so much other utter crap that you've spewed in this thread. Redneck, I've given up on. He made an ignorant quip and then when nobody responded to it, he deleted and reposted that quip just to try to get attention and bump the thread. He is a troll and is no longer worth my time.

Did you just delete and repost your comment to bump the thread?

If there wasn't, I think they'd just be called "the laws."

She, but other than that you are correct.

I'm all for laughing at myself. What we do is funny, simply put. But those who think that us being the butt of every obligatory freak joke on TV and the Internet is somehow mainstreaming are nothing short of deluded.

So... you'd be okay with a single-payer system?

Yeah. That didn't go so well for you. I'm sure everybody's shocked that a Video that Breitbart thought was revolutionary and damning was nothing of the sort. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/obama-hannity-harvard-race-video-yawn.html

Again, I don't really think this is the place for the debate over the validity of government healthcare. The supreme court will doubtless be deciding that one soon. However, as the law has already been made, it should be imparted equitably, not based on the superstitions of politicians.

People with the courage of their convictions do not need to rely on lies and half-truths to communicate them. Ever. SInce that was Breitbart's MO, it's fair to state that the only courage that he had was in telling outright lies so brazenly, and, of course, that courage was bolstered by gullible twits not bothering to critically think on what they saw en masse. Regardless, none of that means we should be celebrating his death, in my opinion. You seem to have an incorrect impression of what a leftist regime is. The Nazis were not one, to provide a clue (nor were they right wing, until they got into power, through Neo-Nazis tend to be). Authoritarianism in itself, to an extreme, results in what you described, regardless of its roots. Marxism would be an accurate description of Left-Wing authoritarian movement. Here's some information that may help you: http://en.wiktionary...wiki/right-wing http://en.wiktionary.../wiki/left-wing

When opinion is supported by logic, it is still an opinion. Without the logic that supports it, it is meaningless. It's also important to note that logic often doesn't coincide with fact, either.

Have the others accused you of not reading? I honestly didn't notice. I'm not entering the contraception portion of this debate because, until your post, one side of it was directly quoting Rush Limbaugh, which makes it pretty much useless and silly to bother arguing, as, once again, that has no real basis in fact. Not flaming, but are you going to respond to the facts that I presented you with on the previous page or are you going to continue to pretend that both of those posts never happened. The majority of the contraception debate has nothing to do with "fair." There are many factors which make the fairness of it irrelevant. 1. The debate over whether healthcare is a right is temporarily sidestepped. This is not the place to have that debate. What we ARE debating is the right of doctors to tell a patient what medication is appropriate, not insurance companies or politicians. 2. Currently, major contraception medications, the development of which was paid for by taxpayer dollars, are offered in nearly any developed nation for 1/20 of the price that they can be purchased for in the US. Without insurance. It seems to me that the drug companies have something to answer for in that regard, as they're literally taking our money only to charge us more money for something which they give nearly freely, in relative terms, to every other nation's citizens. This is not a major factor within this debate, but it is a factor to be aware of. Because these companies have monopolies on these drugs, they do not follow standard economic rules. 3. Providing contraceptives at low cost actually saves money. Who do you think pays when a person with no/public insurance goes through a hospital pregnancy? What you have provided is not logic, Botox. What you have provided is opinion. Opinion is, for all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of logic.

This makes me feel like a broken record, but I need to state, again, that being made fun off or used as the butt of jokes to seem like a freak by the mainstream is not the same thing as being in the mainstream. This kind of awareness doesn't benefit us.