This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.
ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.
Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.
One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.
"One of 25% of seniors" what?
You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.
Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________
To help you out:
paying for prescription drugs without a prescription drug plan/insurance.
This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.
ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.
Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.
One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.
"One of 25% of seniors" what?
You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.
Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________
"Paying full cost without a plan", in reference to what you said.
That is not remotely true. Did you see that somewhere other than Halifax's mangled post?
“Not ‘remotely’ true.” Thanks for the laugh this morning.
Please just point me to where you are getting your claim from
Tell me why you think I’m full of shit and why you were unable to follow my “mangled post.” Maybe you’ve heard of the CDC and the NIH? Maybe not but I think, think, you’re smart enough to do your own research, eh? Isn’t that what all the kids say, do your own research? Report back, eh?
Why won't you just point me to where you got that? The reason I'm asking is because I assume it's as sneakily worded as this press release and I'd rather address the actual text vs. your interpretation of it.
And if you read everything written, including news articles like the NBC one, this isn't prognostication. It's in black and white how they're overstating the impact. The only guesswork is how PBMs and insurers will pass that savings on to consumers and you're welcome to let your own bias on those companies dictate your opinion on how that will go
In my case I get no insurance benefit so there is no middleman.
Man. Have you looked into GoodRx or anything like that?
Not yet...I'm actually using their initial discount right now but once that expires I'm fucked. I had a blood clot in my leg a little over a year ago and my doctor says I need to be on this until I die because the clot was unexplained. I have this weird gene (Factor V?) so I'm screwed.
I assume at some point a generic will become available. I hope.
From some quick googling it looks like the patent is up in late 2026 but I have no idea which direction legal wrangling could push that. I'm always happy to talk through how to navigate the system in PMs if you're sweating the discount expiring.
I appreciate that. It looks like I might have until April 2025 if the two year thing is accurate.
I have heard of other drugs but they require frequent blood testing where Eliquis seems to have solved that problem. I considered getting a second opinion at some point as well.
It was odd to me that when it happened the doctors were asking me if I had been travelling long distance, etc. I said "no but I sit at a desk for 12 hours a day" (during tax season...I'm a tax guy) and I know I tend to lock my legs under my chair, etc.
They seemed to dismiss that explanation...the main doctor said that I have been doing that for years and never had a problem which is true. Still seems odd to me but whatever. I will do whatever it takes to not die.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.
ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.
Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.
One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.
"One of 25% of seniors" what?
You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.
Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________
"Paying full cost without a plan", in reference to what you said.
That is not remotely true. Did you see that somewhere other than Halifax's mangled post?
“Not ‘remotely’ true.” Thanks for the laugh this morning.
Please just point me to where you are getting your claim from
Tell me why you think I’m full of shit and why you were unable to follow my “mangled post.” Maybe you’ve heard of the CDC and the NIH? Maybe not but I think, think, you’re smart enough to do your own research, eh? Isn’t that what all the kids say, do your own research? Report back, eh?
Why won't you just point me to where you got that? The reason I'm asking is because I assume it's as sneakily worded as this press release and I'd rather address the actual text vs. your interpretation of it.
I’m not doing your homework for you. You dismissed my claim and called a fellow poster’s situation “rare.” I claim otherwise. Up to you to determine whether I’m full of shit or not by posting your data that disputes my claim. I gave you two sources that you can use in your search. Good luck.
While you’re at it, how about posting the repub plan to lower prescription drug prices and then tell us how it doesn’t benefit anyone and if it does, it’s rare, eh?
This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.
ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.
Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.
One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.
"One of 25% of seniors" what?
You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.
Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________
To help you out:
paying for prescription drugs without a prescription drug plan/insurance.
Now we're getting a little closer because there.are other ways that seniors get their drugs covered other than a PDP/insurance. Veterans use their Tricare, for instance. So that "25%" number is not a bunch of seniors paying full cost for brand name drugs.
And if you read everything written, including news articles like the NBC one, this isn't prognostication. It's in black and white how they're overstating the impact. The only guesswork is how PBMs and insurers will pass that savings on to consumers and you're welcome to let your own bias on those companies dictate your opinion on how that will go
In my case I get no insurance benefit so there is no middleman.
Man. Have you looked into GoodRx or anything like that?
Not yet...I'm actually using their initial discount right now but once that expires I'm fucked. I had a blood clot in my leg a little over a year ago and my doctor says I need to be on this until I die because the clot was unexplained. I have this weird gene (Factor V?) so I'm screwed.
I assume at some point a generic will become available. I hope.
From some quick googling it looks like the patent is up in late 2026 but I have no idea which direction legal wrangling could push that. I'm always happy to talk through how to navigate the system in PMs if you're sweating the discount expiring.
I appreciate that. It looks like I might have until April 2025 if the two year thing is accurate.
I have heard of other drugs but they require frequent blood testing where Eliquis seems to have solved that problem. I considered getting a second opinion at some point as well.
It was odd to me that when it happened the doctors were asking me if I had been travelling long distance, etc. I said "no but I sit at a desk for 12 hours a day" (during tax season...I'm a tax guy) and I know I tend to lock my legs under my chair, etc.
They seemed to dismiss that explanation...the main doctor said that I have been doing that for years and never had a problem which is true. Still seems odd to me but whatever. I will do whatever it takes to not die.
A second opinion is not a bad idea. I can't say much about diagnoses or which treatment options are right but I'm always happy to help navigate the health care system - who to ask, what to ask, what programs are available.
This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.
ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.
Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.
One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.
"One of 25% of seniors" what?
You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.
Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________
"Paying full cost without a plan", in reference to what you said.
That is not remotely true. Did you see that somewhere other than Halifax's mangled post?
“Not ‘remotely’ true.” Thanks for the laugh this morning.
Please just point me to where you are getting your claim from
Tell me why you think I’m full of shit and why you were unable to follow my “mangled post.” Maybe you’ve heard of the CDC and the NIH? Maybe not but I think, think, you’re smart enough to do your own research, eh? Isn’t that what all the kids say, do your own research? Report back, eh?
Why won't you just point me to where you got that? The reason I'm asking is because I assume it's as sneakily worded as this press release and I'd rather address the actual text vs. your interpretation of it.
I’m not doing your homework for you. You dismissed my claim and called a fellow poster’s situation “rare.” I claim otherwise. Up to you to determine whether I’m full of shit or not by posting your data that disputes my claim. I gave you two sources that you can use in your search. Good luck.
While you’re at it, how about posting the repub plan to lower prescription drug prices and then tell us how it doesn’t benefit anyone and if it does, it’s rare, eh?
(Rude comment removed by admin. See the Posting Guidelines to preserve forum privileges.-admin) My question was mostly for everyone else reading so I could address the actual stat and wording from a reliable source vs. your almost certain misinterpretation of it. If it even exists since you can't produce it.
This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.
ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.
Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.
One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.
"One of 25% of seniors" what?
You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.
Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________
"Paying full cost without a plan", in reference to what you said.
That is not remotely true. Did you see that somewhere other than Halifax's mangled post?
“Not ‘remotely’ true.” Thanks for the laugh this morning.
Please just point me to where you are getting your claim from
Tell me why you think I’m full of shit and why you were unable to follow my “mangled post.” Maybe you’ve heard of the CDC and the NIH? Maybe not but I think, think, you’re smart enough to do your own research, eh? Isn’t that what all the kids say, do your own research? Report back, eh?
Why won't you just point me to where you got that? The reason I'm asking is because I assume it's as sneakily worded as this press release and I'd rather address the actual text vs. your interpretation of it.
I’m not doing your homework for you. You dismissed my claim and called a fellow poster’s situation “rare.” I claim otherwise. Up to you to determine whether I’m full of shit or not by posting your data that disputes my claim. I gave you two sources that you can use in your search. Good luck.
While you’re at it, how about posting the repub plan to lower prescription drug prices and then tell us how it doesn’t benefit anyone and if it does, it’s rare, eh?
(Rude comment removed by admin. See the Posting Guidelines to preserve forum privileges.-admin) My question was mostly for everyone else reading so I could address the actual stat and wording from a reliable source vs. your almost certain misinterpretation of it. If it even exists since you can't produce it.
CDC. NIH. I assume you know how to google? Maybe not.
This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.
ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.
Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.
One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.
"One of 25% of seniors" what?
You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.
Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________
To help you out:
paying for prescription drugs without a prescription drug plan/insurance.
Now we're getting a little closer because there.are other ways that seniors get their drugs covered other than a PDP/insurance. Veterans use their Tricare, for instance. So that "25%" number is not a bunch of seniors paying full cost for brand name drugs.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.
ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.
Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.
One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.
"One of 25% of seniors" what?
You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.
Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________
To help you out:
paying for prescription drugs without a prescription drug plan/insurance.
Now we're getting a little closer because there.are other ways that seniors get their drugs covered other than a PDP/insurance. Veterans use their Tricare, for instance. So that "25%" number is not a bunch of seniors paying full cost for brand name drugs.
pssdt tricare is insurance
You have to dig to find out whether any particular analysis counts it or not. Often they don't as they are only referencing private insurance plans. Same with Medicaid. Very squishy.
This is my line of work. I don't care if you believe me.
ok...no offense intended. Just seems odd that there would be lawsuits to prevent it if the drugmakers weren't going to get hit harder than you seem to suggest. I could be wrong.
Drug makers will absolutely get hit hard. But it's insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers who get those savings. They're the middle man. The average person is relying on seeing those savings come through reduced costs in their drug plans. Your case is rare if you're just paying full cost for a med without a plan.
One of 25% of seniors and 18% of those 25-64, but rare.
"One of 25% of seniors" what?
You said rare case, and their response is that Gern is 1 of the actual 25% or 18%, thus not rare.
Finish the sentence: 25% of seniors are ________
"Paying full cost without a plan", in reference to what you said.
That is not remotely true. Did you see that somewhere other than Halifax's mangled post?
“Not ‘remotely’ true.” Thanks for the laugh this morning.
Please just point me to where you are getting your claim from
Tell me why you think I’m full of shit and why you were unable to follow my “mangled post.” Maybe you’ve heard of the CDC and the NIH? Maybe not but I think, think, you’re smart enough to do your own research, eh? Isn’t that what all the kids say, do your own research? Report back, eh?
Why won't you just point me to where you got that? The reason I'm asking is because I assume it's as sneakily worded as this press release and I'd rather address the actual text vs. your interpretation of it.
I’m not doing your homework for you. You dismissed my claim and called a fellow poster’s situation “rare.” I claim otherwise. Up to you to determine whether I’m full of shit or not by posting your data that disputes my claim. I gave you two sources that you can use in your search. Good luck.
While you’re at it, how about posting the repub plan to lower prescription drug prices and then tell us how it doesn’t benefit anyone and if it does, it’s rare, eh?
(Rude comment removed by admin. See the Posting Guidelines to preserve forum privileges.-admin) My question was mostly for everyone else reading so I could address the actual stat and wording from a reliable source vs. your almost certain misinterpretation of it. If it even exists since you can't produce it.
Why was my comment considered rude? I literally reposted what he wrote with a Yes in front of it as a direct response.
Just another fun way to bait people I guess.
"I'll bet you think I'm a massive pile of shit with brain damage."
In 2021 a study by the RAND Corporation found that drug prices average 2.56 times higher in the U.S. than in 32 other countries. For name brand drugs, U.S. prices were 3.44 times those in comparable nations. Almost exactly two years ago, on August 16, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law. Among other things, that law permitted Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a provision about 83% of voters supported.
Republicans opposed the measure, siding with drug company executives who insist that high prices are necessary to create an incentive for drug companies to innovate, as their investment in research and development depends on the revenue they expect from new drugs. Ultimately, not a single Republican voted for the Inflation Reduction Act itself, and Vice President Kamala Harris cast the tie-breaking vote that gave the act the votes to go to the president’s desk.
About a year later, on August 29, 2023, the government announced the first ten drugs over whose prices it would negotiate on behalf of about 65 million Medicare recipients. The ten drugs are among those with the highest total spending in Medicare Part D, which is the Medicare plan that covers drugs administered at home. The original plan for Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 covered drugs administered in health care settings, but it was not until 2003, after almost 40 years of medical innovation had significantly changed our management of chronic illnesses, that Congress included those drugs someone takes at home. At the time, to get Republicans behind the bill, Congress explicitly prohibited the government from negotiating the prices of medications.
Today the Biden-Harris administration announced it has reached agreements with pharmaceutical companies for those ten drugs. The new prices offer discounts of from 38% to 79% off list prices. The new prices would have saved the government an estimated $6 billion last year if they had been in effect. About 9 million people take those drugs and will save about $1.5 billion out of pocket after the new prices go into effect on January 1, 2026.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expects to select the next 15 drugs for negotiation by February 1, 2025, although Trump and the Republicans have vowed to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act conferring on the government the ability to negotiate drug prices, so a Trump-Vance victory would presumably change that plan.
Hey now! Tell us again about Hunter’s laptop, what was on it and “10% to the big guy.” Please? Big ‘ol dose of reality and so, so, so much winning:
House GOP accuses Biden of impeachable conduct with no direct evidence
House Republicans released the report from their impeachment probe of President Biden without finding any direct evidence he was involved in his family’s business dealings when he was vice president.
House Republicans on Monday released a long-awaited report from their impeachment probe into President Joe Biden’s activities as vice president, accusing him of obstructing federal and congressional investigations and improperly leveraging his power to benefit his family.
Despite a trio of House committees finding Biden engaged in “impeachable offenses,” Republicans did not recommend further action just three months away from an election in which Biden is no longer running. And the report failed to unearth any new evidence that the president, during his time as vice president, directly acted to benefit his family’s business dealings.
The 291-page report was released by the House Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means committees on the day Democrats commenced their nominating convention in Chicago.
In a statement released Monday morning, House Republicans sought to tie the report to the “Biden-Harris administration.” Investigators also repeatedly included the vice president’s name throughout the report when referring to the Biden administration.
“As Democrats celebrate Joe Biden and crown Kamala Harris as his heir apparent this week, Americans should remember the reality of the Biden-Harris Administration: crime, chaos, and corruption,” said House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) in a statement.
Democrats unanimously last year voted against authorizing the impeachment inquiry into Biden, decrying a process they argued was designed to avenge the two impeachments of former president Donald Trump.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking minority-party member of the Oversight Committee, blasted the report on Monday as “old lies and propaganda” designed for “political purposes” that “does not contain evidence or even articulation of a single impeachable offense.”
The report caps a 19-month probe into Biden’s ties to the business dealings of his son Hunter and those of his brother James Biden while he was vice president. Hunter Biden, who appeared before congressional investigators for a seven-hour deposition in February, has repeatedly denied that his father benefited financially from his business ventures.
“All I know is this: My father was never involved in any of my business, ever,” he testified this year. “Never received a cent from anybody or never benefited in any way. Never took any actions on behalf in any way. And I can absolutely, 100 percent state, that is not just in my case but in every family member’s case.”
Republicans accused Joe Biden of participating “in a conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family” and failing to “fully cooperate” with the House GOP’s inquiry. But the evidence cited in the report largely detailed the efforts of Hunter and James Biden to sell the “Biden brand” and trade off the president’s name in efforts to enhance their influence.
The report comes as House Republicans and the party are scrambling to refocus their attacks from a lame-duck president to his vice president, Kamala Harris, after Biden last month ended his bid for reelection and endorsed Harris to succeed him. Before the turn of events, House Republicans lacked the votes to impeach Biden after their investigation did not produce sufficient evidence showing that the president was a direct participant in or beneficiary of his family’s business dealings — or that he interfered with the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into Hunter Biden.
In their report, however, Republicans argued that they “need not show that the president directly ordered his subordinates to obstruct an investigation; in certain circumstances the president may be impeached for the action of subordinate officials,” referring to the Justice Department’s investigation into his son.
Republicans also argued that “criminal conduct is not needed under the constitutional standard for impeachment” and that Biden can be impeached for “prior conduct that significantly impairs the political system or betrays the public trust.”
“In 2019, House Democrats asserted that impeachable offenses need not rise to the level of criminal conduct, noting that Congress reached the same conclusion during the impeachments of President Nixon and President Clinton,” the report states.
The report, which draws on more than 30 transcribed interviews and depositions — as well as millions of pages of documents and bank records — alleges extensive efforts by Hunter Biden and his business associates to leverage their proximity to power to solicit lucrative business deals with foreign individuals or entities. The report found that from 2014 to the present, Biden family members and associates made over $27 million from foreign sources, including Russian, Romanian, Chinese and Ukrainian individuals and companies. The report also notes that Hunter and James Biden received $8 million in loans from various benefactors.
Hunter Biden has repeatedly denied his father’s involvement in his business activities, though some of his close associates have placed the president in proximity to those involved with some of their deals — undermining Joe Biden’s claims that he was unaware of Hunter’s activities. The report rehashes a number of Biden phone calls and appearances at dinners as vice president in the course of Hunter’s business dealings. But none of the allegations ultimately meet the GOP’s claims that his son’s business activities fueled an influence-peddling operation that enriched the president directly.
The report also focuses on Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents and the federal investigation into his son as two central examples of Biden’s “unprecedented and baseless obstruction of the Committees’ investigative efforts.” Hunter Biden was found guilty of felony gun charges in federal court in June and he will be on trial in September on nine federal tax charges — probes started during the Trump administration that Republicans have accused Justice Department officials of deliberately delaying.
“Evidence shows that Department officials slow-walked the investigation, informed defense counsel of future investigative actions, prevented line investigators from taking otherwise ordinary investigative steps, and allowed the statute of limitations to expire on the most serious felony charges,” the report states, relying on allegations made by IRS whistleblowers last year regarding the criminal investigations into the president’s son.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
He did wipe a tear after his daughter introduced him, though.
Did she pull the knife out of his back?
Joe’s not suffering from any knife wounds. Bruised ego , maybe, but fully on board with putting his country, and its democracy, before his ego and own ambitions. He has served honourably and has accepted that it’s time to pass the torch.
Just stated that one of his last official acts will be to sign an EO mandating feminine hygiene product dispensers be installed in all restrooms in all federal buildings.
Just stated that one of his last official acts will be to sign an EO mandating feminine hygiene product dispensers be installed in all restrooms in all federal buildings.
Phenomenal speech. Human, forceful, proud American who has served his country honourably and honestly. What a contrast between him and dumb as dirt POOTWH. No word salad, no incoherent rambling, real leadership passing the torch with humour.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
paying for prescription drugs without a prescription drug plan/insurance.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I have heard of other drugs but they require frequent blood testing where Eliquis seems to have solved that problem. I considered getting a second opinion at some point as well.
It was odd to me that when it happened the doctors were asking me if I had been travelling long distance, etc. I said "no but I sit at a desk for 12 hours a day" (during tax season...I'm a tax guy) and I know I tend to lock my legs under my chair, etc.
They seemed to dismiss that explanation...the main doctor said that I have been doing that for years and never had a problem which is true. Still seems odd to me but whatever. I will do whatever it takes to not die.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
My question was mostly for everyone else reading so I could address the actual stat and wording from a reliable source vs. your almost certain misinterpretation of it. If it even exists since you can't produce it.
I see you made another assumption. Link please?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
pssdt tricare is insurance
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Just another fun way to bait people I guess.
"I'll bet you think I'm a massive pile of shit with brain damage."
"Uh yeah"
WOAH WOAH WOAH with the insults
In 2021 a study by the RAND Corporation found that drug prices average 2.56 times higher in the U.S. than in 32 other countries. For name brand drugs, U.S. prices were 3.44 times those in comparable nations. Almost exactly two years ago, on August 16, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law. Among other things, that law permitted Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a provision about 83% of voters supported.
Republicans opposed the measure, siding with drug company executives who insist that high prices are necessary to create an incentive for drug companies to innovate, as their investment in research and development depends on the revenue they expect from new drugs. Ultimately, not a single Republican voted for the Inflation Reduction Act itself, and Vice President Kamala Harris cast the tie-breaking vote that gave the act the votes to go to the president’s desk.
About a year later, on August 29, 2023, the government announced the first ten drugs over whose prices it would negotiate on behalf of about 65 million Medicare recipients. The ten drugs are among those with the highest total spending in Medicare Part D, which is the Medicare plan that covers drugs administered at home. The original plan for Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 covered drugs administered in health care settings, but it was not until 2003, after almost 40 years of medical innovation had significantly changed our management of chronic illnesses, that Congress included those drugs someone takes at home. At the time, to get Republicans behind the bill, Congress explicitly prohibited the government from negotiating the prices of medications.
Today the Biden-Harris administration announced it has reached agreements with pharmaceutical companies for those ten drugs. The new prices offer discounts of from 38% to 79% off list prices. The new prices would have saved the government an estimated $6 billion last year if they had been in effect. About 9 million people take those drugs and will save about $1.5 billion out of pocket after the new prices go into effect on January 1, 2026.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expects to select the next 15 drugs for negotiation by February 1, 2025, although Trump and the Republicans have vowed to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act conferring on the government the ability to negotiate drug prices, so a Trump-Vance victory would presumably change that plan.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
House GOP accuses Biden of impeachable conduct with no direct evidence
House Republicans released the report from their impeachment probe of President Biden without finding any direct evidence he was involved in his family’s business dealings when he was vice president.
House Republicans on Monday released a long-awaited report from their impeachment probe into President Joe Biden’s activities as vice president, accusing him of obstructing federal and congressional investigations and improperly leveraging his power to benefit his family.
Despite a trio of House committees finding Biden engaged in “impeachable offenses,” Republicans did not recommend further action just three months away from an election in which Biden is no longer running. And the report failed to unearth any new evidence that the president, during his time as vice president, directly acted to benefit his family’s business dealings.
The 291-page report was released by the House Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means committees on the day Democrats commenced their nominating convention in Chicago.
In a statement released Monday morning, House Republicans sought to tie the report to the “Biden-Harris administration.” Investigators also repeatedly included the vice president’s name throughout the report when referring to the Biden administration.
“As Democrats celebrate Joe Biden and crown Kamala Harris as his heir apparent this week, Americans should remember the reality of the Biden-Harris Administration: crime, chaos, and corruption,” said House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) in a statement.
Democrats unanimously last year voted against authorizing the impeachment inquiry into Biden, decrying a process they argued was designed to avenge the two impeachments of former president Donald Trump.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking minority-party member of the Oversight Committee, blasted the report on Monday as “old lies and propaganda” designed for “political purposes” that “does not contain evidence or even articulation of a single impeachable offense.”
The report caps a 19-month probe into Biden’s ties to the business dealings of his son Hunter and those of his brother James Biden while he was vice president. Hunter Biden, who appeared before congressional investigators for a seven-hour deposition in February, has repeatedly denied that his father benefited financially from his business ventures.
“All I know is this: My father was never involved in any of my business, ever,” he testified this year. “Never received a cent from anybody or never benefited in any way. Never took any actions on behalf in any way. And I can absolutely, 100 percent state, that is not just in my case but in every family member’s case.”
Republicans accused Joe Biden of participating “in a conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family” and failing to “fully cooperate” with the House GOP’s inquiry. But the evidence cited in the report largely detailed the efforts of Hunter and James Biden to sell the “Biden brand” and trade off the president’s name in efforts to enhance their influence.
The report comes as House Republicans and the party are scrambling to refocus their attacks from a lame-duck president to his vice president, Kamala Harris, after Biden last month ended his bid for reelection and endorsed Harris to succeed him. Before the turn of events, House Republicans lacked the votes to impeach Biden after their investigation did not produce sufficient evidence showing that the president was a direct participant in or beneficiary of his family’s business dealings — or that he interfered with the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into Hunter Biden.
In their report, however, Republicans argued that they “need not show that the president directly ordered his subordinates to obstruct an investigation; in certain circumstances the president may be impeached for the action of subordinate officials,” referring to the Justice Department’s investigation into his son.
Republicans also argued that “criminal conduct is not needed under the constitutional standard for impeachment” and that Biden can be impeached for “prior conduct that significantly impairs the political system or betrays the public trust.”
“In 2019, House Democrats asserted that impeachable offenses need not rise to the level of criminal conduct, noting that Congress reached the same conclusion during the impeachments of President Nixon and President Clinton,” the report states.
The report, which draws on more than 30 transcribed interviews and depositions — as well as millions of pages of documents and bank records — alleges extensive efforts by Hunter Biden and his business associates to leverage their proximity to power to solicit lucrative business deals with foreign individuals or entities. The report found that from 2014 to the present, Biden family members and associates made over $27 million from foreign sources, including Russian, Romanian, Chinese and Ukrainian individuals and companies. The report also notes that Hunter and James Biden received $8 million in loans from various benefactors.
Hunter Biden has repeatedly denied his father’s involvement in his business activities, though some of his close associates have placed the president in proximity to those involved with some of their deals — undermining Joe Biden’s claims that he was unaware of Hunter’s activities. The report rehashes a number of Biden phone calls and appearances at dinners as vice president in the course of Hunter’s business dealings. But none of the allegations ultimately meet the GOP’s claims that his son’s business activities fueled an influence-peddling operation that enriched the president directly.
The report also focuses on Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents and the federal investigation into his son as two central examples of Biden’s “unprecedented and baseless obstruction of the Committees’ investigative efforts.” Hunter Biden was found guilty of felony gun charges in federal court in June and he will be on trial in September on nine federal tax charges — probes started during the Trump administration that Republicans have accused Justice Department officials of deliberately delaying.
“Evidence shows that Department officials slow-walked the investigation, informed defense counsel of future investigative actions, prevented line investigators from taking otherwise ordinary investigative steps, and allowed the statute of limitations to expire on the most serious felony charges,” the report states, relying on allegations made by IRS whistleblowers last year regarding the criminal investigations into the president’s son.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/19/impeachment-report-house-republicans-joe-biden-hunter/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
if it was a coup, why did they let the guy ousted by the coup speak for an hour at the convention?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Also, the Democrats can't think for themselves and are victims of propaganda. The irony is so thick.
projection like always....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14