[OFFICIAL] Elizabeth Warren for President thread

Nook · Jan 4, 2019

Os Trigonum said: ↑

Warren's war on drugs "not serious"

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-generic-drugs-proposal-not-serious/

Elizabeth Warren on Drugs
By JIBRAN KHAN
January 4, 2019 1:51 PM
Her proposal to lower the cost of generics is not serious.

Elizabeth Warren is grasping. Having failed in her gambit to establish minority status, the 2020 presidential contender is now following the path of her competition.

As Kamala Harris did with the housing crisis, Warren has picked a very real issue — the expense of generic drugs — and decided to address it with a bill that is unlikely to achieve much except gain her personal accolades for “doing something.” And should it pass, it could inhibit efforts to actually resolve the problem, because “something has been done.”

Senator Warren debuted her plan before the holidays in the Washington Post, with the title “It’s time to let the government manufacture generic drugs.” Perhaps the senator thought this would generate buzz and capture attention before she officially launched her bid for the presidency on New Year’s Eve. Given that she followed this announcement with a botched attempt to out-Millennial Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in an online video, though, perhaps it isn’t going as she desired.

Here’s the real problem Warren is trying to address: There were 356 drug shortages in 2012, up from 154 in 2007 — and strikingly, most of these drugs are no longer under patent. That tells us that the critical problem is not one of manufacturing capacity, for any medical company with the capability to produce these medicines could simply do so, using the relevant formulas. The normal behavior of the market, when there is a shortage of a product, is for a new entrepreneur to start providing that product. The fact that this is not happening suggests there must be some barrier in the way of it.

For each new generic drug, the manufacturer must submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), whose very name reveals that it is itself an improvement on an older process. Before 1984’s Hatch-Waxman Act, new generics had to go through the full clinical trials required of a new medicine, even though they were simply a new source of the very drug that had already been chemically approved. The ANDA pathway is quicker and cheaper, requiring a manufacturer to show that the generic is “bioequivalent” to the brand-name product and that it meets manufacturing standards. Even so, the ANDA pathway is an expensive process, and its cost has increased from about $1–2 million in 2005 to $15 million in 2015.

The process isn’t limited to new providers, either. Should an existing manufacturer want to supply more of its approved medicine, it must go through the approval process again for any new production lines or factories. As a result, it can be too costly to make up the shortfall in supply.

The issues don’t end there. Sometimes, even if a generic manufacturer is willing and able to take on all the costs of this process, brand-name manufacturers can effectively put a stay on generics by preventing generic manufacturers from obtaining samples. In other cases, brand-name drug manufacturers will pay generic manufacturers to stay out of the market. The fact that some critical yet out-of-patent drugs have only a single generic manufacturer has created an opening for speculators who buy decades-old basic medicines and raise the prices dramatically — most infamously in the case of Turing Pharmaceuticals, which purchased the rights to a $13 pill and immediately raised its price to $750. This behavior is not the market in action; it is the manipulation of a regulatory regime for financial gain.

Clearly, something is very wrong. A solution is necessary. But rather than tackle the dense and boring problems that are holding back access to essential drugs, which can’t really be boiled down to a stump-speech line, Warren proposes that the United States government start producing generic drugs under the auspices of a new “Office of Drug Manufacturing,” which would pass off its products to cooperating private companies. In effect, assuming that the office operates at least as well as the average private manufacturer (unlikely though that is), this would simply mean the creation of a new drug company, albeit one with a public imprimatur.

This new company, however, would run into the same hurdles that are faced by private actors — the text of the bill does not lay out a regulatory exemption for this new state-run firm, after all. At most, the office might be willing to take the financial hit of approval costs where a private firm might not, meaning taxpayers would simply pick up the tab to overcome the problems the government created.

What makes Warren’s plan especially insulting is that the senator seems to be aware of some real solutions. In her op-ed, after pitching her bill, she mentions in an aside that it’s necessary to “crack down on the rampant abuse of the patent and regulatory system” and advocates increased drug importation from countries with high safety standards. Both of these are critical areas of reform, but they do not have a place in Warren’s legislation.

There are some clear steps forward for honest reformers. A particularly promising three-part solution is outlined in a Brookings paper by Thomas Bollyky and Aaron Kesselheim. First, they advocate the passage of the Generic Drug User Fee Act Reauthorization, which would help the FDA accelerate its review process for generics, particularly “complex” generics that “are more intricate in formulation or delivery than simple, small-molecule pills,” as well as a policy push to prioritize applications for drugs that currently have only one manufacturer. Second, they propose a “single window” pathway, by which manufacturers could apply for approval from multiple regulatory authorities simultaneously; these could include the United States, Canada, and the EU to begin with and then expand to include the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Each of these regulatory authorities is well respected, and furthermore they have already harmonized many of their best practices (though each regulator would still assess the applications independently). A single application would drastically reduce the costs for a new manufacturer to bring its drug to market without raising safety concerns.

The third prong of Bollyky and Kesselheim’s plan involves importation. Currently, imported generics need to go through the FDA approval process even if they have already been approved by comparable bodies abroad. The effect of this hurdle is stark. Sixty-four percent of drugs with insufficient generic competition in the United States have manufacturers abroad that have been approved by the EU, Canada, and other regulators, yet are out of reach of American patients. They suggest that the pathway be limited to generic versions of drugs that are already approved in the United States but lack sufficient generic competition, and that reciprocal approval be limited to strict regulatory authorities such as those of the EU and Canada. With such a framework in place, quality generic-drug manufacturers abroad could expand their production to meet the demand in the United States, at considerably lower cost than it would take for “a new entrant to obtain an ANDA and build new manufacturing capabilities.”

This framework tackles the factors that have been most critical in limiting competition and raising the costs of medication and keeping people from the care they need. If Senator Warren is serious about generic-drug prices, she ought to consider it. Increasing the FDA’s resources to tackle the backlog, streamlining regulatory practices and importation, and working with foreign partners would be a far more effective and prudent use of funds than an Office of Drug Production — even if it is less suited to the campaign trail.

If Warren’s aim is to be seen as the “serious wonk” compared with figures such as Beto O’Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker, she needs to do better. Her vanity project is thoroughly unserious.
Click to expand...

Seriously shitty article.

Buck Turgidson · Jan 4, 2019

mick fry said: ↑

Hopefully she stops short of shooting up heroine to appear as one of the commoners.
Click to expand...

I truly hope she stops short of putting ketchup on a well-done steak, or posing with a bucket of KFC chicken, or touting a nasty-looking taco salad as "the best Mexican food", in order to appear as someone who has no class or taste whatsoever.

But that's just me.

mick fry · Jan 5, 2019

Buck Turgidson said: ↑

I truly hope she stops short of putting ketchup on a well-done steak, or posing with a bucket of KFC chicken, or touting a nasty-looking taco salad as "the best Mexican food", in order to appear as someone who has no class or taste whatsoever.

But that's just me.
Click to expand...

I can see her sitting down to a big ol soul food dinner next.

mick fry · Jan 5, 2019

Nook said: ↑

Seriously shitty article.
Click to expand...

I know right because he saved this little nugget for the end, if only he displayed it at the beginning I could have stopped reading there.
(If Warren’s aim is to be seen as the “serious wonk” compared with figures such as Beto O’Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker)

Buck Turgidson · Jan 5, 2019

mick fry said: ↑

I can see her sitting down to a big ol soul food dinner next.
Click to expand...

Sorry, bro, I don't speak dog whistle.

But my southern ass does love me some soul food.

wizkid83 · Jan 5, 2019

Not a fan

mick fry · Jan 5, 2019

Buck Turgidson said: ↑

Sorry, bro, I don't speak dog whistle.

But my southern ass does love me some soul food.
Click to expand...

Os Trigonum · Jan 5, 2019

lol

Deckard · Jan 5, 2019

Os Trigonum said: ↑

Is Elizabeth Warren the Democrats' version of Jeb Bush?

http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/04/elizabeth-warren-democrats-2020-version-jeb-bush/

excerpt:

"Bush tried to appeal to voters on the issues of previous election cycles when his ideas about education reform, immigration moderation, and a tough interventionist foreign policy were in vogue. But in a year in which Republicans wanted an outsider who rejected establishment conventional wisdom about everything and would fight Democrats tooth and nail by fair means or foul, Bush was an obsolete political model.

"Warren runs the same risk. Democrats may be just as receptive to her anti-Wall Street demagoguery as they would have been in 2016, and like her willingness to mix it up with Trump. But it’s just as likely that the key to victory in 2020 for Democrats will be not so much her brand of hard-line leftist economics as someone with the charisma that can mobilize Democratic voters.

"Moreover, candidates who can appeal to minority voters — the key to the Democratic base — better than Warren, such as Sen. Kamala Harris or Beto O’Rourke (although his claims to Hispanic identity are as tenuous as Warren’s to membership in the Cherokee tribe)
, may be a better bet to energize the party. Worse, just as Bush seemed too tame to battle the Democrats, the combative Warren may have already failed the one test her party faithful will require its nominee to pass: the ability to withstand Trump’s abuse.

"The point about the DNA test wasn’t so much whether it backed up the stories that she has been telling about her family’s Native American ties in spite of the lack of documentary proof. Democratic voters may be sufficiently entranced by intersectional ideology that they may not care much whether, as the test said, she is anywhere from 1/64 to 1/1,024th Native American.

"But they do know Warren fell for Trump’s bait by seeking to silence his “Pocahontas” jibes. We don’t know yet what issue or quality will ultimately set the winner of the Democratic primaries apart from the field, but we do know that being weak enough to be trolled by Trump is a disqualifying characteristic for any potential Democratic candidate.

"Although waiting to announce would have risked letting her rivals gain an advantage, by announcing early Warren reminded us of her weakness as Trump immediately began attacking her. As much as Democrats sympathize with anyone Trump abuses, being the butt of his contempt also shows them she isn’t the dragon slayer they seek."
Click to expand...

What a bullsh!t column. Does the Federalist specialize in that? I quit reading it when I got to, "or Beto O’Rourke (although his claims to Hispanic identity are as tenuous as Warren’s to membership in the Cherokee tribe)."

What garbage. The attempt to tie Beto's nickname, a nickname he's had since childhood, not to mention never making it a secret that he isn't Hispanic, to Warren's ludicrous Native American spiel couldn't be more transparent. Do you enjoy posting this crap, Os? Color me disappointed.

Os Trigonum · Jan 5, 2019

Deckard said: ↑

What a bullshit column. Does the Federalist specialize in that? I quit reading it when I got to, "or Beto O’Rourke (although his claims to Hispanic identity are as tenuous as Warren’s to membership in the Cherokee tribe)."

What garbage. The attempt to tie Beto's nickname, a nickname he's had since childhood, not to mention never making it a secret that he isn't Hispanic, to Warren's ludicrous Native American spiel couldn't be more transparent. Do you enjoy posting this crap, Os? Color me disappointed.
Click to expand...

nm

dachuda86 · Jan 5, 2019

It is over. I fully endorse Warren. Think of the memes.

fchowd0311 · Jan 5, 2019

dachuda86 said: ↑

It is over. I fully endorse Warren. Think of the memes.
Click to expand...

If that is how most citizens chose their candidate who manages the world's largest bureaucracy and commands the world's most powerful military, then we are witnessing the decline of American hegomonic power and replacing it with mornic power .

white lightning · Jan 5, 2019

fchowd0311 said: ↑

If that is how most citizens chose their candidate who manages the world's largest bureaucracy and commands the world's most powerful military, then we are witnessing the decline of American hegomonic power and replacing it with mornic power .
Click to expand...

That bridge has already been crossed.

dobro1229 · Jan 6, 2019

dachuda86 said: ↑

It is over. I fully endorse Warren. Think of the memes.
Click to expand...

The Democrats could run Jesus Christ for President and Mother Teresa for VP and you goons would laugh yourselves to sleep at night with stupid photoshop Memes.

Elizabeth Warren, Beto, Kamala, Michael Jordan, Oprah, George Clooney....

It doesn’t matter who it is... you will think you and your troll farm are freaking hilariously owning the libs with your stupid Russian produced memes no matter who it is.

I give two sh$&s about what you and the other Trump nuts think and how funny you think photoshop memes from Russians bots are. Warren is a solid first serious candidate. I don’t have a messiah complex like you guys have with Trump. She’ll have a chance so may the best candidate win, but she’s far from the worst we’ve seen in the history of presidential candidates in the past few decades if she wins.

Keep in mind... you voted and support Donald J Trump. You still worship a con artist who looks like he slept in a swimming pool of Cheetos. Think about that while you laugh your butt off looking at your 4chan memes.

Cohete Rojo · Jan 6, 2019

dobro1229 said: ↑

The Democrats could run Jesus Christ for President and Mother Teresa for VP and you goons would laugh yourselves to sleep at night with stupid photoshop Memes.

Elizabeth Warren, Beto, Kamala, Michael Jordan, Oprah, George Clooney....

It doesn’t matter who it is... you will think you and your troll farm are freaking hilariously owning the libs with your stupid Russian produced memes no matter who it is.

I give two sh$&s about what you and the other Trump nuts think and how funny you think photoshop memes from Russians bots are. Warren is a solid first serious candidate. I don’t have a messiah complex like you guys have with Trump. She’ll have a chance so may the best candidate win, but she’s far from the worst we’ve seen in the history of presidential candidates in the past few decades if she wins.

Keep in mind... you voted and support Donald J Trump. You still worship a con artist who looks like he slept in a swimming pool of Cheetos. Think about that while you laugh your butt off looking at your 4chan memes.
Click to expand...

Translation:

dachuda86 · Jan 6, 2019

Elizabeth Warren 2020! You are an idiot otherwise. Trump is not going to be able to handle her. She IS the best choice. We must support her with everything CFs has. A wamen and a minority. The dems can't lose.

dachuda86 · Jan 6, 2019

dobro1229 said: ↑

The Democrats could run Jesus Christ for President and Mother Teresa for VP and you goons would laugh yourselves to sleep at night with stupid photoshop Memes.

Elizabeth Warren, Beto, Kamala, Michael Jordan, Oprah, George Clooney....

It doesn’t matter who it is... you will think you and your troll farm are freaking hilariously owning the libs with your stupid Russian produced memes no matter who it is.

I give two sh$&s about what you and the other Trump nuts think and how funny you think photoshop memes from Russians bots are. Warren is a solid first serious candidate. I don’t have a messiah complex like you guys have with Trump. She’ll have a chance so may the best candidate win, but she’s far from the worst we’ve seen in the history of presidential candidates in the past few decades if she wins.

Keep in mind... you voted and support Donald J Trump. You still worship a con artist who looks like he slept in a swimming pool of Cheetos. Think about that while you laugh your butt off looking at your 4chan memes.
Click to expand...

I laugh at Russian conspiracy theories too. The only way some people can deal with their delusional world view is the throw Russia out there as a scape goat. You drank too much of the coolaid.

dachuda86 · Jan 6, 2019

Os Trigonum · Jan 6, 2019

E-War running as Trump?

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-trumpist.php

ELIZABETH WARREN, TRUMPIST?
The Democrats hate Donald Trump, but do they hate his policies? In some cases, sure. But many elements of Trumpism are actually congenial to Democrats who want to run to Trump’s left…or is it his right? A reader unpacks Elizabeth Warren’s speech on “A Foreign Policy that Works for All Americans.”

Setting the stage:

Mistakes piled on mistakes. Reckless, endless wars in the Middle East. Trade deals rammed through with callous disregard for our working people…Why? Mostly to serve the interests of big corporations while ignoring the interests of American workers.

We need to refocus our international economic policies so that they benefit all Americans…At the same time, we must refocus our security policies by reining in unsustainable and ill-advised military commitments…
Click to expand...

Straight-up Trumpism, literally almost word-for-word:

Giant corporations have made money hand over fist. But our trade and economic policies have not delivered the same kind of benefits for America’s middle class. In fact, U.S. trade policy has delivered one punch in the gut after another to workers and to the unions that fight for them.

For decades, the leaders of both parties preached the gospel that free trade was a rising tide that would lift all boats. Great rhetoric – except that the trade deals they negotiated mainly lifted the yachts-and threw millions of working Americans overboard to drown.

Policymakers were willing to sacrifice American jobs-not their own, of course-in return for boosting sales at Walmart and gaining access to consumer markets around the world.

Washington had it all figured out. And this confidence spilled over into more than trade deals….They looked the other way as China manipulated its currency to advance its own interests and undercut work done here in America.
Click to expand...

Trumpier than Trump! On NAFTA:

There’s no question we need to renegotiate NAFTA. The federal government has certified that NAFTA has already cost us nearly a million good American jobs – and big companies continue to use NAFTA to outsource jobs to Mexico to this day.

But as it’s currently written, Trump’s deal won’t stop the serious and ongoing harm NAFTA causes for American workers. It won’t stop outsourcing, it won’t raise wages, and it won’t create jobs. It’s NAFTA 2.0.

For example, NAFTA 2.0 has better labor standards on paper but it doesn’t give American workers enough tools to enforce those standards. Without swift and certain enforcement of these new labor standards, big corporations will continue outsourcing jobs to Mexico to so they can pay workers less.

NAFTA 2.0 is also stuffed with handouts that will let big drug companies lock in the high prices they charge for many drugs. The new rules will make it harder to bring down drug prices for seniors and anyone else who needs access to life-saving medicine.
Click to expand...

Just beautiful! Perfect Trumpism. Keep out the cheap Asian and Mexican bras and panties, but you have a right to free trade in cheap Asian and Mexican drugs!

We need MORE Trumpism! MORE Syndicalism, protectionism and lemon socialism:

The President grabs headlines railing against GM’s plans to axe thousands of American jobs in Ohio and Michigan – but his actual policies aren’t stopping them or others like them from continuing to put corporate profits ahead of American workers. It’s time for real change.

We need a new approach to trade, and it should begin with a simple principle: our policies should not prioritize corporate profits over American paychecks. That should be true for NAFTA and true for every deal we cut.
Click to expand...

It all comes down to “helping” “our” companies with Industrial Policy:

Investments at home strengthen the economy, but these investments also serve national security. A 21st century industrial policy, for example, would produce good jobs that provide dignity, respect, and a living wage, and it would also reinforce U.S. international economic power.

We should be on the side of American businesses, protecting them from unfair practices abroad. That means aggressively targeting corruption and pay-to-play demands from unscrupulous governments. It means fighting back against the threat of forced technology transfer in exchange for market access. And it means penalizing the theft of American intellectual property.
Click to expand...

Except, of course, American intellectual property in drug patents!

And don’t forget neo-isolationism:

A foreign policy that lifts the fortunes of all Americans must also take an honest look at the full costs and risks of our military actions.
***
For nearly two decades, this country has been mired in a series of wars – conflicts that sap American strength.
The human costs of these wars has been staggering: more than 6,900 Americans killed, another 52,000 wounded. Many more who live every day with the invisible scars of war. And hundreds of thousands of civilians killed.

The financial costs are also staggering. The U.S. has put more than a trillion dollars on a credit card for our children to pay, a burden that creates a drag on our economy that will last for generations. Meanwhile, Congress has shirked its responsibility to oversee these ever expanding conflicts.

Despite America’s huge investment, these wars have not succeeded even on their own terms. 17 years later, the Middle East remains in shambles. …

And even with all the blood and money we have spilled, America still faces violent terrorist groups that wish to do us harm.
Click to expand...

She’s running as…TRUMP! Hilarious! She has positioned herself to his left (or is it his right?) on free trade and NAFTA in particular. The new NAFTA isn’t protectionist enough! We need Trumpism on steroids — just without Trump and no dirty talk! Trumpist statism but with abortion, #MeToo, affirmative action and #BlackLivesMatter.

But it’s not so clear on immigrants…..Hmmmmm…

I was not a fan of Donald Trump during the primary process because I didn’t think he was conservative enough. Many of his themes seemed borrowed from Democrats like Dick Gephardt. So in a sense, it isn’t too surprising to hear left-wing (or is it right-wing?) Democrats sounding much like Trump across a pretty broad range of issues. Especially since Trump’s policies have proved so successful. Still, much as Trump has governed in a more conservative fashion than I, and many others, expected, no doubt Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats would govern more from the left than their avowed Trumpism suggests. Still, it is striking how Warren seems to be channeling Trump on key issues.
Click to expand...

Rashmon · Jan 6, 2019

Man, these mistake-in-chief supporters are in overdrive. Y'all should worry more about keeping him out of jail in 2020.

Forums

[OFFICIAL] Elizabeth Warren for President thread

Nook Member

Buck Turgidson Member

mick fry Member

mick fry Member

Buck Turgidson Member

wizkid83 Member

mick fry Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

dachuda86 Member

fchowd0311 Member

white lightning Member

dobro1229 Member

Cohete Rojo Member

dachuda86 Member

dachuda86 Member

dachuda86 Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Rashmon Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

[OFFICIAL] Elizabeth Warren for President thread

Nook Member

Buck Turgidson Member

mick fry Member

mick fry Member

Buck Turgidson Member

wizkid83 Member

mick fry Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

Deckard Blade Runner Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

dachuda86 Member

fchowd0311 Member

white lightning Member

dobro1229 Member

Cohete Rojo Member

dachuda86 Member

dachuda86 Member

dachuda86 Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

Rashmon Member

Share This Page

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member