The Republicans who have been chided as the party of big business were out to show their concern and assure all that they too can and do “feel the pain” of our needy citizens, so they passed a huge Medicare Senior Drug Bill and promoted it as saving seniors big bucks on drugs. It is in fact one big scam perpetuated on the tax paying public. The bill as enacted specifically stated that the government could not bargain with drug companies for the best prices on drugs. In effect the bill proclaimed that Medicare would pay what ever the drug companies chose to charge for their products, period. And to alleviate the fears of the nay saying public the drug companies before the bill was enacted promised not to raise prices. That promise went out the window the day after the bill was signed by President Bush.
The Democrats of course were yelling their fool heads off about it being a fraud and farce and the Bush administration again lying to the public and giving drug companies a huge early Christmas gift wrapped in gold and tied with silver. And, they were right!
Now it is the Democrats turn and with much ballyhoo and flash they declared war on President Bush’s drug plan and swore to get those big bad drug companies and whip them into shape. Yes Sirreee! The Democrats are the protectors of the elderly, the defenders of equality and the leveling of the playing field for all peoples, and I would suppose also the soldiers of the cross!
Now that the Dems are in control the Reps in the other corner the are with somber voices warning the people of “severe price controls” that will lead to dire consequences for the economy. Bull Hockey! Nothing more will occur to the economy because essentially nothing is being changed about the very bill the Republicans passed.
Here’s what the H.R. 4, which passed the House last week by a vote of 255 to 170 actually said:
“….."the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices (including discounts, rebates, and other price concessions) that may be charged" for the drugs that Medicare will pay for. It does remove the prohibition to bargain with drug companies contained in current law. By using the word "shall" it actually requires the secretary to merely talk to the drug companies.
Now skip down to the next section where the bill says, "Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to establish or require a particular formulary." That means the secretary would have no authority to bargain for lower prices. He will merely meet and talk to the representatives of the drug companies once a year. He will have no authority to set up a list of drugs that Medicare would pay for as is the case with the more successful military drug plan that the Democrats are comparing their drug bill with. But there is in actuality absolutely NO comparison with the military drug plan.
In the Tricare (military) system the Providers of the drugs negotiate with the drug companies for the best prices, then add their costs and profit margin and compete with other providers for the military contract. It works very well I can assure you since my family has been on the program for 32 years with no problems and very good treatment. The prices Tricare beneficiaries pay for drugs is either $3, $9, $11 or $22 for a 30 day supply of the drug if they get their drugs from a private company that has agreed to handle the Tricare program at Tricare prices. Wal-Mart and Walgreen’s Drugs are two I am familiar with. Or, Tricare beneficiaries may use the current mail order company which has agreed to provide the drugs at the Tricare prices which is by far a much better deal since for the same prices quoted about a patient gets a 90 day supply rather than a 30 day supply. These prices are NOT as some might think, supplemented by government funds. These are the actual negotiated prices paid to the drug companies for their products. So you see either party could if it wanted actually set up a truely money saving program for it's citizens. They do not because the Congressmen are protecting their lucrative drug company campaign contributions. On the other hand, the drug companies would say that if the much lower prices were given to all then there would be no funds for research, etc., etc. Well, might it be possible to make up these "bargain" prices charged citizens of the United States by raising the bargain prices other countries pay for drugs made in the United States, I wonder?
The one thing that some would see as a draw back with Tricare Drugs is that the military eliminates approximately 3000 drugs which they will not pay for. Both party’s version of the Senior Drug Plan will pay for any and all drugs offered by the drug companies. Here again I have never failed to receive the drug my doctor prescribed no matter how old or new the drug is on the market. It may be the generic form, but it is the SAME drug. If there is no generic drug to match the drug required then the brand name is provided. You had better believe neither Senior Drug Bill will specify generic drugs be used even when available.
And so the beat goes and both the Republicans and Democrats rant, posture and pound the podium, but nothing changes. The Senior Drug Bill like the rest of the Medicare package is an albatross around the neck of the young. Only this albatross has a time bomb in it and one day will blow the entire economy of the greatest country on Earth to smithereens. BB

It seems President Bush was careful to be as accurate as possible when speaking to the American people in this lastest speech on the War in Iraq. He remains up beat, but admits to some hard truths.

President Bush tells us repeatedly that the Iraqi people wish to live together in peace in a unified country and yet we have Sunni and Shiite groups trying to do as much damage to each other as possible on a daily basis. Polls however show that 89% of Iraqis want a strong unified government. Why all the mayhem and madness, who knows at this point. Perhaps it is juggling to see just what group will be in control of that unified government. They don’t yet understand that unity requires that the groups work together for the good of the country. (Now why does that phase sound as if it could be applied to a country that has enjoyed a democratic government for over two hundred years? Someone should point out to our divided Congress that they are acting just like the Sunni and Shiites just with words rather than guns and bombs.)

President Bush assured us the Iraqis would share oil revenues and plan to pass legislation to insure this. The problem is CORRUPTION. I used capital letters because the problem is huge and rampant at all levels of oil production . The Iraqi Study Groups (ISG) reported that one Iraqi official estimated the corruption siphoned of $5 - $7 billion a year by Iraqi officials alone, and that corruption is more responsible than insurgents for the breakdown in the oil sector of the economy.

Corruption is also stifling investment in the rest of the economy. In a poll one third of Iraqis said that they routinely pay bribes for goods and services, and it is estimated that in 2006 $4 billion was taken from the state coffers with no one taking responsibility to stop this thievery.
Now it should be understood that bribery is nothing new to this part of the world and has always been an element in doing business, but never to this extent. This is why the Iraqi government must step in and get this matter under control. How it can be done with acceptance of corruption a culturally accepted practice is anyone’s guess. We American’s have trouble understanding this philosophical acceptance and especially so when so much of it has been our money.

“In July 2006, the U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) reported a poll that found a third of Iraqis said they had paid bribes for goods or services that year. In a September 2006 news report by the United Nations’ Integrated Regional Information Networks, Judge Radhi al-Radhi, head of the Commission for Public Integrity (CPI) in Iraq, estimated that $4 billion “has been pilfered from state coffers and no one is taking responsibility.”
Transparency International, a non-partisan international watchdog group, has listed as the second most corrupt government in the world, with only Haiti edging it out of first place. The GAO reported that the lack of an effective banking system in , ambiguous procurement systems, and inadequate anti-corruption training have hampered attempts to reduce foul play. The GAO also reported that between January 2005 and August 2006, 56 Iraqi officials were found guilty of corruption or had arrest warrants issued against them, but apparently the arrests and prosecutions aren't having much of a deterrent effect.”

President Bush reported that the Iraqi government are trying g to bring back the Sunni, or the Baath party, which held the government posts before our outster of Saddam. At the same time we tried to remove Baathists from both the military and civilian government. It was a mistake because these officials were the only Iraqis with experience running the government after 30 years of Saddam's and Baathist control.

In his speech to the nation President Bush told us that al Qaeda was causing the most trouble outside of Bagdad and since we stopped them in Afghanistan we would also take away their power in Iraq. Not true. He fail;ed her to admit that al Qaeda is coming back pretty stron in Afghanistan and with the support of the people. And, they have a fairly well established hold in Iraq tho not yet in Bagdad.
“The Washington Post reported in November that a secret Marine memo described al-Qaeda in Iraq as the “dominate organization of influence in al-Anbar.” But the official who leaked the memo to the paper said “it overstates the role of al Qaeda in the province.” A Congressional Research Service report characterizes this group as “numerically small, but politically significant.”
“Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S. military response to the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, pretty much ousted the Taliban and al Qaeda from Afghanistan. But Bush didn't mention that the Taliban have been creeping back, possibly as a consequence of the deployment of so many troops to Iraq, and some key members of al Qaeda – including, according to many reports, Osama bin Laden – have found safe haven just over the border in Pakistan”.

Iran is providing material support to the insurgency in Iraq was accurately reported by President Bush. The evidence for this is over whelming and no one disputes it.

Source: FactCheck.org January, 11, 2007

 The Supreme Court makes another ruling for the public and against big business. Now understand I have nothing against business because commerce makes the world go round as they say. What I am very much against are laws that allow some businesses to take unfair advantage and thus unfair profit. This is easily done using the patent laws. A company can have a patent on a product and just by making an insignificant change, even to the packaging, can apply for and get another patent on the product. This allows them to keep  their monopoly on the product  and thereby controlling the price , supply and of course stifling competition of the marketplace.   The companies owning the patent can also sell licenses to other companies to produce the product and pay royalties to the owning company. This is especially the case with the drug companies. I have made this explanation very brief and rather simplistic since most of us are not lawyers and can only understand the gist of the rulings and not the legal ins and outs.

The Court, by an 8-1 vote, reinstated a lawsuit by MedImmune challenging a Genentech patent related to Synagis, a popular drug for treatment of respiratory disease in children.

The opinion in MedImmune v. Genentech, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, says patent licensees no longer have to breach the license in order to have standing to challenge the patent that they dispute. Patent lawyers say the ruling could lead to a flurry of challenges to existing patents."

This ruling does not entirely change this law that allows a company to monopolize a product, but it puts a hefty dent in it. This can do nothing but benefit the consumer. Of course the lawyers will argue that it will stifle companies from doing the expensive research to come up with new products if they are forced to realize any profit within a limited amount of time before the product can be produced by other companies. Companies generally recouped their costs within a couple years on a new product and after that it is pure profit so this argument just doesn’t hold up. New products will continue to be produced because the profits are just too great to forego, and older products will come down in price as more companies are able to make the product. This is also where improvements are made on older products then allowing the new company to take out a patent of their own.  And the World continues to spin!

 ***All you need to do to get more information on any court ruling is to Google: Supreme Court Watch and name of case which in this case is MedImmune,

 California Plan for Health Care Would Cover All

“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday proposed extending health care coverage to all of California’s 36 million residents as part of a sweeping package of changes to the state’s huge, troubled health care system.”