Drug Industry Is on Defensive as Power Shifts

[JLB]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/washington/24drug.html?hp&ex=1164430800&en=e3a2a389f5280dcc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 — Alarmed at the prospect of Democratic control of Congress, top executives from two dozen drug companies met here last week to assess what appears to them to be a harsh new political climate, and to draft a battle plan.

[JLB]

Hoping to prevent Congress from letting the government negotiate lower drug prices for millions of older Americans on Medicare, the pharmaceutical companies have been recruiting Democratic lobbyists, lining up allies in the Bush administration and Congress, and renewing ties with organizations of patients who depend on brand-name drugs.

[г]

'Pharmacies' are warning Canadians that we'll run out of drugs up here if we let the big, bad Americans allow internet prescription filling, etc.
Sounds like BS to me....

Pharmacies warn of drug shortages
Nov. 23, 2006. 01:40 PM
CANADIAN PRESS

WINNIPEG — A coalition of Canadian pharmacy and patient advocacy groups is asking the federal government to ban prescription drug exports to the United States.

In a letter to Health Minister Tony Clement, the group said today that the issue is urgent because high-ranking U.S. Democrats have said legalizing imports from Canada will be a priority for the new Congress.

Louise Crandall, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Pharmacists Association, said Canadian patients could face widespread drug shortages if large U.S. chains suddenly started filling prescriptions with Canadian drugs.

Crandall said the government should ban all bulk and personal orders — a move that would effectively wipe out the Internet pharmacy industry.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1164279188377

[JLB]

'Pharmacies' are warning Canadians that we'll run out of drugs up here if we let the big, bad Americans allow internet prescription filling, etc.
Sounds like BS to me....

Pharmacies warn of drug shortages
Nov. 23, 2006. 01:40 PM
CANADIAN PRESS

WINNIPEG — A coalition of Canadian pharmacy and patient advocacy groups is asking the federal government to ban prescription drug exports to the United States.

In a letter to Health Minister Tony Clement, the group said today that the issue is urgent because high-ranking U.S. Democrats have said legalizing imports from Canada will be a priority for the new Congress.

Louise Crandall, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Pharmacists Association, said Canadian patients could face widespread drug shortages if large U.S. chains suddenly started filling prescriptions with Canadian drugs.

Crandall said the government should ban all bulk and personal orders — a move that would effectively wipe out the Internet pharmacy industry.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1164279188377


Thanks for the input Doug interesting story.

[anEinherjer]

If I had to put up with the shit the gov't already does to biotech and pharma companies, I wouldn't get into the business. What a nightmare, and democrats will only try to make it worse.

[deconstruction]

If I had to put up with the shit the gov't already does to biotech and pharma companies, I wouldn't get into the business. What a nightmare, and democrats will only try to make it worse.

Remember Vioxx and PhenPhen? What's a better solution?

[sukie]

I gather from your post that you are in favor of MORE FDA red tape then.

[deconstruction]

I gather from your post that you are in favor of MORE FDA red tape then.

No, what I am in favor of is a drug industry that doesn't push their products over the conserns of the consumer, especially when health is at risk. I don't think that they should have access to doctors, I don't think that they should recommend off label usage, and I don't think that they should get a free pass when it comes to human subject testing. When someone volunteers for a treatment that is untested, that's one thing. When a treatment gets recommended to someone who hasn't, that's another.

[sukie]

if they have no access to doctors... there would be no different drugs being prescribed. You make it sound like drug companies stop by Dr's offices and bring suitcases full of cash. Not the way it works.

[JLB]

No, what I am in favor of is a drug industry that doesn't push their products over the conserns of the consumer, especially when health is at risk. I don't think that they should have access to doctors, I don't think that they should recommend off label usage, and I don't think that they should get a free pass when it comes to human subject testing. When someone volunteers for a treatment that is untested, that's one thing. When a treatment gets recommended to someone who hasn't, that's another.

With all do respect can you be more clear on what you think happens with the Doctor's and the drug companies what are you saying?

[shiva2999]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/washington/24drug.html?hp&ex=1164430800&en=e3a2a389f5280dcc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 — Alarmed at the prospect of Democratic control of Congress, top executives from two dozen drug companies met here last week to assess what appears to them to be a harsh new political climate, and to draft a battle plan.

Anthrax all around!

[г]

If they threaten to cut off anti-drepressants to Republicans, all hell will break loose...

[JLB]

Anthrax all around!

Please be clear what are you saying?

[JLB]

If they threaten to cut off anti-drepressants to Republicans, all hell will break loose...

Doug I know you stay on top of things.
Was that true about Chris Mattews being on a suicide watch?
Someone reported he was so determined to undermine all GOP efforts had it gone the other way he was ready to take his own life. Did you hear this?

[shiva2999]

If they threaten to cut off anti-drepressants to Republicans, all hell will break loose...

Not to mention Viagra.

[г]

Doug I know you stay on top of things.
Was that true about Chris Mattews being on a suicide watch?
Someone reported he was so determined to undermine all GOP efforts had it gone the other way he was ready to take his own life. Did you hear this?

I had only heard that on election night he initially refused to report the Harold Ford loss in TN and that he was overruled by his boss in the control room, so he gave a half-assed update on-air. I hadn't heard that he wanted to off himself...

[anEinherjer]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/walker/walker6.html

Decon, take a quick look at that. It's a bit of hyperbole, but not too far off. My uncle owns a small pharm research corp, and his is not some sort of evil get-rich-quick on the backs of poor, sick people scheme. Some of the bits kill me:

There would be a Federal Data Administration (FDA). Every processor, peripheral, program, printer, and power cord made in or imported into the USA would have to obtain FDA approval. This would require an average of 19 years of safety testing on lab rats and clinical trials for effectiveness on nerd volunteers with informed consent, before prescription for general human use is allowed. Any change of any kind to any chip, ergonomic keyboard, or line of code would require re-approval of the entire system and any hardware or software that could in principle be connected to it via Internet, intranet, or hand-carried disk.

Now why were Vioxx and others such PR nightmares? Could it be precisely because every new successful drug costs about a billion dollars to develop? That because the R&D costs are so utterly high that once some somewhat successful drug (and my grandma looooved her Vioxx) appears the pharm companies basically NEED to hype it and mass-produce it just to make a profit?

Our health care is already burdened by so much red tape, the demagoguery of those who hate "big pharm" just piles on. You hear that our "free market" health care sucks.... but we have nothing even resembling a free market.

[JLB]

I had only heard that on election night he initially refused to report the Harold Ford loss in TN and that he was overruled by his boss in the control room, so he gave a half-assed update on-air. I hadn't heard that he wanted to off himself...

Thanks I thought it sounded a little nuts.

[35Pete]

Remember Vioxx and PhenPhen? What's a better solution?

Do you know what 6-sigma quality is?

[35Pete]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/walker/walker6.html

Decon, take a quick look at that. It's a bit of hyperbole, but not too far off. My uncle owns a small pharm research corp, and his is not some sort of evil get-rich-quick on the backs of poor, sick people scheme. Some of the bits kill me:



Now why were Vioxx and others such PR nightmares? Could it be precisely because every new successful drug costs about a billion dollars to develop? That because the R&D costs are so utterly high that once some somewhat successful drug (and my grandma looooved her Vioxx) appears the pharm companies basically NEED to hype it and mass-produce it just to make a profit?

Our health care is already burdened by so much red tape, the demagoguery of those who hate "big pharm" just piles on. You hear that our "free market" health care sucks.... but we have nothing even resembling a free market.

Let him answer 6-sigma quality. Because drug certification is a lot higher in that it may utilize 4-5 sigma but each "defect" is gauged against ANYTHING that can go wrong.

And the human body is unbelievably complex. So the number of things that can go wrong are mindboggling in number.

You can control the medication. You can't control the variability in the biology of 300,000,000 humans.

Here's the premise:

Drug companies screw up.

My argument:

Government can't do better.

OK, decon. Let's chat. Read up on quality metrics first.

[gilchristfan]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/walker/walker6.html

Decon, take a quick look at that. It's a bit of hyperbole, but not too far off. My uncle owns a small pharm research corp, and his is not some sort of evil get-rich-quick on the backs of poor, sick people scheme. Some of the bits kill me:



Now why were Vioxx and others such PR nightmares? Could it be precisely because every new successful drug costs about a billion dollars to develop? That because the R&D costs are so utterly high that once some somewhat successful drug (and my grandma looooved her Vioxx) appears the pharm companies basically NEED to hype it and mass-produce it just to make a profit?

Our health care is already burdened by so much red tape, the demagoguery of those who hate "big pharm" just piles on. You hear that our "free market" health care sucks.... but we have nothing even resembling a free market.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Yeah... that's why it happened.

[35Pete]

I think Vioxx happened because the combination of things that could go wrong in the human body, and more often dependant on a subject's specific biology, is mind boggling.

Lawyers need to learn probability...No, they already know a bit of it.

No offense Gil but some of these lawyers are snakes.

It is statistically impossible to produce a perfect product. Absolutely impossible. But these class action snakes only smell the millions.

Now factor in the number of failure modes that a drug can produce (which is mind boggling) and couple that with at least 5 sigma quality and I'm amazed that drugs are as safe as they are.

[pmoon6]

Some of the drugs mentioned, especially Phen-Phen and other weight loss drugs are demonized because of abuse.

I experimented with ephedrine (actually the ACE stack, asperin, caffiene, ephedrine} before they took it off the market. I'd take one before a workout, it boosted my energy and aided in fat burning. One time I took 2. My heart raced and I was sweating profusely so I stopped the workout. I never had any problems taking one. I believe That's what happened to Korey Stringer, He took too much and the same with other people trying to lose weight. One is good, two is better.

Then you have 10 people vapor lock out of a million and all of a sudden it's the evil drug's fault. The "victims" file a class action suit and the law firms start a media blitz to enlist people who have taken the drug to join them.

"Have you taken Phen-Phen and suffered adverse affects? Contact the law offices of Brown, Sims and Shyster, so you can get a piece of the pie"

Nobody ever knows if the "victims" used the medication according to the recommended dosage, so you really can't conclude that the drug is dangerous in and of itself.

[sukie]

Ephedra was pulled because a few jocks died from abusing it. I took it as well for a year (with coffee) talk about an eye opening energy boost.

[pmoon6]

Ephedra was pulled because a few jocks died from abusing it. I took it as well for a year (with coffee) talk about an eye opening energy boost.Also Ephedra and it's herbal cousin, Ma Huang have been used in the Far East for centuries. Anyone who takes a stimulant weight loss drug and doesn't know that it's going to increase your heart rate and your blood pressure is a moron.

Even the evil anabolic steroids are not that harmful when taken at low dosages and cycled. It's all about the dosage.

[35Pete]

The first day of my Medicinal Chemistry class at UB Dr. Wayne Anderson started the class with the following statement:

"All drugs are poisons that are dispensed in therapeutic doses".

That left an impression on me for sure.

[coastal]

Hey mouthbreathers, this has little to do with supposed "over-regulation" by the FDA.

This is an issue I have been talking about since the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was passed.

For those who didn't pay attention here is what happened in the simplest of forms...

1.) Prescription benefit created for Medicare beneficiaries. Beneficiaries to partially pay for benefit with new Part D deductible = increased cost to seniors in order to enroll in benefit.

2.) Zero negotiating rights given to the federal government for the right of pharmaceutical companies to provide medications to seniors within this program.

3.) In lieu of negotiating rights, zero price restraints created to prevent pharmaceutical companies from raising the prices of all medications at astronomical rates.

4.) So... we set up a system where we are diverting tax payers monies to the pharmaceutical companies without giving us (the taxpayers) the ability to negotiate the costs associated with the privilege of providing us (the consumers) this service.

That's not even the kicker of this piece of legislation. There is even a give back to the insurance companies built into this legislation as well.

The Democrats are gutless for not prosecuting this for what it is...

Racketeering.

[35Pete]

Hey mouthbreathers, this has little to do with supposed "over-regulation" by the FDA.

This is an issue I have been talking about since the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was passed.

For those who didn't pay attention here is what happened in the simplest of forms...

1.) Prescription benefit created for Medicare beneficiaries. Beneficiaries to partially pay for benefit with new Part D deductible = increased cost to seniors in order to enroll in benefit.

This program is unconstitutional anyways.

2.) Zero negotiating rights given to the federal government for the right of pharmaceutical companies to provide medications to seniors within this program.

They are private businesses. What is the government, above everyone? Supreme authority over commerce and people?

3.) In lieu of negotiating rights, zero price restraints created to prevent pharmaceutical companies from raising the prices of all medications at astronomical rates.

Price controls work? Show me where they have? Insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting different results.

4.) So... we set up a system where we are diverting tax payers monies to the pharmaceutical companies without giving us (the taxpayers) the ability to negotiate the costs associated with the privilege of providing us (the consumers) this service.

Easy solution. Don't set up any system.

That's not even the kicker of this piece of legislation. There is even a give back to the insurance companies built into this legislation as well.

Get rid of it. Unconstitutional.

The Democrats are gutless for not prosecuting this for what it is...

Racketeering.

Anything involving the government eventually becomes a racket. The polls just decide who gets to be Al Capone.



...

[coastal]

Aside from having no idea how to engage an anarcho capitalist in a reasonable discussion and without totally derailing this thread (because I think this is an important issue of our times) check out this link Pete.

It seems that not all libertarians share your views.



http://www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-1-2-2.pdf

"Turning to more substantial matters,
Rothbard's key error seems to me to lie in
taking the proposition that states exert a
monopoly of coercion to be an empirical
fact, when in actuality it is a mere
definitional truth - what we mean by 'state' is
something like "agency which more or less
successfully enforces a monopoly of
coercion over a given territory". Rothbard
begins, as it were with the true premises that
coercion is bad; he goes on to observe that
states are the things that do most of it; and he
concludes that if we changed our societies by
removing the elements in them called
"states" we would be much better off.
This is rather like saying: "Potholes in roads
are a bad thing; a pothole is essentially
defined by the boundary between the metal
of the road and the space inside the hole; so
we ought to dig away the edges which create
the potholes, and we'd end up with better
roads." In reality, we'd end up with bigger
potholes.
What would happen in practice, if the institution
called the "state" were magically to
disappear from Great Britain tonight? What
would happen would be that, within a few
days, various individuals with a taste for
bullying their fellow men (and all of us have
some of this in our personality) would start
coercing their neighbours in ways which the
state apparatus had previously made
impossible or at least imprudent; small
bullies would acknowledge the suzerainty of
bigger bullies, and quite soon the territory of
Britain would he systematically parcelled up
into a set of states, in each of which the
degree of coercion of the average inhabitant
would, at a guess, be very much higher than
it is at present.
Rothbard writes as if the Mafia organzations
that would arise in this sort of situation
would be less worrying than states as we
know them now because their lack of
legitimacy would be obvious to all and so
they would find it much harder to gain
people's loyalty than do contemporary states,
with their advantages of mythologized
history, heraldic trappings, etc. But a gang of
Soho protection racketeers only seems
undignified because they are so 'small-time'
by contrast to the Queen in Parliament; if the
Soho racketeers were all the authority there
was, they would soon attract people's loyalty,
the racketeers' preferred way of dressing
would come to seem the most dignified way
to dress, and so on. Is it not true that many
Italians who obey the Mafia do not merely
fear the result of disobedience but feel that
they ought to obey!"

[sukie]

Pete, Why is the program unconstitutional?

[sukie]

Coastal, You are for price fixing by the government?

[35Pete]

Pete, Why is the program unconstitutional?

Show where in the constitution authority is granted to the federal government.

The "Promote The General Welfare" horse shit has already been smashed here. Not by me either....

By James Madison.

[sukie]

Pete serious question.... not rib jabbing you. This program is voluntary correct?

[35Pete]

Aside from having no idea how to engage an anarcho capitalist in a reasonable discussion and without totally derailing this thread (because I think this is an important issue of our times) check out this link Pete.

It seems that not all libertarians share your views.



http://www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-1-2-2.pdf

"Turning to more substantial matters,
Rothbard's key error seems to me to lie in
taking the proposition that states exert a
monopoly of coercion to be an empirical
fact, when in actuality it is a mere
definitional truth - what we mean by 'state' is
something like "agency which more or less
successfully enforces a monopoly of
coercion over a given territory". Rothbard
begins, as it were with the true premises that
coercion is bad; he goes on to observe that
states are the things that do most of it; and he
concludes that if we changed our societies by
removing the elements in them called
"states" we would be much better off.
This is rather like saying: "Potholes in roads
are a bad thing; a pothole is essentially
defined by the boundary between the metal
of the road and the space inside the hole; so
we ought to dig away the edges which create
the potholes, and we'd end up with better
roads." In reality, we'd end up with bigger
potholes.
What would happen in practice, if the institution
called the "state" were magically to
disappear from Great Britain tonight? What
would happen would be that, within a few
days, various individuals with a taste for
bullying their fellow men (and all of us have
some of this in our personality) would start
coercing their neighbours in ways which the
state apparatus had previously made
impossible or at least imprudent; small
bullies would acknowledge the suzerainty of
bigger bullies, and quite soon the territory of
Britain would he systematically parcelled up
into a set of states, in each of which the
degree of coercion of the average inhabitant
would, at a guess, be very much higher than
it is at present.
Rothbard writes as if the Mafia organzations
that would arise in this sort of situation
would be less worrying than states as we
know them now because their lack of
legitimacy would be obvious to all and so
they would find it much harder to gain
people's loyalty than do contemporary states,
with their advantages of mythologized
history, heraldic trappings, etc. But a gang of
Soho protection racketeers only seems
undignified because they are so 'small-time'
by contrast to the Queen in Parliament; if the
Soho racketeers were all the authority there
was, they would soon attract people's loyalty,
the racketeers' preferred way of dressing
would come to seem the most dignified way
to dress, and so on. Is it not true that many
Italians who obey the Mafia do not merely
fear the result of disobedience but feel that
they ought to obey!"

I addressed your arguments. You didn't like that because I pointed out stupid arguments.

Learn from me Coastal. I am here to help.

[sukie]

Coastal, You are for price fixing by the government?

bump.

[35Pete]

Pete serious question.... not rib jabbing you. This program is voluntary correct?

How does that make it constitutional?

[sukie]

My question is why is it not. Medicare itself should then be unconstitutional.

[35Pete]

My question is why is it not. Medicare itself should then be unconstitutional.

It is.

There is no language in the constitution authorizing the creation of Medicare.

That simple. Show me where there is.

[sukie]

Okay. I was wondering if the whole thing in your view was or just the "part D" portion

[anEinherjer]

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Yeah... that's why it happened.

Come on Gil, I'm throwing out a possibility here, not claiming anything as fact.

But doesn't it make sense that a corp, pushing to make as much money as possible, spends a billion to develop new drug X, then has to push new drug X in order to make that money back? Even in new drug X isn't quite 100% as safe as they might have marketed it to be.



Coastal can't argue with anarcho capitalists because he can't understand the glory that is real liberty. Sucks to be him, I guess. I guess it's easier for him to try sad little insults like "mouthbreathers". Oooooooh, we've been zinged!

[gilchristfan]

Come on Gil, I'm throwing out a possibility here, not claiming anything as fact.

But doesn't it make sense that a corp, pushing to make as much money as possible, spends a billion to develop new drug X, then has to push new drug X in order to make that money back? Even in new drug X isn't quite 100% as safe as they might have marketed it to be.



Coastal can't argue with anarcho capitalists because he can't understand the glory that is real liberty. Sucks to be him, I guess. I guess it's easier for him to try sad little insults like "mouthbreathers". Oooooooh, we've been zinged!

here's why I see the Vioxx thing happening: (a decent enough article explaining the problems with the User Fee Act)

How drug-approval woes crept up on FDA

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1126/p02s01-uspo.html

For many Americans, opening up the medicine cabinet may seem far more perilous than it did just a few months ago. <!-- --> Revelations about potentially deadly problems with government-approved drugs - from Merck's painkiller Vioxx to Bayer's cholesterol-fighter Baycol - have prompted even the conservative Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) to charge that the Food and Drug Administration's system for protecting consumers is broken.
The JAMA's doctors are calling for an independent board to be set up to monitor the safety of drugs already on the market.
The pharmaceutical industry calls that "premature," noting that FDA has asked the prestigious Institute of Medicine to study the problem and then make recommendations. But consumer advocates and some members of Congress contend that change is long overdue, in part because of the FDA's financial dependence on the pharmaceutical industry. That, they say, creates a conflict of interest that undermines the agency's effectiveness.

MORE

One of the most telling things....Vioxx was approved in a little over a year.

How were all of these tests, designed to demonstrate the safety of the product, performed in less than a year?

Tests performed, tests completed, subjects monitored, tests submitted to the FDA, tests analyzed by FDA bureaucrats, tests reviewed by FDA panels, panel reports reviewed by FDA higher ups, final OK given by the FDA administrators....

...All in a little over a year???? Either the FDA became the most efficient government agency in the history of mankind...

...or the system has comepletely broken down, and they're skipping steps.

[gilchristfan]

Hey mouthbreathers, this has little to do with supposed "over-regulation" by the FDA.

This is an issue I have been talking about since the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was passed.

For those who didn't pay attention here is what happened in the simplest of forms...

1.) Prescription benefit created for Medicare beneficiaries. Beneficiaries to partially pay for benefit with new Part D deductible = increased cost to seniors in order to enroll in benefit.

2.) Zero negotiating rights given to the federal government for the right of pharmaceutical companies to provide medications to seniors within this program.

3.) In lieu of negotiating rights, zero price restraints created to prevent pharmaceutical companies from raising the prices of all medications at astronomical rates.

4.) So... we set up a system where we are diverting tax payers monies to the pharmaceutical companies without giving us (the taxpayers) the ability to negotiate the costs associated with the privilege of providing us (the consumers) this service.

That's not even the kicker of this piece of legislation. There is even a give back to the insurance companies built into this legislation as well.

The Democrats are gutless for not prosecuting this for what it is...

Racketeering.

The Medicare Modernization Act is more of an end result of the cozy relationship between the pharma industry and Washington than it was the cause.

[coastal]

bump.

You need ritalin.

Show me where i said I was for price fixing.

[coastal]

I guess it's easier for him to try sad little insults like "mouthbreathers". Oooooooh, we've been zinged!

Scroll up and you'll see where sukie and Pete have seemingly come to an agreement that Medicare Part D is voluntary.

Seems to me they have their facts confused. A large percentage of Medicare beneficiaries were automatically enrolled (some without their knowledge or input) into a Part D program.

Maybe they need to take deeper breaths?

[deconstruction]

if they have no access to doctors... there would be no different drugs being prescribed. You make it sound like drug companies stop by Dr's offices and bring suitcases full of cash. Not the way it works.

That, unfortunately, is almost the exact way that it works.

[deconstruction]

Show where in the constitution authority is granted to the federal government.

The "Promote The General Welfare" horse shit has already been smashed here. Not by me either....

By James Madison.

Didn't Jefferson say that we needed a constitutional convention every 20 years? Maybe provisions would have been added over the long term.

[35Pete]

Scroll up and you'll see where sukie and Pete have seemingly come to an agreement that Medicare Part D is voluntary.

Seems to me they have their facts confused. A large percentage of Medicare beneficiaries were automatically enrolled (some without their knowledge or input) into a Part D program.

Maybe they need to take deeper breaths?

I never said that.

I said that Medicare is unconstitutional.

Go back and read again. And stop putting words in my mouth. I was questioning the constitutionality of it regardless of what sukie explains are the rules of it.

[35Pete]

Didn't Jefferson say that we needed a constitutional convention every 20 years? Maybe provisions would have been added over the long term.

That's the rationality?

[coastal]

I never said that.

I said that Medicare is unconstitutional.

Go back and read again. And stop putting words in my mouth. I was questioning the constitutionality of it regardless of what sukie explains are the rules of it.

Fair enough then Pete.

I think it's a total waste of time to argue the constitutionality of Medicare.

Have fun.

[35Pete]

Fair enough then Pete.

I think it's a total waste of time to argue the constitutionality of Medicare.

Have fun.

Don't worry. I'm working to get it overturned. Typing my brief to the court in Word right now.

"To the Honorable Bunch of Numbnuts On The Court....."

nah......

"Dear Caesars"......Nope....

I'll work on it..