Obamacare website

[SavvySavage]

$634 million dollars and three years later healthcare.gov is a piece of crap.

For all the computer people here, if you were given almost a billion dollars to spend and three years what amazing website would you have made?

[bawang]

i would sympathize with you, but Obama is black.

[SavvySavage]

i would sympathize with you, but Obama is black.

Half black. His mother was white. A lot of people who want him to be the first black Presidebt always forget this fact.

[pazman]

Half black. His mother was white. A lot of people who want him to be the first black Presidebt always forget this fact.

Would he be able to use the bathroom of his choice in the 1950s?

[pazman]

$634 million dollars and three years later healthcare.gov is a piece of crap.

For all the computer people here, if you were given almost a billion dollars to spend and three years what amazing website would you have made?

I don't know. My cousin learned html from CodeAcademy last week. He made a website about his pet dog. He did it for free. I'll call up the President and see if he needs any help.

[SavvySavage]

Would he be able to use the bathroom of his choice in the 1950s?

I see your point but we aren't going by 1950's racist standards. We are going by today's standards where you can actually google his parents.

[SoCo KungFu]

I see your point but we aren't going by 1950's racist standards. We are going by today's standards where you can actually google his parents.

Ok, so then should I google one of the thousands of examples of idiots in just the past week saying or posting racist remarks to our only half black president?

As for the original point, I'm not super great with coding. But even in I were, I wouldn't be so naive to assume creating a gov't site is as simple as most private crap on the internet. Do you even have any idea how many hits even the most low level federal sites get from attempted hackers in just a single day? There were things done wrong in making the site. But to think that its just some easy thing to throw together, like many are stating, is asinine. Much like every **** and Sally that seem to think that just because they can find the milk coupon in the Sunday, that they are qualified to weigh in on matters of global economy.

[Syn7]

You know your **** is weak when you have to attack the website rather than the bill itself. Still waiting to hear a republican offer up a better idea. Apparently the Heritage Foundation creation isn't "conservative" enough. What a sad joke. Anyone who thought such a monumental change in policy ever had a chance of a smooth transition is a moron anyways. Most of these guys know that, they're just being opportunists. I have a lot of criticism for Obama, but the ACA isn't one of them. At least not the way it's being attacked from the right. My real issue with the ACA is that it doesn't go far enough. At the very least it should have had a public option. Obama can blame himself for that one though, he compromised when he didn't have to with some ****ed up expectation of getting some bipartisan love from the other end. The GOP are like your loser uncle. Give an inch, they want a yard. Give a yard, they want a mile. It's an old tactic. Drag the center to your side and criticise everyone and everything so much that it starts to seem reasonable to those who have short memories.

[Raipizo]

Good in theory not so much in practice, especially if they have you submitting private info via the website due to hackers it's liable to get that private info. Not sure what other way they could have carried this over, maybe a phone number or something and obviously everyone wants to be covered with health insurance.

[Syn7]

You would have a point if your info wasn't already already available to those with the skills to hack a gov site and get away with it. Yeah, it can happen. But it can also happen at your bank, the DMV, whatever. And it does happen. It is what it is. We are in a transitional phase as we head down the digital road and it will be a few generations before we really land on our feet in this. We are on unprecedented technological frontiers as far as the speed of advancement is concerned. Like Obamacare, except on a WAY bigger scale, this transition will not and is not starting off smoothly. Nature of the beast. You can't stop it. If people don't like it, they can go live a subsistence lifestyle and see how that goes. The genie is outta the bottle on this one.


What you guys really need is medicare for everyone. Period. It's doable, many nations have been doing it for awhile now and the quality of care is good and access remains pretty good too. Don't believe all the tards who say it's not working. I live it, and it's better than what I went through living in Cali. By far.

[wenshu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLkF0-8t60c

[SavvySavage]

Finally there is some good news about obamacare.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4384820?utm_hp_ref=business&ncid=mobile3

[SavvySavage]

You know your **** is weak when you have to attack the website rather than the bill itself. Still waiting to hear a republican offer up a better idea. Apparently the Heritage Foundation creation isn't "conservative" enough. What a sad joke. Anyone who thought such a monumental change in policy ever had a chance of a smooth transition is a moron anyways. Most of these guys know that, they're just being opportunists. I have a lot of criticism for Obama, but the ACA isn't one of them. At least not the way it's being attacked from the right. My real issue with the ACA is that it doesn't go far enough. At the very least it should have had a public option. Obama can blame himself for that one though, he compromised when he didn't have to with some ****ed up expectation of getting some bipartisan love from the other end. The GOP are like your loser uncle. Give an inch, they want a yard. Give a yard, they want a mile. It's an old tactic. Drag the center to your side and criticise everyone and everything so much that it starts to seem reasonable to those who have short memories.

What's more important: food or healthcare?

There are so many people that don't have access to quality food on a daily basis. Since we all need quality food why didn't they pass an "Everybody gets quality free food bill"?

We would have less obesity, less hypertension, and on and on. If I'm starving I don't need healthcare.

The point is that there are lots of pressing problems but Obama used his political power on this. Good thing he signed an executive order to close Gitmo. I'll bring the family to see it as a tourist attraction...oh wait it's still open.

[Syn7]

What's more important: food or healthcare?

There are so many people that don't have access to quality food on a daily basis. Since we all need quality food why didn't they pass an "Everybody gets quality free food bill"?

We would have less obesity, less hypertension, and on and on. If I'm starving I don't need healthcare.

The point is that there are lots of pressing problems but Obama used his political power on this. Good thing he signed an executive order to close Gitmo. I'll bring the family to see it as a tourist attraction...oh wait it's still open.

You guys didn't pass an "everybody gets free health care" bill, so that's kinda moot. And for the record, your food supply prices ARE kept artificially low. Same with fuel and a million other things. Check oil prices in countries who don't do that, not counting the major producers. You really wanna go down this path? Cause I got a lot more.

Sure, you can criticise Obama on a ton of things. The man was a constitutional law professor. I mean... really. Don't get me started. But as far as the ACA goes, it's way better than what was(wasn't) there before. Still a piece of ****, but not because of what the right is saying. And it is progress none the less. Better than nothing. It helps close some avenues that were being used to take advantage of people, so that's good.

I'm interested in what would be a better idea that doesn't involve a single payer system?

[mawali]

You guys didn't pass an "everybody gets free health care" bill, so that's kinda moot. And for the record, your food supply prices ARE kept artificially low. Same with fuel and a million other things. Check oil prices in countries who don't do that, not counting the major producers. You really wanna go down this path? Cause I got a lot more.

Sure, you can criticise Obama on a ton of things. The man was a constitutional law professor. I mean... really. Don't get me started. But as far as the ACA goes, it's way better than what was(wasn't) there before. Still a piece of ****, but not because of what the right is saying. And it is progress none the less. Better than nothing. It helps close some avenues that were being used to take advantage of people, so that's good.

I'm interested in what would be a better idea that doesn't involve a single payer system?

There are natural born citizens who do not want to see other natural born citizens get access to Stuff. Those same natural born citizens fall into certain categories and they are as follows:
1. They feel they have a right to low cost healthcare just because!!!!!!
2. When insurance companies started to drop policyholders because of 'substandard policies' those same people (who were against ACA) refused to get that extra coverage for their own loved ones as they appeared that they preferered to be bankrupt instead of taking care of their brethren. They felt that their priviledge was being tramped upon:confused: Instead of blaming the insurance companies, they blame POTUS. I say if those people want to take care of their loved ones, return the guns and ammunition and the AKs and they will definitely be able to afford healthcare for the family for at least 5 years Here's the math 2 x 2 AR-15s + x boxes of ammunition + 2x X AK's + ammunition + range time x 5 years +? Of course, if every member has an AR15 then it might approach 10 years for health care coverage. I jest but you see my point.

[SoCo KungFu]

You know your **** is weak when you have to attack the website rather than the bill itself. Still waiting to hear a republican offer up a better idea. Apparently the Heritage Foundation creation isn't "conservative" enough. What a sad joke. Anyone who thought such a monumental change in policy ever had a chance of a smooth transition is a moron anyways. Most of these guys know that, they're just being opportunists. I have a lot of criticism for Obama, but the ACA isn't one of them. At least not the way it's being attacked from the right. My real issue with the ACA is that it doesn't go far enough. At the very least it should have had a public option. Obama can blame himself for that one though, he compromised when he didn't have to with some ****ed up expectation of getting some bipartisan love from the other end. The GOP are like your loser uncle. Give an inch, they want a yard. Give a yard, they want a mile. It's an old tactic. Drag the center to your side and criticise everyone and everything so much that it starts to seem reasonable to those who have short memories.

Basically. You know, there are some things that make me so glad to be out of the south. If only president drone strike stuck to his gun about single payer. The rest of the civilized world seems to be a pretty good stress test. But then, when the average American can't seem to place the states on a map, I have little faith they know anything about the going on's outside the borders of their immediate 2-3 city blocks.

[Syn7]

Heard Allen West encapsulate the alternatives several days ago:

1) Interstate portability
2) Tort reform and liability caps
3) Tax exempt medical savings accounts
4) Medical vouchering

Interstate portability alone would make premiums go down a lot because a person could tailor a plan from different insurance companies. I have also heard other politicians offer these four counts as alternatives. Of course, some people might not consider these valid alternatives and consider a single payer system as the only valid alternative. When I was in practice in 92-93 I also argued these alternatives to the health care act being lobbied at that time. So these ideas are not new. There are many private sector, free market solutions available. It just depends on what a person believes and wants.

Yeah but then you end up with privates in some states who have ****ty laws selling cheap ****ty plans like what the ACA is trying to get rid of. At least before you had to buy within your state. You really think doing that will not affect the quality of care? Sure it will get cheaper, cause millions will be paying into something that offers little to no return when it's needed. Kinda makes the mandate pointless, doncha think? This helps how? Does anyone believe that deregulation will all the sudden fix everything and give corporations a conscience to boot? Look how far they go now, with the regulations. You don't think they won't sacrifice anything for more profit? Corporate personhood is bad enough. You realise that psychopathy is much more common in high level corporate positions than in the regular work force right? Imagine how much money one could make if they just don't give a ****. I'm all for capitalism, but I also agree with certain regulations. I also don't think capitalism or regulations are a cure all.

[Syn7]

Basically. You know, there are some things that make me so glad to be out of the south. If only president drone strike stuck to his gun about single payer. The rest of the civilized world seems to be a pretty good stress test. But then, when the average American can't seem to place the states on a map, I have little faith they know anything about the going on's outside the borders of their immediate 2-3 city blocks.

I still have trouble wrapping my head around why he would take that option out of the bill when he had both houses? I guess the question is this: Did he actually believe that an unforced compromise would be appreciated in some naive effort to actually deliver hope and change to all? Or does he himself not believe in the public option? Or was it a compromise with donors? Or what?

And now he's making more changes which could potentially be grounds to send it back to SCOTUS? WTF is going on? It's like a complete win made them so uncomfortable they started giving away the house.

[SavvySavage]

Yeah but then you end up with privates in some states who have ****ty laws selling cheap ****ty plans like what the ACA is trying to get rid of. At least before you had to buy within your state. You really think doing that will not affect the quality of care? Sure it will get cheaper, cause millions will be paying into something that offers little to no return when it's needed. Kinda makes the mandate pointless, doncha think? This helps how? Does anyone believe that deregulation will all the sudden fix everything and give corporations a conscience to boot? Look how far they go now, with the regulations. You don't think they won't sacrifice anything for more profit? Corporate personhood is bad enough. You realise that psychopathy is much more common in high level corporate positions than in the regular work force right? Imagine how much money one could make if they just don't give a ****. I'm all for capitalism, but I also agree with certain regulations. I also don't think capitalism or regulations are a cure all.

The plans you deemed "****ty" were liked by the people who had them. 5 million plans were cancelled since obamacare took over and guys show many people the website signed up? A confirmed 26,000 were able to get though the website and get coverage. Hmmm, what's bigger, 5 million loses or 26,000 gains?

[SavvySavage]

You would have a point if your info wasn't already already available to those with the skills to hack a gov site and get away with it. Yeah, it can happen. But it can also happen at your bank, the DMV, whatever. And it does happen. It is what it is. We are in a transitional phase as we head down the digital road and it will be a few generations before we really land on our feet in this. We are on unprecedented technological frontiers as far as the speed of advancement is concerned. Like Obamacare, except on a WAY bigger scale, this transition will not and is not starting off smoothly. Nature of the beast. You can't stop it. If people don't like it, they can go live a subsistence lifestyle and see how that goes. The genie is outta the bottle on this one.


What you guys really need is medicare for everyone. Period. It's doable, many nations have been doing it for awhile now and the quality of care is good and access remains pretty good too. Don't believe all the tards who say it's not working. I live it, and it's better than what I went through living in Cali. By far.

Banks provide their own online security and set up websites that work. Healthcare.gov is going to have hundreds of millions of people's info on it. It is like a gold mine of information except it's the only gold mine. The site isn't safe from hackers at all and we're all supposed to put our private information on it? You've got to be kidding.

[Syn7]

The plans you deemed "****ty" were liked by the people who had them. 5 million plans were cancelled since obamacare took over and guys show many people the website signed up? A confirmed 26,000 were able to get though the website and get coverage. Hmmm, what's bigger, 5 million loses or 26,000 gains?

Yeah, stupid people and super poor people who had no choice who will now be more adequately subsidized and on better plans. So you believe people should be able to be free to choose to not buy proper insurance that will ultimately cost the taxpayer money if there is a health issue then, yes? There is a balance between collective rights and individual rights, swing too far one way and you get a ton of crap in return.

Those numbers are ridiculous. If you don't understand how to put context on statistics, don't use them.

Just because 5 million people are subject to this, it does not mean all 5 million are super angry about it. The only evidence being tendered is anecdotal. Which basically means nothing. And it's more than 26,000, but putting that aside, it's just starting up in like the last week really. So you wanna put a super early running total against POSSIBLE dissatisfaction amongst a small percentage of the population? Man, you've never worked in anything that requires facts and peer review, have you? lol.


Banks provide their own online security and set up websites that work. Healthcare.gov is going to have hundreds of millions of people's info on it. It is like a gold mine of information except it's the only gold mine. The site isn't safe from hackers at all and we're all supposed to put our private information on it? You've got to be kidding.

Stop repeating talking points and take a look at what info is actually requested. And you really think banks don't get hacked on the regular all over the world? Come on now. The firms they hire to provide security are getting trolled like crazy all day every day. Like I said before, this is a transitional phase, and it's gonna be messy. With the ACA and with humanity's move into the digital world in general. Most people never even logged onto the net till the late 90's. Kids may think it's the norm, but those of us old enough to have used a rotary telephone should know better. This is all very new to the human experience. Are you aware of the problems that were caused by the wire, the telephone and other devices used for long distance communication? You should look into it, it's a fascinating history. Or you can just rail out right wing talking points, I guess.

[wenshu]

So these ideas are not new.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/10/the-rationale-for-a-statewide-health-insurance-exchange


There are many private sector, free market solutions available.

Kinda like purchasing insurance from a private insurance company through a marketplace. . .

[wenshu]

Thank you for posting this. In an interview given about a month ago, Paul Ryan talked about this regarding a bill he drafted, that got passed in the House, and is sitting on Harry Reid's desk along with many other bills, awaiting to be brought to the floor for a Senate vote.

I am impressed by the conviction of your ignorance.

[SoCo KungFu]

Banks provide their own online security and set up websites that work.

Baha bahahahahahahahahaha

Oh man that's gold. Beer nearly shot out my nose. I hope you don't use bank of america.

[SavvySavage]

Yeah, stupid people and super poor people who had no choice who will now be more adequately subsidized and on better plans. So you believe people should be able to be free to choose to not buy proper insurance that will ultimately cost the taxpayer money if there is a health issue then, yes? There is a balance between collective rights and individual rights, swing too far one way and you get a ton of crap in return.

Those numbers are ridiculous. If you don't understand how to put context on statistics, don't use them.

Just because 5 million people are subject to this, it does not mean all 5 million are super angry about it. The only evidence being tendered is anecdotal. Which basically means nothing. And it's more than 26,000, but putting that aside, it's just starting up in like the last week really. So you wanna put a super early running total against POSSIBLE dissatisfaction amongst a small percentage of the population? Man, you've never worked in anything that requires facts and peer review, have you? lol.



Stop repeating talking points and take a look at what info is actually requested. And you really think banks don't get hacked on the regular all over the world? Come on now. The firms they hire to provide security are getting trolled like crazy all day every day. Like I said before, this is a transitional phase, and it's gonna be messy. With the ACA and with humanity's move into the digital world in general. Most people never even logged onto the net till the late 90's. Kids may think it's the norm, but those of us old enough to have used a rotary telephone should know better. This is all very new to the human experience. Are you aware of the problems that were caused by the wire, the telephone and other devices used for long distance communication? You should look into it, it's a fascinating history. Or you can just rail out right wing talking points, I guess.


Your argument is that you know 100% that most of those 5 million people aren't angry? Really? Lol.

Honestly, we'll never know how many have actually signed up for Obama are because they keep puffing up the numbers.

You know how many banks there are? You know how many obamacare websites there are. ONE! And tub isn't safe from hackers. They know exactly where to go to get your information.

[Syn7]

Your argument is that you know 100% that most of those 5 million people aren't angry? Really? Lol.

Honestly, we'll never know how many have actually signed up for Obama are because they keep puffing up the numbers.

You know how many banks there are? You know how many obamacare websites there are. ONE! And tub isn't safe from hackers. They know exactly where to go to get your information.


Way to just gloss over my rebuttal. But ok.

Is that really what you get from my statement? That most of the 5 million won't be angry? I never said either way. All I did was caution against using useless stats and state that we don't know because we haven't asked all 5 million. Pardon my engineering brain, but we tend to shy away from unsubstantiated bull**** when making definitive statements.

My argument, in relation to your statistics, is that YOU don't know how many of the 5 million are angry and you don't know how many people will like or dislike the ACA in 5 years, 10 years, whatever. So saying 5 million vs 20 thousand is a bull**** statistic. Laughable if it wasn't so sad. My argument is that you shouldn't make these assumptions. My argument is based of long term data sets provided by pretty much every other western nation. My argument is based on reality, not ideology.

What's really scary is that I, a Canadian, seem to have a better handle on what the ACA really is. Whereas you, somebody who is actually affected, don't seem to really know much beyond the constantly repeated talking points.

Have you looked up what info is required to be given on the site yet? Or are you happy to just talk out of your ass for now?

If you really want to make this a real debate worthy of the topic, how bout we handle all these issues one at a time. Let's start with what info is required when signing up. I know the answer. Lemme know when you do. Once you do that, compile a list of where else such information is available. We can go from there. One by one, bit by bit. Jumping all over the place really doesn't serve any useful purpose. All it does is allow people to spout ideology w/o having to show and prove. Which basically makes the whole endeavour pointless and a complete waste of time.

[SavvySavage]

Way to just gloss over my rebuttal. But ok.

Is that really what you get from my statement? That most of the 5 million won't be angry? I never said either way. All I did was caution against using useless stats and state that we don't know because we haven't asked all 5 million. Pardon my engineering brain, but we tend to shy away from unsubstantiated bull**** when making definitive statements.

My argument, in relation to your statistics, is that YOU don't know how many of the 5 million are angry and you don't know how many people will like or dislike the ACA in 5 years, 10 years, whatever. So saying 5 million vs 20 thousand is a bull**** statistic. Laughable if it wasn't so sad. My argument is that you shouldn't make these assumptions. My argument is based of long term data sets provided by pretty much every other western nation. My argument is based on reality, not ideology.

What's really scary is that I, a Canadian, seem to have a better handle on what the ACA really is. Whereas you, somebody who is actually affected, don't seem to really know much beyond the constantly repeated talking points.

Have you looked up what info is required to be given on the site yet? Or are you happy to just talk out of your ass for now?

If you really want to make this a real debate worthy of the topic, how bout we handle all these issues one at a time. Let's start with what info is required when signing up. I know the answer. Lemme know when you do. Once you do that, compile a list of where else such information is available. We can go from there. One by one, bit by bit. Jumping all over the place really doesn't serve any useful purpose. All it does is allow people to spout ideology w/o having to show and prove. Which basically makes the whole endeavour pointless and a complete waste of time.





I like how you threw in the fact you're an engineer it try to make your opinion valid. My two friends are engineers but that doesn't make their opinions on healthcare more or less valid. Keep your Resume to yourself unless you somehow feel your words are inadequate without it. A woman on American Idol stalked about how she was friends with Mariah Carey and how her singing coach told her she sounds just like her. This was all right before Simon told her she couldn't sing. You can't sing either.



If you're in Canada why do you even care? Everyone's rates have to go up in order to subsidize the people who aren't covered. I'm not currently insured but I'm not worried because paying the $99 penalty is cheaper than buying insurance I don't currently need.

Not all Canadians share your opinion but I suspect you will trash this too.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59612

[wenshu]

I do not know what this means. Please explain it to me. Thank you.

You display such ignorance with such conviction.

[SoCo KungFu]

What's more important: food or healthcare?
False dichotomy. Try harder.


There are so many people that don't have access to quality food on a daily basis. Since we all need quality food why didn't they pass an "Everybody gets quality free food bill"?Plenty of programs for this already, retarded statement


We would have less obesity, less hypertension, and on and on. If I'm starving I don't need healthcare.
Progressives tried regulating food choice, fat ass republicans threw a tantrum (are you even really trying at this?)


The point is that there are lots of pressing problems but Obama used his political power on this. Good thing he signed an executive order to close Gitmo. I'll bring the family to see it as a tourist attraction...oh wait it's still open. You're right, and we who voted for him have decided that this is one we one him to work on. Don't like it? Stop putting idiots through the primaries that can't stay away from legislating vaginas and just maybe you might get your priorities attended to.

As for gitmo, you want them living next to you? Because that's the problem. They won't be taken back by their native countries. And we've turned them into animals through lock up. Do you want them living in your neighborhood? This has been the issue all along, so tell me, are you willing to ball up and accept that? If not, shut yer *****ing about gitmo.

[SoCo KungFu]

The plans you deemed "****ty" were liked by the people who had them. 5 million plans were cancelled since obamacare took over and guys show many people the website signed up? A confirmed 26,000 were able to get though the website and get coverage. Hmmm, what's bigger, 5 million loses or 26,000 gains?

They were ****ty, because they were inadequate for their purpose. That purpose is not only to cover that individual, but to support a system where slackasses without insurance (such as yourself, admittedly) don't screw over the rest of us that do. And you should probably avoid getting your stats from CBS, just sayin'

[Syn7]

I like how you threw in the fact you're an engineer it try to make your opinion valid. My two friends are engineers but that doesn't make their opinions on healthcare more or less valid. Keep your Resume to yourself unless you somehow feel your words are inadequate without it. A woman on American Idol stalked about how she was friends with Mariah Carey and how her singing coach told her she sounds just like her. This was all right before Simon told her she couldn't sing. You can't sing either.



If you're in Canada why do you even care? Everyone's rates have to go up in order to subsidize the people who aren't covered. I'm not currently insured but I'm not worried because paying the $99 penalty is cheaper than buying insurance I don't currently need.

Not all Canadians share your opinion but I suspect you will trash this too.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59612


Really? You're gonna post an Alan Caruba article? Trying to be objective, are we? lol

It's not a name drop or some attempt to sound smart. It's about a lack of standards I see within the public discourse. I'm just sayin... There are some objective facts here, we shouldn't gloss over these facts. Facts that cannot be denied with good reasoning. Facts that aren't subject to ideology. We should focus on those if we want to find the truth. To be honest, I think the ACA is garbage. I also think it's better than what was before it. Time will tell, I suppose. I also believe it will succeed in states that try to make it work and it will possibly fail in states that go out of there way to make sure it fails. And are we talking about the ACA or Obama as a whole? Are you capable of separating the two? You rant from one to the other and never really produce a coherent argument.

Rather than some moronic circular debate of prime time talking points, can't we break it down to specifics and argue those points? Why obfuscate the overall picture by avoiding the details? That's why I mentioned engineering at all. It's simple. You either deal with the minutiae or you run the risk running into a serious pickle. What is trivial to many is actually where the real substance is found.

Unless your friends allow ideology to cloud better judgement, then they too will call that statistic bull****. Why do you keep dancing around this with more anecdotal evidence?

And yeah, you don't need the insurance. Till you do. Meanwhile any trip to the ER will cost everyone more than it has to. And that's not to say insurance is the only reason for that, but it's a big part none the less. And what's so horrible about lifting the standard of living up for everyone? The ACA addresses far more than just insurance. I'd say learn what it really is, but.... I know I know, 1200 pages bluh bluh bluh. It's a freakin health care bill, what do you want? The coles notes?

Why do I care? A couple reasons. First, I find the whole dichotomy fascinating. Second, this crap is spilling over into our backyard. And our backyard is dirty enough. Our economies are connected. We feel your pain. And having a significantly smaller population, we feel your pain more than you feel ours. So yeah, I like to know what's going on.

[Syn7]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/business/glaxo-says-it-will-stop-paying-doctors-to-promote-drugs.html?_r=0

Glaxo Says It Will Stop Paying Doctors to Promote Drugs

The British drug maker GlaxoSmithKline will no longer pay doctors to promote its products and will stop tying compensation of sales representatives to the number of prescriptions doctors write, its chief executive said Monday, effectively ending two common industry practices that critics have long assailed as troublesome conflicts of interest.

The announcement appears to be a first for a major drug company — although others may be considering similar moves — and it comes at a particularly sensitive time for Glaxo. It is the subject of a bribery investigation in China, where authorities contend the company funneled illegal payments to doctors and government officials in an effort to lift drug sales.

Andrew Witty, Glaxo’s chief executive, said in a telephone interview Monday that its proposed changes were unrelated to the investigation in China, and were part of a yearslong effort “to try and make sure we stay in step with how the world is changing,” he said. “We keep asking ourselves, are there different ways, more effective ways of operating than perhaps the ways we as an industry have been operating over the last 30, 40 years?”

For decades, pharmaceutical companies have paid doctors to speak on their behalf at conferences and other meetings of medical professionals, on the assumption that the doctors are most likely to value the advice of trusted peers.

But the practice has also been criticized by those who question whether it unduly influences the information doctors give each other and can lead them to prescribe drugs inappropriately to patients. All such payments by pharmaceutical companies are to be made public next year under requirements of the Obama administration’s health care law.

Under the plan, which Glaxo said would be completed worldwide by 2016, the company will no longer pay health care professionals to speak on its behalf about its products or the diseases they treat “to audiences who can prescribe or influence prescribing,” it said in a statement. It will also stop providing financial support directly to doctors to attend medical conferences, a practice that is prohibited in the United States through an industry-imposed ethics code but that still occurs in other countries. In China, the authorities have said Glaxo compensated doctors for travel to conferences and lectures that never took place.

Mr. Witty declined to comment on the investigation because he said it was still underway.

Glaxo will continue to pay doctors consulting fees for market research because Mr. Witty said it was necessary for the company to gain insight from doctors about their products, but he said that activity would be limited in scope. A Glaxo spokesman said that each year the company spends “tens of millions” of dollars globally on the practices that it was ending, but declined to be more specific.

Glaxo is among the largest drug companies in the world, reporting global third-quarter sales of 6.51 billion pounds, or $10.1 billion, a 1 percent rise from the same period a year ago. Sales fell markedly in China as the investigation proceeded.

The move won qualified praise from Dr. Jerry Avorn, a professor at Harvard Medical School who has written critically about the industry’s marketing practices.

“It’s a modest acknowledgment of the fact that learning from a doctor who is paid by a drug company to give a talk about its products isn’t the best way for doctors to learn about those products,” Dr. Avorn said. But he noted that Glaxo would continue to provide what the company described in a statement as “unsolicited, independent educational grants” to continue educating doctors about their products.

He said that in the past the grants had often been provided to for-profit companies that rely on such payments from drug companies, raising questions about whether they were providing truly independent information.

Mr. Witty said while the details were still being worked out, the company intended to provide such grants to respected educational institutions and medical societies. “I’d like to look for those sorts of partners, and I do not envision these partners being companies or pseudocompanies,” he said.

Glaxo is first among its peers to announce a plan to end paid-speaker programs, but it is not the only one considering such a move, said Pratap Khedkar, who oversees the pharmaceutical practice at ZS Associates, a global sales and marketing firm.

He said a handful of drug makers were weighing similar actions for several reasons, including concerns about the reaction to the required disclosure of such payments that will begin next fall under a provision of the health care law. Glaxo and several other major companies already report many such payments, but Mr. Khedkar said the new requirements may go ****her than what some companies are reporting, and will be accessible on a searchable government website.

Previously, “It wasn’t really made public in some big, splashy way,” he said.

Jeff Francer, vice president and senior counsel at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry trade group, said many other companies were looking for ways to better reach increasingly busy doctors — who may not have time to travel to a conference in the first place — and Glaxo’s actions represent just one example.

“Of course all of our companies are looking for ways in which they can refine their relationship with physicians to make sure they’re making the best use of physicians’ time,” he said.

Beginning in 2015, Glaxo will also no longer compensate sales representatives based on the number of prescriptions doctors write, a standard practice that some have said pushed pharmaceutical sales officials to inappropriately promote drugs to doctors. In 2012, Glaxo paid a record $3 billion in fines to resolve charges that it had marketed drugs for unapproved uses. It is one of several major companies to have settled such cases in recent years.

Glaxo said its sales representatives worldwide would instead be paid based on their technical knowledge, the quality of service they provided to clients to improve patient care, and the company’s business performance. The company made such changes in the United States in 2011 — and is required to continue the new program under a corporate integrity agreement with the Justice Department — but will now extend the practices to its global business.

Mr. Khedkar said some other companies were also experimenting with ways to compensate sales representatives, but they must tread carefully.

“You remove the incentive to do anything inappropriate, but you also remove the incentive to do what is appropriate, which is to promote the on-label use of your product,” he said.

Mr. Witty said the experience in the United States had been positive and had improved relationships with doctors and medical institutions.

Dr. Raed Dweik, the new chairman of the innovation management and conflict of interest committee at the Cleveland Clinic, said he hoped other companies would follow suit.

“As a physician, I periodically meet with these sales reps and they usually come in armed with information about me that I don’t even know,” he said, like the number of prescriptions he writes for the drug company’s product. “I feel that’s not really a comfortable interaction to have.”

-------------------------------------------------


So I guess this will first be implemented in places where disclosure is either law, or will soon become law?

[Kellen Bassette]

As for gitmo, you want them living next to you? Because that's the problem. They won't be taken back by their native countries. And we've turned them into animals through lock up. Do you want them living in your neighborhood? This has been the issue all along, so tell me, are you willing to ball up and accept that? If not, shut yer *****ing about gitmo.

Yes. Put them here in our prisons. Anyone who is worried about them escaping is retarded. That has never been the issue. Incarcerating POWs in foreign countries is nothing more than circumventing our own laws and judicial processes. It's also bull crap to coerce or bribe a third party country into the mess.

There is nothing to fear from a proper trial our putting them into American prisons.

[Syn7]

The problem is that like 80 detainees are cleared to leave. Free to go. But because of the hospitality, the fear is that if they weren't enemies before, they are now. I think they should shut it down, move them all over for proper trial, and if people who wish to do harm are released, so be it. Learn from it. Take the medicine, man the **** up and do what's right. It's ridiculous to walk around spouting off lines from the constitution, talking about freedom, then doing stuff like this. It's counterproductive and it's straight up wrong. I have no issue with leaving terrorists in a deep dark hole, but there needs to be a legit process that everyone can get behind. As far as where to send the detainees who are let go, send em back where you got em. If the host country has a problem with that, too bad. You think Yemen is gonna give up their cushy position over this? They will ***** and whine, but they'll get over it. If not, **** em.

[SoCo KungFu]

Yes. Put them here in our prisons. Anyone who is worried about them escaping is retarded. That has never been the issue. Incarcerating POWs in foreign countries is nothing more than circumventing our own laws and judicial processes. It's also bull crap to coerce or bribe a third party country into the mess.

There is nothing to fear from a proper trial our putting them into American prisons.

What makes you think they would all be going into a prison? Its not the guilty ones that are the issue. Its those innocent ones we abducted from a country because they were simply associated with someone suspicious.

[SoCo KungFu]

The problem is that like 80 detainees are cleared to leave. Free to go. But because of the hospitality, the fear is that if they weren't enemies before, they are now. I think they should shut it down, move them all over for proper trial, and if people who wish to do harm are released, so be it. Learn from it. Take the medicine, man the **** up and do what's right. It's ridiculous to walk around spouting off lines from the constitution, talking about freedom, then doing stuff like this. It's counterproductive and it's straight up wrong. I have no issue with leaving terrorists in a deep dark hole, but there needs to be a legit process that everyone can get behind. As far as where to send the detainees who are let go, send em back where you got em. If the host country has a problem with that, too bad. You think Yemen is gonna give up their cushy position over this? They will ***** and whine, but they'll get over it. If not, **** em.

Its not just about getting their nation to take them back. This isn't about those that are terrorists. This is about the ones that were innocent before. What's more humane? Locking them up or sending them back to a country where they will almost certainly be executed by the locals that are terrorists? This is the argument some are having who aren't willing to ball up and accept responsibility. The correct answer, we abducted them from their own home. A home they no longer have. The only moral resolution is to give them a life on US soil. And the consequences of that, they will be what they will be. But democrats won't make the move because it'd be political suicide. And republicans won't because, they're republicans and have no shred of moral accountability.

[Syn7]

Maybe, but that will never happen. Also, I think it's likely that a good chunk of those cleared were not friends in the first place. Having them reside on US soil, with all the cost that will go into watching them forever, simply isn't gonna happen. All the options suck. From what I can tell the best of the ****ty options is to send em off with a care package. Obviously I have never spoken to a gitmo detainee, but I have to imagine they would rather be anywhere than where they are. If it was me, I would rather go home and take my chances. It's basically either prison or that. What other realistic and actually doable option is there?

And obviously renditioning people like they have needs to stop. I'm not saying they should never do it, but they need to tighten up their ****.

[Kellen Bassette]

there needs to be a legit process that everyone can get behind.

That's the heart of the matter. They want two sets of rules, our Constitution; AND an "anything goes" CIA/military way of doing things. The only reason to do it in Cuba is to keep it out of sight, out of mind; and avoid as much of our own laws as possible.

[Kellen Bassette]

What makes you think they would all be going into a prison? Its not the guilty ones that are the issue. Its those innocent ones we abducted from a country because they were simply associated with someone suspicious.

I completely agree. Keeping them in Gitmo avoids dealing with legit trials. When you kidnap a bunch of tourists and lock them up for 8 years, it's a whole lot easier to ignore in a foreign country than here at home.

Your right about the Republicans having no morals, but neither do the Democrats. If the did, they would have closed it down instead of taking a more politically expedient path. Is there that much difference in doing the wrong thing because your evil or doing the wrong thing because it benefits you?