Presidential candidates...

Started by mbishop
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
mbishop

mbishop

Texas Tech 2010
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I was trying to decipher the "issues" pages of various candidates, so I figured I'd ask if anyone else had already done it (that way I can go study cardio).

Which one of the new presidential candidates from each party screws pharmacists the least?

(please do not devolve this question into a political party flame fest, ty)
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Hillary wants socialized health care. That should be enough of a reason not to vote for her. Pharmacies are barely making it with the Medicare part D profits, so just imagine if everyone had some sort of subsidized prescription coverage. Our asses would be taxed like crazy just to fund the programs, while we wouldn't be able to make a decent living, because there are no profits with a government willing to force lower bids/profits.
 
PharmDstudent said:
Hillary wants socialized health care. That should be enough of a reason not to vote for her. Pharmacies are barely making it with the Medicare part D profits, so just imagine if everyone had some sort of subsidized prescription coverage. Our asses would be taxed like crazy just to fund the programs, while we wouldn't be able to make a decent living, because there are no profits with a government willing to force lower bids/profits.
Click to expand...

That is just plain false.....

The answer is none are really good for pharmacists. Look at what Bush did. He gave us low paying and slow paying Medicare Part D and AMP. When politicians need money, they get it from the weakest source. Drugs companies are harder to screw, so the pharmacists get in the ___.

I really can't decide what is worse. A government funded plan or unregulated private plans. They are both bad. The only real solution is to make it cash n carry and mandate everyone have catastrophic coverage. Since people have no investment in controlling costs there is a great deal of waste built into our system. I want the BRAND, I PAY for this insurance. I want that test no matter what it costs...... There is a disconnect between the patient and the cost. If I get a prescription for a $50.00 copay, 99.9999% of the time the first question is "What's the price without insurance." They expect the answer is less than $50.00. When they find out the price is $427.00, they are a little more appreciative.

Just some rantings. Don't believe the C.W. on anything. Read multiple sources before you come to any conclusion.
 
Old Timer said:
That is just plain false.....

The answer is none are really good for pharmacists. Look at what Bush did. He gave us low paying and slow paying Medicare Part D and AMP. When politicians need money, they get it from the weakest source. Drugs companies are harder to screw, so the pharmacists get in the ___.

I really can't decide what is worse. A government funded plan or unregulated private plans. They are both bad. The only real solution is to make it cash n carry and mandate everyone have catastrophic coverage. Since people have no investment in controlling costs there is a great deal of waste built into our system. I want the BRAND, I PAY for this insurance. I want that test no matter what it costs...... There is a disconnect between the patient and the cost. If I get a prescription for a $50.00 copay, 99.9999% of the time the first question is "What's the price without insurance." They expect the answer is less than $50.00. When they find out the price is $427.00, they are a little more appreciative.

Just some rantings. Don't believe the C.W. on anything. Read multiple sources before you come to any conclusion.
Click to expand...
wow...something we can not only agree on...but agree 100%! Reading multiple sources is a must before any conclusion. One of my favorite websites is www.factcheck.org

It's amazing the amount of ____ drug companies and insurance companies get away with. The slow paying insurance companies are much worse than the low paying ones...you never ever know when a payment is going to come in and the only reason why it's done is so the insurance company can float money to make interest off of it's capital. It sucks...

Also, to the previous responder...the question was who is going to screw the pharmacist...not everybody in general.
 
Old Timer said:
There is a disconnect between the patient and the cost. If I get a prescription for a $50.00 copay, 99.9999% of the time the first question is "What's the price without insurance." They expect the answer is less than $50.00. When they find out the price is $427.00, they are a little more appreciative.
Click to expand...

A-freakin'-men. And people don't value inexpensive things either "my water pill is only $5 must not be that powerful." People have no concept of the full-price of services.
 
Old Timer said:
That is just plain false.....

The answer is none are really good for pharmacists. Look at what Bush did. He gave us low paying and slow paying Medicare Part D and AMP. When politicians need money, they get it from the weakest source. Drugs companies are harder to screw, so the pharmacists get in the ___.

I really can't decide what is worse. A government funded plan or unregulated private plans. They are both bad. The only real solution is to make it cash n carry and mandate everyone have catastrophic coverage.

Just some rantings. Don't believe the C.W. on anything. Read multiple sources before you come to any conclusion.
Click to expand...

What's so false about what I said? You've actually confirmed my post. I've seen this from you before. It seems a little flaky.
 
PharmDstudent said:
What's so false about what I said? You've actually confirmed my post. I've seen this from you before. It seems a little flaky.
Click to expand...

I did not confirm what you said. The present Hillary Clinton plan is almost 100% identical to what Mit Romney did as governor. The basic gist:

  • Everyone is required to have health insurance. (Private not government) Just like most states require people to have auto insurance.
  • Poor people will get a break paying for it in the way of deductions or credits.
Socialized medicine is where there is a single government payer who controls access to health care. There is no present candidate who is proposing socialized medicine. If you worry about paying for health care via taxes, be aware somebody is already paying for the uninsured. You are directly via higher premiums or lower benefits and salary increases as uninsured get care.

I have been in health care for a long time and I have seen a great deal of change and most of that is for the worse. Don't throw around code words like socialized medicine to demonize a proposal. If you think her plan is bad for you or for the country say why and be specific.
 
Old Timer said:
I have been in health care for a long time and I have seen a great deal of change and most of that is for the worse. Don't throw around code words like socialized medicine to demonize a proposal. If you think her plan is bad for you or for the country say why and be specific.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to run in circles with you.
 
PharmDstudent said:
I'm not going to run in circles with you.
Click to expand...

It's not about running in circles. It's about presenting an effective, evidence-based argument. No one in this forum has done it yet, and I don't have the time to do it either. Maybe for $80,000 a year and team of fellow investigators, I could work on one.

I don't know about Clinton's healthcare plan. I haven't read it. I hope to get to it before the election in 13 months (although trusting that a Clinton will follow through on a campaign promise didn't pay off ever). Nevertheless, I look forward to learning more. I suspect it doesn't go far enough - with Clinton being so gun-shy and all. That's the weakness in a two-party system.

Ooh, politics gets so convoluted, doesn't it? That's why healthcare should be a "right" - not a political issue.
 
Ron Paul is the only answer. MD who knows the government has too much control. Too bad he won't win. I think my vote will be for Fred Thompson if Dr. Paul can't make it.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I don't imagine any candidate will be pro-Pharmacy. How this will affect retail pharmacy I do not know. What I do know is that there will be more cost cutting initiatives that will impact pharmacy practice, especially retail. And retail pharmacy still is revenue and profit driven.

Inpatient pharmacy is different. It is no longer driven by revenue. No longer do we consider hospital pharmacy as a revenue generating department. Instead, it's a cost of doing business.

Hence, pharmacist who can impact the bottme line by providing cost effective pharmaceutical care will always be valued highly.

I'm looking for them.
 
Hilary wants to grant amnesty to 20 million illegals and than follow that up by giving them all free health care. Yeah, I will vote for her !! Ron Paul is the only guy I would ever consider voting for. I am done with "celebrity politicians". If Ron Paul does not win the primaries than I will put him down as a write in candidate. I could never vote for Hilary or Guiliani, NEVER in a million years. If the media gets what they want and Hilary is in office I am seriously going to consider moving out of the United States.
 
Perhaps Fred Thompson is the best candidate out there...at least he is honest

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/freds_facts_check_out_rudys_dont.html

oh yeah, and Ron Paul is a *****. It would be great if we could just be isolationists and not give a damn what happens outside of our borders, but fact is we need to and have to give a damn about what's going on in the world. If not, history of the 1930's will repeat itself. (remember how WWII started and how it could of been easily prevented...)
 
I'm not sure you understand what Ron Paul's stance is on foreign policy. He believes that America should not be forcing democracy on everyone. However, we should have free trade with all countries and secure our national security at home.

He seems like the only candidate that will actually change things and doesn't go along with his party. Dems and Repubs are all the same. They get to the same point, just go in different directions to get there.
 
I really am starting to dislike Paul the most. Not really because of his ideas or anything like that, mostly because he presents himself as an enlightened individual with ideas that would work. Don't get me wrong, they are all idiots....but that also means he's just another idiot that doesn't want to actually do anything that would cause positive change. The rest of them are just run-of-the-mill politicians with status quo idiotic ideas. I have a feeling Paul's idiotic ideas would screw everything up in trailblazing new ways without fixing the other common problems whereas said status quo idiots would only screw **** up within their limited scope of old idiotic ideas.

That Paul cracks me up though. I'd like to actually debate the presidential candidates myself about economics. They are all so lost about realities that it isn't funny. Isn't it kind of hypocritical to play the game of fiat currency feudalism with third world labor (aka "free trade") and simultaneously go around blathering about how great democracy is? I really don't think there IS a mind in the US that could actually have the testicular fortitude and actually know what they are doing to the point of being a good president.

So, anyway, it really doesn't matter who you vote for. They are all idiots. I say vote for the weakest candidate. That way they will be unable to make changes due to lack of conniving opportunism that many of our past presidents have been able to.
 
Though I don't agree with all of Dr. Paul's views, he's refreshing to hear than the average run of the mill politician who'll simply spout what's popular, but then keep the status quo once in office.

btw, politics has a way of bringing the worst in people. Too many intelligent people turn into irrational nutcases when talking politics...just my observation (not to anyone in specific).
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
What a surprise we're off topic..... The OP was about which candidate would be best for pharmacy, not who we want to entrust our Foreign Policy to.....
 
Some of Ron Paul's views on health care, from http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/

No govt. power to require vaccinations? That's not so great from a public health standpoint, though I see the concern. There might be a mind control vaccine one day, I guess.

And the part about supplements and vitamins is really weird. I'd want to hear more, but I don't like where it started...I bolded the part about the FDA because I'm not sure what he's talking about. Does Dr. Paul believe that "natural supplements" are safe just because they are "natural?" 🙄

He just seems a little whacked out to me.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in order to comply with standards dictated by supra-national organizations such as the UN‘s World Food Code (CODEX), NAFTA, and CAFTA, has been assuming greater control over nutrients, vitamins and natural health care providers to restrict your right to choose the manner in which you manage your health and nutritional needs.

I have been the national leader in preserving Health Freedom.

I have introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies.

I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.

I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements

I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.
Click to expand...
 
I can almost see some sense in some of the Libertarian stuff. I talk politic with a pharmacist at work who is constantly telling me "you're too smart to be a liberal". But for me it's about the social issues.

And I've told him, the Libertarian stance makes sense for a lot of things but may never get taken seriously because of the lunatic fringe associated with it. There are wackos on every political view but the backwoods Libertarians are beyond scary. I keep my horse in Southwestern NM. To hear those guys go on about terrorism and international politics is mind boggling. Nevermind that they live 3 hours from a WalMart, do they honestly think terrorism is a big worry?
 
I still say that you are an idiot if you are a liberal or a conservative. I could never understand why large groups of people would decide to groupthink their way to seemingly arbitrary stances on several separate issues. Why is it that so many people have the same stance on abortion, economics, states' rights, and foreign relations? What if a person thought abortion was horrible, the federal govt should have more power, they are an economic fascist, and they are reserved about going to war? Are they a liberal or a conservative?

It makes no sense to me. Maybe it's just the desire to be a part of a group.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
I still say that you are an idiot if you are a liberal or a conservative. I could never understand why large groups of people would decide to groupthink their way to seemingly arbitrary stances on several separate issues. Why is it that so many people have the same stance on abortion, economics, states' rights, and foreign relations? What if a person thought abortion was horrible, the federal govt should have more power, they are an economic fascist, and they are reserved about going to war? Are they a liberal or a conservative?

It makes no sense to me. Maybe it's just the desire to be a part of a group.
Click to expand...


Beautiful...it's like you just have to pick which side agrees with you the MOST.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
I still say that you are an idiot if you are a liberal or a conservative. I could never understand why large groups of people would decide to groupthink their way to seemingly arbitrary stances on several separate issues. Why is it that so many people have the same stance on abortion, economics, states' rights, and foreign relations? What if a person thought abortion was horrible, the federal govt should have more power, they are an economic fascist, and they are reserved about going to war? Are they a liberal or a conservative?

It makes no sense to me. Maybe it's just the desire to be a part of a group.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely not a clue as to what you are talking about. Being a liberal or a conservative or libertarian or a socialist is a philosophy. It is a way of looking at the world. They way you look at an issue determines how you feel we as a society should solve the problems we have. Not everyone fits neatly into the boxes you describe. In fact most people are neither liberal nor conservative, but middle of the road, a little to either side of center.

Those stances are not taken arbitrarily. They are taken based on a political philosophy. If you would like some detail on a specific issue, I would be glad to provide.

The problem is we only hear from the lunatic fringe on each extreme and we assume (wrongly) all _________________ feel that way.

Do you even know what a conservative and liberal are? Are you speaking about a Barry Goldwater conservative or a Ronald Regan Conservative?

You need to put a little more thought into what you are saying. People don't become conservatives or liberals to be part of a group, they take positions and then join groups or organizations that match their political opinions to express their views in the most forceful way.
 
Old Timer said:
You have absolutely not a clue as to what you are talking about. Being a liberal or a conservative or libertarian or a socialist is a philosophy. It is a way of looking at the world. They way you look at an issue determines how you feel we as a society should solve the problems we have. Not everyone fits neatly into the boxes you describe. In fact most people are neither liberal nor conservative, but middle of the road, a little to either side of center.

Those stances are not taken arbitrarily. They are taken based on a political philosophy. If you would like some detail on a specific issue, I would be glad to provide.

The problem is we only hear from the lunatic fringe on each extreme and we assume (wrongly) all _________________ feel that way.

Do you even know what a conservative and liberal are? Are you speaking about a Barry Goldwater conservative or a Ronald Regan Conservative?

You need to put a little more thought into what you are saying. People don't become conservatives or liberals to be part of a group, they take positions and then join groups or organizations that match their political opinions to express their views in the most forceful way.
Click to expand...

Don't step, playa. Fiat economics and the resultant international politics is my #2 interest behind philosophy. I can and will talk circles around you...but I don't want to out of respect to my elders....you've been warned.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
Don't step, playa. Fiat economics and the resultant international politics is my #2 interest behind philosophy. I can and will talk circles around you...but I don't want to out of respect to my elders....you've been warned.
Click to expand...

Talk some circles... Your post was unclear, at the minimum and foolish at the worst. I know of not one person who says I'll be a conservative so I can be with that group.
 
Boring, boring......😴😴😴

Bottomline to the OP....we will get screwed over by any political party because we are to small a group to matter. That and our worthless so called organzations who are supposed to back us.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
FYI for all you Hillary Haters:

Not that you can take a politician at their word, but yesterday she claimed one way she would address the shortage of PCP's in this country is by expanding the role of pharmacists. She then went on about how capable and bright you all are... blah, blah blah. Found it interesting.
 
Caverject said:
Perhaps Fred Thompson is the best candidate out there...at least he is honest

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/freds_facts_check_out_rudys_dont.html

oh yeah, and Ron Paul is a *****. It would be great if we could just be isolationists and not give a damn what happens outside of our borders, but fact is we need to and have to give a damn about what's going on in the world. If not, history of the 1930's will repeat itself. (remember how WWII started and how it could of been easily prevented...)
Click to expand...

But right now U.S. is starting the WWIII rather than preventing it. I remember one of my friend voted for George W Bush last time and his logic was "because atleast he does something"! but probabely he doesn't care WHAT he is doing, He is bombing, invading, killing, he doesn't care about health care and economy of the middle class... YES He is doing something and if continues doing that nothing will be remained from United States of America, becaue he wants NORTH AMERICAN UNION too.

Many people don't like Ron Paul because they want to believe in the lies other politician say and the fantasy world, which is good but not the reality. Wake up people. Anybody who likes honesty will like Ron Paul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Presidential Debate 2020
2 3
Replies
143
Views
8K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
quickpic007
Lowest and Highest Retail Wages, Bonuses, 2021-Experienced Candidates
Replies
19
Views
5K
RN2RPh
RN2RPh
A
These jobs are offering lucrative sign-on bonuses of up to $100,000 amid shortage of candidates
Replies
5
Views
6K
Dred Pirate
Dred Pirate
9
BCGP Fall 2018 Candidates
Replies
16
Views
6K
irfan_khan
I
Z
Prospective 2019-20 PGY1 candidates!
Replies
5
Views
3K
Seriously Serious
Seriously Serious