Research at American university is very heavily subsidized by the Federal government.
Your statement about lowering drug prices through negotiations so that Americans are no longer subsidizing their cost in Europe (yes boys and girls, your American government is providing socialism for Europe and the traditional Christmas lump of coal for Americans), is a complete oxymoron and, to my knowledge, has zero basis in fact. How do you possibly conclude that lower drug prices would eventually mean more deaths (or, I should say, shorter lifetimes, since everyone dies sooner or later). I can't wait to hear the explanation behind your claim and some real evidence to support it. Otherwise, it will just be another in a long list of lies and distortions promoted by the right in a desperate effort to kill a program that, like its predecessor Social Security and Medicare programs, will eventually become extremely popular with the vast majority of Americans. Social Security and Medicare both had very significant roll out problems, as did the Bush Medicare Part D program. I'm sorry to inform the skeptics and those hoping for failure, that the three previous programs overcame the roll out programs and have been very successful. Ask any senior if they prefer Medicare to the private insurance they had before they turned 65 and you will understand why the right wing is so desperate now. A few of them have basically admitted that, if given a chance to succeed, ACA will never be repealed because Americans will like it. That should tell you a lot. The right knows the program will work eventually and be popular and they seem to be paranoid about the possibility that another good government program will be credited to Democrats and people will remember how Republicans and Tea Party people fought it. And the worst thing for many of them is that ACA was not just passed by Democrats (even though much of ACA is basically a Republican idea), but that the law was signed by a black President. Remember what they all said in January, 2009: The goal of the Republicans is to make Obama (and, by inference, a black person) fail, regardless of whether that makes America fail or not. The hostility was there on day one and has only intensified. There was never a notion of 'he won the election and he is entitled to some of his program'. In contrast, despite the bad feelings left over after the 2000 election and Supreme Court ruling, Bush was given much leeway in his programs. There was no filibuster of a questionable no-child-left-behind program, no blocking two big tax cuts when many wanted to use the budget excess to pay down the debt rather than give more money to the rich, and there was little opposition to the Bush foreign policy until it became obvious that something fishy had happened with respect to our decision to carry out an unprovoked attack on Iraq. So don't start with that 'the left did the same to Bush' nonsense, because it simply isn't true. Democrats allowed Bush to govern; Republicans have done everything possible to prevent Obama from governing, mostly through a completely abusive use of the filibuster. The number of filibusters during the Obama administration is greater than all of the filibusters in the entire history of the United States and many have been carried out in order to prevent staffing of various government agencies. Very little of that ever happened when Bush was President. It is just another sign that Republicans have no respect for the constitution, no respect for the vote of the majority, and just stay lost in their own little world of anger and hatred with no ideas on how to move America forward, other than repeal, repeal, repeal. (Remember how they used to talk about replace?? Wonder what ever happened there. Probably just a lot of bluster since Republicans continue to offer nothing. I count you among them.)
↧