One drug — Makena — offers window into madness of health-care politics

If you want to understand why restraining the growth of medical costs is so difficult — and why the politics of it are so sticky — the story of a relatively new brand-name drug called Makena is a great place to start.

Marketed by K-V Pharmaceuticals, Makena helps to prevent premature births in at-risk pregnancies, allowing the fetus time to grow and develop and avoid many of the health complications from being born too early. But at somewhere between $300 and $690 a shot, and with 20 shots needed over the course of a full pregnancy, Makena is far from cheap. (K-V Pharmaceuticals originally tried to charge $1,500 a shot for the drug, but backed down after public outrage.)

There’s no legitimate reason that Makena should be so costly. In fact, the drug is virtually identical to a well-known compound of drugs that has long been available through many pharmacies at just $20 a shot. That compound, 17P, has been used safely and effectively for years to ward off premature birth, just as Makena is supposed to do.

What happened is this: K-V Pharmaceutical first used existing law and FDA regulations to have 17P declared an orphan drug, meaning no company was producing it under a name brand. It then claimed exclusive right to manufacture and market the drug, allowing it to jack up the pricetag to astronomical heights.

That in itself represents a serious problem, but it gets worse.

Here in Georgia, the state Department of Community Health sensibly refused to put Makena on its list of drugs covered by Medicaid. Noting that an almost identical, safe, effective and much cheaper alternative is already available, DCH refused to force taxpayers to cover the exorbitant additional cost of Makena. And Georgia was not alone. In an attempt to protect their own taxpayers, other states have taken a similar course.

Unfortunately, a federal judge in Atlanta barred that effort in a ruling earlier this month. He not only ordered Georgia to approve Makena for Medicaid reimbursement, he told DCH to cease coverage of the much-cheaper and identical alternative unless the prescribing physician claimed medical necessity for that alternative.

Most Americans, I suspect, would applaud the sensible watchdog role that the DCH has attempted to play — so far unsuccessfully — in the Makena controversy. But if the judge is correct, the agency simply lacks legal authority to make that decision.

Clearly, federal law has to be changed to fix that problem.

But here’s the good news, as well as more bad news. Such a change in the law has already been made, at least in Medicare. The Independent Payment Advisory Board created under ObamaCare was designed precisely to deal with this kind of situation. The 15-member board, comprising doctors, experts in health finance and advocates for consumers and for the elderly, is empowered to study which drugs, treatments and procedures deliver the best results at the lowest cost to taxpayers, and to recommend those treatments over higher-cost alternatives.

if IPAB is a “death panel,” as Republicans like to charge, then DCH was acting as a death panel in trying to bar Makena from its list of approved Medicaid drugs. Like Makena and 17P, IPAB and DCH were performing identical roles. And if IPAB is “rationing” medical care, as Republican leaders also charge, then DCH was also attempting to ration medical care.

The idea that IPAB is going to decide who is worth saving and who should die, or that it’s going to deny needed care to anyone, is groundless. In reality, IPAB is expressly forbidden by federal law from making “any recommendation to ration health care.” The “death panel” and rationing claims have been refuted as lies by every independent fact-check organization in the country (seehere and here and here, among others.

Yet still the lies continue.

“No president should put in jeopardy your benefits,” Mitt Romney said just this week. “And no board of bureaucrats should ever be empowered to make decisions that could deny you the kind of care that you deserve.”

As Politico reports,
Paul Ryan is doing the same, arguing that “Obama “puts this new board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats that he’s about to appoint, who are required to cut Medicare every year in ways that will clearly lead to denied care for current seniors.”

Such rhetoric is ridiculous and cynical in the extreme. We cannot hope to curtail the growth of medical expenditures if we are barred by law from seeking the most cost-effective means of doing so. In the end, it protects the ripoff artists and forbids government from even trying to protect the best interests of both taxpayers and beneficiaries.

But it’s damn good politics.

– Jay Bookman

512 comments Add your comment

mm

August 21st, 2012
2:56 pm

Drug companies are a scam.

mm

August 21st, 2012
2:57 pm

Wow, twice in 1 week.

mm

August 21st, 2012
2:59 pm

“And no board of bureaucrats should ever be empowered to make decisions that could deny you the kind of care that you deserve.”

These cons are SO stupid. Like the insurance companies don’t do this already. Only the ignorant GOP voters believe this crap.

Sean

August 21st, 2012
3:00 pm

Death panels!

King of Everything

August 21st, 2012
3:01 pm

Capitalism at it’s best. And no, we don’t need Government regulators. Let’s pay $2,500 a shot so there will be no need for a price increase.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

August 21st, 2012
3:06 pm

Well sure, fact checks show that the claims by the cons are lies, but if there is no consequence from lying and their base buys into it, they don’t have the backbone not to lie. One thing I have to say for McCain, when that woman stood up and said Obama was a muslim, etc., he took the mike and said NO that is not true.

Joe Hussein Mama

August 21st, 2012
3:06 pm

mm — “These cons are SO stupid. Like the insurance companies don’t do this already.”

Ayup. They do. I’ve encountered it myself.

King of Everything

August 21st, 2012
3:07 pm

Now K-V should figure out the Right Senators (pun intended) and contribute to their champagne, er er campaign. Problem solved.

barking frog

August 21st, 2012
3:07 pm

Patent protection should
not be allowed to endanger
the public as it is a public
grant to a manufacturer to
encourage development not
a right.

What WAR on women?

August 21st, 2012
3:08 pm

In the end, it protects the ripoff artists and forbids government from even trying to protect the best interests of both taxpayers and beneficiaries.

_____

Does Romney have any investment ties to Marketed by K-V Pharmaceuticals? Interesting!!

That Black Guy

August 21st, 2012
3:10 pm

Say it isn’t so!

Politicians LYING to get elected.

Whoda thunk it?

TaxPayer

August 21st, 2012
3:11 pm

Republicans cannot destroy Medicare, or anything else for that matter, if you take away their power to do so. Vote Democrat.

SoGaVet

August 21st, 2012
3:11 pm

Wait – a death panel is making a decision to save a child’s life? OMG!!! What’s next?!? Cats living with dogs and clowns taking off their make-up?

GT

August 21st, 2012
3:11 pm

Does the right really misunderstand this or is it a higher calling of making money off the backs of the middle class and poor, a familiar theme with these guys.

Jay

August 21st, 2012
3:12 pm

Frog, they didn’t even have to develop anything. The drug already existed and had been thoroughly tested. All they had to do was claim a legal monopoly on its production.

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

August 21st, 2012
3:12 pm

There is one thing that will clearly lead to denied care for seniors…

A Romney-Ryan win.

RB from Gwinnett

August 21st, 2012
3:13 pm

“Here in Georgia, the state Department of Community Health sensibly refused to put Makena on its list of drugs covered by Medicaid. Noting that an almost identical, safe, effective and much cheaper alternative is already available, ”

Yes, Jay, a government agency telling patients they. Ant have a drug because it costs too much and judges making further decisions on the matter. No doctors needed.

How much did the last class action lawsuit cost the drug maker Jay?

Joe Hussein Mama

August 21st, 2012
3:13 pm

I’ll say it again. If you take all the vowels out of Reince Priebus’ name, you get RNC PR BS.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/21/13395825-priebus-gop-platform-not-the-platform-of-mitt-romney?lite

Bob

August 21st, 2012
3:13 pm

What about clinical study the company must perform, the regulatory staff they must employ, and the post-market surveillance (which monitors potential adverse events) they must watch? These are just a handful of items that the FDA REQUIRES FDA-approved drugs to do, C17P isn’t a FDA approved drug and isn’t required to do these items. Your story leads uninformed readers to believe that Makena and C17P are identical, both in make-up and requirements, but that is false.

Fearful!

August 21st, 2012
3:14 pm

Who owns KV, who does KV contribute to, and how do you get this across to the voters. I am afraid Obama has allowed the GOP and all it’s PAC’s to define these type of arguments, in a spin cycle kind of way.

Verbal Kint

August 21st, 2012
3:16 pm

There is one thing that will clearly lead the US to bankruptcy…
An Obama-Biden win.

Jay

August 21st, 2012
3:16 pm

Really, Bob? Perhaps you would like to document that claim.

Tell me, did K-V have to go through lengthy clinical trials on this “new” drug, proving first that it was safe for human consumption and then that it was effective?

And if not, why not?

(hint: because it’s not a “new” drug at all, just as I reported)

That Black Guy

August 21st, 2012
3:16 pm

Jay

August 21st, 2012
3:12 pm
Frog, they didn’t even have to develop anything. The drug already existed and had been thoroughly tested. All they had to do was claim a legal monopoly on its production
________________________________
Jay, is that a state or federal law?

SoGaVet

August 21st, 2012
3:18 pm

RB from Gwinnett
3:13 pm

Doesn’t look like a government agency telling patients they [c]ant have a drug because it costs too much. It looks like a government agency saying the drug is available, you just can’t buy that brand label because it cost too much.

The flip should have been to rule doctors had to prescribe the brand name in order to get it if “the prescribing physician claimed medical necessity for that alternative.”

Matti

August 21st, 2012
3:18 pm

Ask not for whom your legislators work. It’s for the lobbyists who purchase their loyalty. Not you or your family member in need of medical treatment.

Jay

August 21st, 2012
3:18 pm

TBG, federal.

East Lake Ira

August 21st, 2012
3:19 pm

Say what you will but Drug Reps are the hottest salesforce in town.

Except for the load wearing a plaid wool something or other last week at Piedmont…

Jay

August 21st, 2012
3:22 pm

SoGaVet, it’s a government agency saying the government agency won’t buy it.

Private insurers and patients can make their own decisions.

TaxPayer

August 21st, 2012
3:22 pm

From United Healthcare:

17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate, commonly called 17P, may also be referred to as 17-
OHP, 17-OHPC, 17Pc, Makena™, 17-alpha hydroxyprogesterone, hydroxyprogesterone,
hydroxy-progesterone, and hydroxy progesterone. Hereafter, it will be referred to as 17P.

too little time

August 21st, 2012
3:22 pm

These cons are SO stupid. Like the insurance companies don’t do this already. Only the ignorant GOP voters believe this crap

Yes, insurance companies do this, too. But you can change insurance companies, and insurance companies can be sued. When the nameless, faceless bureaucrats say “No”, you are out of luck.
If you ever tried to deal with the IRS, a county tax assessor, the DMV, or any one of dozens of other government employees, you would know that the government bureaucracy is orders of magnitude more difficult than insurance companies.

In fact, when it gets right down to it, we are really debating WHICH bureaucracy can better service its customers and do it for less $$$ overhead. If Medicaid/Medicare can’t do it cheaper than an insurance company with profit limits, then the insurance company wins out. One indication of how they would do is this: how much medical insurance fraud gets by the insurance companies compared to how much Medicare fraud gets by Medicare? It’s an interesting question that I have never looked at. I’m hypothesizing that the institution (government or private insurance) can better handle fraud is probably the better choice for taxpayers.

St Simons - he-ne-ha

August 21st, 2012
3:24 pm

I hope we can point out here that if the 37th out of 37 industrialized
nations (us) had an NHS, their IPAB could be a weapon for the sick,
& put the fear of god in these pharmaceuticals by threatening to cut
them off from the ‘merkan market if they don’t act right.

but nooooo, not here in freee market freedum jaysusland hell no.

That Black Guy

August 21st, 2012
3:24 pm

Jay

August 21st, 2012
3:18 pm
TBG, federal.
_________________
Thanks Jay.

BTW, good article and excellent use of the Makena story to highlight the BS about “death panels”.

The rest of the story about politicians lying to get elected is, well, sorta, “the grass is green and water is wet”.

In other words, I’m not shocked.

St Simons - he-ne-ha

August 21st, 2012
3:25 pm

thanks again cons, no really – congratulations.

TaxPayer

August 21st, 2012
3:25 pm

More from United Healthcare:

Additional Information regarding compounded 17P:
The active ingredient in the compounded 17P and Makena is hydroxyprogesterone caproate.
Both have castor oil as an inactive ingredient. The compounded version can be made with an
alternate oil base in the event of patient hypersensitivity to castor oil. Makena has the additional
inactive ingredients of benzyl benzoate and benzyl alcohol (a preservative). Based on the active
ingredient, compounded preservative-free 17P is considered clinically interchangeable with
Makena.
Compounding pharmacies must comply with United States Pharmacopeia (USP) Chapter 797,
which sets standards for the compounding, transportation, and storage of compounded sterile
products (CSP).1 The Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board can verify that the pharmacy
is adhering to these standards.2

Not a Neal Boortz Redneck

August 21st, 2012
3:26 pm

Odd how the “free market” likes to extort customers using federal regulation. Reminds me of the Bush crime family and how they would not let drug imports from Canada into the USA.

Joe Hussein Mama

August 21st, 2012
3:27 pm

T. L. Time — “But you can change insurance companies, and insurance companies can be sued.”

Until the ACA came along, the first ’solution’ wasn’t a practical option for people who were already very sick and the second might still be underway after the patient’s funeral.

FWIW, we have a number of regular posters here who use government-run healthcare (e.g. VA and Medicare), and I have yet to hear any significant complaints from them — even the conservative ones.

IMO, this defense of ‘yebbut gummint healthcare will be WORSE’ is just so much bulldada.

Jay

August 21st, 2012
3:28 pm

It’s an interesting question that I have never looked at. I’m hypothesizing that the institution (government or private insurance) can better handle fraud is probably the better choice for taxpayers.

True, “Too Little”. But when you attempt to bar one institution — government — from using cost-control mechanisms used heavily by other institutions, you’ve pretty much fixed the outcome of that contest, correct?

Skip

August 21st, 2012
3:28 pm

Like Mitt’s taxes, it’s legal and that’s enough for the cons.

Mary Elizabeth

August 21st, 2012
3:30 pm

The link giving the reasons for the Atlanta judge’s decision is not working. That’s the line that begins, “Unfortunately, a federal judge in Atlanta barred. . .”

Jay

August 21st, 2012
3:30 pm

Good post, Taxpayer, thanks. I suspect that “Bob,” who isn’t a regular poster, is somehow connected directly to K-V. We’ll see if he responds.

Not a Neal Boortz Redneck

August 21st, 2012
3:31 pm

Oh, and NAFTA was good for trade with Canada – UNLESS you wanted to buy FDA approved prescription drugs from them.

Jay

August 21st, 2012
3:33 pm

Thanks, Mary Elizabeth. Should be fixed now.

Adam

August 21st, 2012
3:35 pm

The judge seems to be making sure that drug company gets money. Can I see his donations and investments list? Oh, and tax returns.

barking frog

August 21st, 2012
3:35 pm

Orphan drugs must treat
an Orphan disease and
follow the process to
establish both as orphans.
Tax incentives and exclusive
rights to sell can be granted.
It’s the law.

Jay

August 21st, 2012
3:35 pm

Adam, given the law, I suspect (but do not know for certain) that the judge had little choice.

Williebkind

August 21st, 2012
3:37 pm

Was that a liberal activist judge who made the ruling for Makena? It sure sounds like one. Check his overseas bankrecords!

barking frog

August 21st, 2012
3:39 pm

The law of unintended
consequences seems to
be working in this case.

Adam

August 21st, 2012
3:40 pm

If the law really is written in such a way that such a maneuver by K-V is not only legal, but seemingly easy to pull off…. that is very disturbing. Is his ruling based on some obscure thing in Medicaid where states do not have the right to limit to generics or something like that?

Erwin's cat

August 21st, 2012
3:41 pm

If there wasn’t govt money at the end of the rainbow, then I’d bet the price would drop substantially…sorta like what HOPE and Student Loans have done to the “cost” (really the price) of education

Aquagirl

August 21st, 2012
3:42 pm

The law of unintended
consequences seems to
be working in this case.

No doubt thanks to legions of K-V lawyers and other minions dedicated to finding regulatory loopholes for profit. Why make money developing a drug when you can do it this way?

Verbal Kint

August 21st, 2012
3:45 pm

And the judges’ ruling link in the post still appears to be for naught..

Stonethrower

August 21st, 2012
3:48 pm

Can’t fault a company for trying to make money for the shareholders. Have to wonder if this is the rule or the exception.

Darwin

August 21st, 2012
3:53 pm

And the right wing cries of bankrupting our great nation via the national debt.

Jay

August 21st, 2012
3:54 pm

OK, judge link is fixed AND tested now.

JohnnyReb

August 21st, 2012
3:55 pm

Medicare nor Medicaid should cover the drug, period. High risk pregnancies should not be funded by taxpayers.

And no, its not the same for private insurance. If private insurance wants to cover high risk pregnancies, then go for it. Their subscribers have the right to buy other insurance presubably at a reduced rate because of not covering high risk pregnancies.

Therein lies the beauty of keeping the government out of it as much as possible.

Not a Neal Boortz Redneck

August 21st, 2012
4:00 pm

“Medicare nor Medicaid should cover the drug, period”

Death Panels!

josef

August 21st, 2012
4:00 pm

The pharmaceutical industry exists to make money. They are big business, The government operates under orders from big business, The interests of big business are the interests of the government, It is in the interest of big business to maximize profits. It is in the interest of government to facilitate that. It’s really very simple and it ain’t gonna change beyond a case-by-case situation which catches the public’s attention.

Peadawg

August 21st, 2012
4:02 pm

“Unfortunately, a federal judge in Atlanta barred that effort in a ruling earlier this month. He not only ordered Georgia to approve Makena for Medicaid reimbursement, he told DCH to cease coverage of the much-cheaper and identical alternative unless the prescribing physician claimed medical necessity for that alternative.”

Bummer. Taxpayers lose yet again.

Fly-On-The-Wall

August 21st, 2012
4:04 pm

Sad, truly sad that we cannot control the cost of healthcare with loopholes like this one. No wonder all the companies in the health care business didn’t want the ACA. It might just cut into the slick, slimy profits.

I’m all for a company getting out there and developing a real product(drug or otherwise) that can truly benefit mankind. But when they pull crap like and force all of to pay more for nothing new then that is just downright thievery.

JohnnyReb

August 21st, 2012
4:04 pm

It appears all common sense is leaving this Nation. People of no financial means should not be having children. Perhaps a prerequisite for food stamps should be sexual education, plus include a 12 pack of Trojans.

Aquagirl

August 21st, 2012
4:04 pm

High risk pregnancies should not be funded by taxpayers.

Another great moment in the non-war on women.

TaxPayer

August 21st, 2012
4:04 pm

KV was founded by Victor Hermelin in 1942 who ran the company until 1975, when he was replaced by his son Marc.[2] Marc Hermelin was ousted in 2008 when an FDA inspection took place. The following year KV convicted of felony charges for the “making, marketing, and distribution of adulterated and unapproved drugs” was shut down by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).[3] After a proxy fight, M. Hermelin returned to the company’s board.[2] Between 2008 and 2010, KV lost three-quarters of its workforce, down to 350.[2] KV was reapproved for manufacturing drugs in 2010, while its Ethex manufacturing subsidiary was sold.[4]

Perhaps K-V is merely looking for every possible shortcut to return to profitability after their downfall.

getalife

August 21st, 2012
4:05 pm

Tax cuts and no regulations will fix it.

romney and ryan will finish the job w started.

Total collapse is coming.

Pizzaman

August 21st, 2012
4:05 pm

Ah! Ya gotta love the Teapubs! They’ll do anything to keep the price up on anything. It keeps then in their “donations” to their campaigns !

Fly-On-The-Wall

August 21st, 2012
4:06 pm

JohnnyReb,

I think you really missed the point in this whole discussion. Nothing is as simple as you say it is and you know it.

Jay

August 21st, 2012
4:08 pm

Taxpayer, they also recently declared Chapter 11, blaming gov’t failure to protect its monopoly on Makena.

JohnnyReb

August 21st, 2012
4:09 pm

“Another great moment in the non-war on women.”

That’s a load of crap. There is no war on women. Paying for your birth control pills is a responsibility. Crying until they are free is anti-American.

It’s Obama buying votes, pure and simple.

What happened to personal responsibility? Loosing it is bad enough, but the Moonbats wanting the producers to pay for the stupidity of others takes it too far.

JohnnyReb

August 21st, 2012
4:11 pm

Fly on the Wall – No, I did not miss it. What happed with the drug company and the courts is unacceptable. But the Medicare and Medicaid set me off. I’m totally sick of paying for others stupidity such as having children they can’t afford.

Fearful!

August 21st, 2012
4:13 pm

Aquagirl

August 21st, 2012
4:16 pm

What happened to personal responsibility?

Are you saying these women can’t keep those babies in their womb because they’re lazy or something?

Can someone tell me if there’s there a con prize for being a dumb@$$ in biology? If so, Mr. Akin is suddenly running in second.

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

August 21st, 2012
4:18 pm

JohnnyReb

“That’s a load of crap. There is no war on women.”

You simply don’t get it, do you?

It doesn’t matter what you think….

Women know there is.

As they say, if mama ain’t happy……

getalife

August 21st, 2012
4:21 pm

reb,

It is not about you.

Thanks for helping our President win the women’s vote,

Great job con.

Bob

August 21st, 2012
4:24 pm

Really. The orginal study was not conducted with C17P, but Makena (that is before it was actually called Makena). The NIH study cost about $5 million, KV is spending close to $50 million. Get your facts straight before you spill misleading information.

getalife

August 21st, 2012
4:25 pm

Bob,

Prove it.

Thanks.

Joe Hussein Mama

August 21st, 2012
4:26 pm

J. Reb — “That’s a load of crap. There is no war on women. Paying for your birth control pills is a responsibility.”

So’s paying for your boner pills. :roll:

So the way I see it, either guys can pay for their own pharmaceutical Erector Sets, or insurers can pay for female birth control. Oh, and until that point, your argument can go take an effing hike.

Fly-On-The-Wall

August 21st, 2012
4:28 pm

JHM – woo hoo! Good post.

Joe Hussein Mama

August 21st, 2012
4:29 pm

getalife — “Bob, Prove it.”

Since KV went bankrupt, I suspect Bobbo lost his job.

Jackie

August 21st, 2012
4:31 pm

Research shows that the Federal Government – through the National Institute of Health – grants roughly 70% of the money spent of drug Research & Development.

http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2010/09/02/the-feds-need-to-start-supporting-early-stage-drug-development/

TaxPayer

August 21st, 2012
4:31 pm

Bob needs to get his own facts straight. In fact, the word is already out there:

By the end of March the FDA announced that pharmacies compounding the drug independently will not face legal reprisal, thus enabling the price of the drug to remain in the $10-20 range.[9] After this announcement, K-V’s stock dropped by more than 60% on March 30, 2011,[10] and the company cut the price of Makena to $690 per dose.[11]

It appears that K-V was simply trying to capitalize on every possible legislative loophole contained in the Orphan Drug Law to make a quick buck. The FDA didn’t buy their arguments. Good for them.

getalife

August 21st, 2012
4:32 pm

I wonder what our economy would look like if government ended all corporate welfare and loopholes.

Perhaps reb will scream at them to take personal responsibility and stop getting welfare.

Aquagirl

August 21st, 2012
4:32 pm

either guys can pay for their own pharmaceutical Erector Sets, or insurers can pay for female birth control.

How about all that prostate shaving? You’re too irresponsible to control the darn thing, you pay for the overgrowth. But since I’m a lib, I’ll pay for a razor and some betadine if you want to do it yourself.

Jay

August 21st, 2012
4:33 pm

Again Bob, you ducked the question:

Is this truly a “new” drug, as you attempt to suggest?

The FDA says it is not. The FDA says, and I quote, “The FDA originally approved hydroxyprogesterone caproate under the trade name Delalutin in 1956 for use in pregnant women. The approved indications include threatened miscarriage. The original manufacturer requested the withdrawal of Delalutin from the market in 2000 for reasons unrelated to safety.”

It’s also pertinent to ask, Bob: Do you have any personal or business connection to KV?

Don't Tread

August 21st, 2012
4:33 pm

We don’t need the 0bamacare boondoggle, but we do need to lose the “orphan drug” rule. I’m all for protecting drugs that the company has spent a fortune to develop, but staking an exclusive claim on an existing product just because no one else is manufacturing it isn’t right.

getalife

August 21st, 2012
4:34 pm

“Since KV went bankrupt, I suspect Bobbo lost his job.”

I think he wants us to trust him like romney.

Sorry you lost your job Bob but now you have time to prove it.

independent thinker

August 21st, 2012
4:35 pm

Jay -Shame on you- are you really accusing the two GOP darlings of lying?They are such honest fellows. Why do you think they would get in bed with Big Pharma to help Big Pharma reap big profits?

Joe Hussein Mama

August 21st, 2012
4:38 pm

Aquagirl — “How about all that prostate shaving? You’re too irresponsible to control the darn thing, you pay for the overgrowth.”

Come now, madam. I’m a guy. That means that problems and issues with my boyparts are wholly and completely YOUR FAULT. Isn’t that how it works in Con Land?

“But since I’m a lib, I’ll pay for a razor and some betadine if you want to do it yourself.”

Never! If I take that step, you’ll come back demanding prenatal care if you get pregnant! The demands will never cease!

/cro-mag

:D

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

August 21st, 2012
4:38 pm

So what good is it for Romney to call for Akin to pull out of the race today if the GOP platform abortion plank still has no exception for rape or incest?

Jackie

August 21st, 2012
4:39 pm

Drugs companies spend more on advertising than they do on R & D

Joe Hussein Mama

August 21st, 2012
4:39 pm

I. Thinker — “Why do you think they would get in bed with Big Pharma to help Big Pharma reap big profits?”

There is a sexual double entendre buried in there, but I’m too lazy to dig it out just this minute.

Joe Hussein Mama

August 21st, 2012
4:41 pm

GG — “So what good is it for Romney to call for Akin to pull out of the race today if the GOP platform abortion plank still has no exception for rape or incest?”

Metaphor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_hunting#Decoys

OBIWAN

August 21st, 2012
4:42 pm

Funny how Jay’s explanation somehow has to be a liberal talking point, imagine that… Well if you want to fix this issue, go to the root of the problem, and make lobbying illegal. Problem fixed….Someday the congress and senate should realize that they work for us, the people not the corporations, and yes Jay the democrats also support big business and lobbyist, and also 16 year old boys in bathrooms with gay democratic senators, right Jay? RLOL

Jay

August 21st, 2012
4:45 pm

Obiwan, you can’t make lobbying illegal. The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition government.

Unless, of course, you also want to dismiss the First Amendment as a liberal talking point.

josef

August 21st, 2012
4:46 pm

OBIWAN

“…democrats also support big business and lobbyist, and also 16 year old boys in bathrooms with gay democratic senators, right Jay? RLOL”

Which Senator is that? And when it comes to this type of behavior, the GOP takes the prize in the who’s got the worst sleazebags…

Aquagirl

August 21st, 2012
4:46 pm

what good is it for Romney to call for Akin to pull out of the race today if the GOP platform abortion plank still has no exception for rape or incest?

I guess towncrier isn’t on that committee. He was claiming yesterday he’d never heard another con say abortion should be prohibited under those circumstances. Or maybe it’s a runaway committee, sneaking this horrible plank through against the wishes of rank and file Goopers.

Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.

Joe Hussein Mama

August 21st, 2012
4:46 pm

OBIWAN — “yes Jay the democrats also support big business and lobbyist, and also 16 year old boys in bathrooms with gay democratic senators, right Jay?”

Huh. I didn’t know Mark Foley changed parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

August 21st, 2012
4:49 pm

Well, what ever happened to the good old days when your Mommy would give you a big dose of castor oil and it would kill the worms and get rid of whatever ailed you, not to mention clean you out real good?

Alot of these drug cos. are rip-offs. Only a few months ago I had to get a prescription filled for the missus. One of the drugs she takes is Lipitor. I was told if I waited a couple weeks for the drug maker’s patent to expire I could get a refill for 10 bucks. If I needed the refill now it would be out about 100 bucks. Well, I said to myself, if she dies, she dies. Anyhow, it was a awful thing to put my wife’s health at risk because I’m such a cheap s–t a drug maker wants to bend me over and shove this thing down my throat—no wait, that don’t sound right. Anyhow, you know what I mean.

Headed to the warehouse for check-in now. Have a good night everybody.

josef

August 21st, 2012
4:52 pm

OBIWAN

Repeat…WHICH Senator is that…come on, if you’re going to hurl the charge, name names. Inquiring minds want to know…

TaxPayer

August 21st, 2012
4:55 pm

Unless, of course, you also want to dismiss the First Amendment as a liberal talking point.

I hear their support for that First Amendment depends on whether you are an OWS type or a Tea Party type.

Aquagirl

August 21st, 2012
4:56 pm

Repeat…WHICH Senator is that

Give Obiwan a break. I’m sure it’s tough digging through all those forwarded e-mails and websites to figure out what exactly has outraged you today.

They constantly misplace their talkie points, poor things.

DannyX

August 21st, 2012
4:56 pm

The guy that Senator Craig tried to have sex with in the bathroom was definitely over 16.

Hey wait, I didn’t know Sen Craig changed parties too, whats going on????