Republican Primary Poll

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Who would you vote for today?

  • John McCain

    Votes: 20 37.7%
  • Rudy Giuliani

    Votes: 15 28.3%
  • Newt Gingrich

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 13 24.5%

  • Total voters
    53
Aug 7, 2006
1,326
2
668
#21
Ron Paul would be a dream candidate for me. - not surprising given I am a libertarian. However, it seems unlikely he will get out of the republican primary. I looked over that page and I think I stand with him on every major issue. In fact the only place where I really break from Lib party lines is on protective licensing and patents, things like the FDA for instance, seem like a real civil need.


I think paleo-conservative is the opposite of neo-conservative. E.G. . . .

A Goldwater Republican - small government, low taxes, big military.

as opposed to a Newt Conservative - Religion, "traditional values", low taxes for the rich, and more moral conservatism. (Obviously I am a bit biased here. If someone wants to explain how neo-cons are interested in other issues, I am all ears.) To be clear i'm not Newt bashing, he is actually one of the better of the bunch IMO, but he was sort of the leading figure of the movement.
 
Nov 1, 2004
4,529
480
1,713
#22
I view the neos as foreign policy driven ... Wilsonian philosophies ... use foreign policy to change the world (whether it be human rights activism or democracy building) ... similar to the liberal line of reasoning that government should be used to change the world. To me, the neos are a different animal than the social conservatives. Then there's the "traditional" conservatives ... paleo as you note ... going back to Goldwater ... who likely took some of his philosophies from Hobbes ... a small safety net state w/big military muscle ... heaving on state's rights over Fed rights. The traditionals lean close to the libertarians on social issues ... meaning government stays out of most of these issues and when involved, it is at the state or local level.

All flavors of conservatives ... and haven't even touched on immigration issues ... or fiscal issues.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,174
5,170
1,743
Katy, TX
#23
My man, Newt is being beaten by "other"...:(
I voted "other" in this poll but if it comes down to only these three at Primary Time (Ron Paul out of the race) then I'll pull the lever for Newt.

I also disagree with Pistolwhip on the low taxes on the rich comment...every stripe of conservative I know wants low taxes for everyone.
 

Pokes28

Moderator
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 26, 2003
13,618
1,432
1,743
49
Carl Junction, MO
facebook.com
#24
In fact the only place where I really break from Lib party lines is on protective licensing and patents, things like the FDA for instance, seem like a real civil need.
I do believe there is a much better way than the FDA. I have first hand experience in dealing with the FDA and it is a nightmare that really doesn't do a great job of active protection of people, it just puts up so many barriers that require such vast sums of money to overcome that process tends to get in the way of a lot of bad things. But it also prevents a lot of good things from coming to market as well.

Here is the David Harrell vision for a replacement of the FDA. In the electronics industry, most of the big companies are a part of Underwriters Laboratories (or U/L). They all have fees and commissions, etc that they pay. There are set guidelines for qualifications, etc. U/L actually operates independent of the companies that for it. So a U/L inspector doesn't work for GE, he works for U/L and there are things in place that helps get around grudges and other such normal problems.

I see a drug company consortium of the same manner. Make it to where drugs have to have the drug underwriters (called DU from here on) approval to sell. DU is paid for by the drug companies and they have inspectors that can freely go into all the manufacturing facilities to verify normal processes like cleanliness, sterilization, paperwork/documentation, and other things. As far as testing, a lot of the testing systems that the FDA requires are very good. It is the fact that the FDA hands off those testing systems to 3rd parties that get paid in such a manner that it is to their benefit to require more tests and to force companies to pay huge money for things that simply cost more but have no benefit to anybody but the 3rd party testing facility.

Currently if a company comes up with a new drug, it takes over 10 years and costs over $400 million to bring it to market. This is ok if the drug is something like Viagra that will allow a quick return on the investment. But there are a ton of drugs that are developed for rare diseases that work or at least offer some hope that will never get a chance to do any benefit. The reason is that the cost would be impossible to recoup do to low utilization. These are referred to as orphaned drugs. Most of the time if a person has a rare disease all breakthroughs that actually reach the patient are drugs that have some benefit to another more mainstream problem. The DU would have allowed use for drugs so that drugs developed for non-mainstream problems would more easily be able to be administered without having the expense of all the trials and testing. Basically, the less expected people needing the drugs, the less testing it would require (testing for rare diseases is way more costly and time consuming than main-stream as you have to test on people that actually have the problem). It would be similar to a permanent case study complete with limited liability waivers. The people would be able to get help and the drug companies (who I do feel would love to help as long as it doesn't hurt the bottom line) get to cover their assets.

In my version, the DU would approve or not approve based on tests. They would be able to levy VERY heavy fines on any of the consortium members that were caught trying to go outside the rules. If found that they weren't doing their job, the DU itself would be liable for a portion of fines. This means that Merk would have to pay some if a Pfizer drug got pencil whipped through the system.

All in all, this would lower the cost of bringing a drug to market by at least 75%. It would also cut a lot of the overhead timing required as well as put the liability on the drug makers themselves. It wouldn't impact 99% drugs that make it to market other than making them cost less and it would almost stop orphan drugs.

Put into a real world model and you could save Americans hundreds of billions of dollars. It wouldn't change the fact that people could still sue if drugs made it to market that caused harm. So it isn't in the pharmaceutical company's interest to put out bad drugs.

I would also make the change that there are a certain class of drugs that could be administered by the pharmacist directly without the requirement of a physician. It would be up the pharmacist to see if he/she wanted this responsibility and I'm certain there would need to be some CYA classes and such. But there is no reason that most people should have to go to their doctor and spend $100 for a 5 minute visit when you know you are going to just get a simple antibiotic. This would save the country billions as well. Now to get over a simple sinus infection you can spend $30 on meds instead of $130 on doctor visits and meds.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,544
31,981
1,743
oklahoma city
#25
I would also make the change that there are a certain class of drugs that could be administered by the pharmacist directly without the requirement of a physician. It would be up the pharmacist to see if he/she wanted this responsibility and I'm certain there would need to be some CYA classes and such. But there is no reason that most people should have to go to their doctor and spend $100 for a 5 minute visit when you know you are going to just get a simple antibiotic. This would save the country billions as well. Now to get over a simple sinus infection you can spend $30 on meds instead of $130 on doctor visits and meds.

These drugs essentially already exist. They are called over the counter. Why would you add a whole separate class of medications that could be administered by a professional that is trained very well on the medication but is not trained in diagnosing the disease?

Your example is perfect. The majority of "sinus infections" that I see are not bacterial sinus infections at all. The are the viral illnesses. These people need education, not antibiotics. We can talk about how physicians and other health care practitioners are falling down on that job, as they are. But the solution is not to add other people to incorrectly dispense antibiotics for the common cold. These illnesses should be treated with time, decongestants and saline irrigation, already available without a physician visit.

And, the fact that you "know you are just going to get a simple antibiotic" in 5 minutes is why you get it. It takes me a much longer time to justify and explain why I am not going to give antibiotics than to just hand it to the patient, even if it is the medically incorrect thing to do. And some people paying for my time expect to get something (more than just an exam and education) and are often angry without the antibiotic, even if they didn't need it.

I'd like to hear what RxCowboy thinks of this idea.
 
Aug 7, 2006
1,326
2
668
#26
Let me clarify . . . I beleive that the FDA and most federal programs need to be changed and (where possible) privatized.

However, I think handing over something like the regulation of our food and drugs solely to private industry is a bad idea. There are many libertarians who would advocate eliminating governmental regulatory programs like the FDA entirely. I would suggest a less drastic step towards privitization. For instance, contracting the work with government oversight of some kind.

Similarly, I think public education is a well deserved right of every citizen, but our public school system is one of the many disasters of unaccountable government. I would be in favor of a similar "school voucher/waiver" system where parents can choose to "spend" their public ed money where they choose, while still giving the government certain limited control and power over what those schools can and can't teach.
 
Aug 7, 2006
1,326
2
668
#27
I also disagree with Pistolwhip on the low taxes on the rich comment...every stripe of conservative I know wants low taxes for everyone.
Thats fine, I mean they all SAY they want low taxes.

I'm no expert, but everything i've read says that both the Bushes gave massive tax cuts to the super wealthy and only small proportions for the rest of us. Granted, the rich have been increasingly overtaxed over the past 40 years and some balancing was deserved.

However, I still can't really see how you can say every conservative in congress is for low taxes for everyone if no one is getting a tax cut but the rich . . .

But like I said, I know less about this than other issues. If someone has numbers i'd love to see them.
 

JoeHero

I don't say blah blah blah
A/V Subscriber
May 8, 2006
14,720
10,081
1,743
36
#28
:(
I'm a Libertarian but I won't waste my vote on a guy that can't be elected (meaning somebody outside the two major parties). I will always vote for the lesser of the two evils.
It's a shame in Oklahoma that even if you wanted to vote for a Libertarian candidate you couldn't.

I refuse to vote for someone I don't think would be a good president. For the last presidential election, I left that part of my ballot blank. Ron Paul is really the only one I would see voting for in '08:(