Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's Endless Plan

From Alzheimer's to Epipens to youth unemployment.


Last week, in response to the uproar over the skyrocketing price for EpiPens, Hillary Clinton unveiled a plan to combat what she called "unjustified" and "outrageous" drug prices. By one tally, this makes the 7,439th plan Team Clinton has put together. Clinton is nothing if not thorough.

Thoroughness may be Clinton's greatest virtue, especially when juxtaposed with the colossally dangerous unreadiness of Donald Trump. You don't want a president confronting big issues de novo.

But it is also a significant vice. For one thing, coming up with your own plan to address an issue means you have to ignore all the other plans other people have come up with. That's one reason the federal government has 33 separate housing programs run by four different agencies.

Second, there's the problem of misdiagnosis. Clinton's plan for reining in drug prices entails creating a "dedicated group" of federal officials who would come up with new rules to decide which price hikes are unjustified, and then punish wayward companies with fines. Clinton also would arrange for "emergency importation" of drugs from abroad to combat price spikes, and so on.

All terribly unnecessary. The EpiPen's maker could get away with jacking up prices because the FDA has given it an effective monopoly. Several other companies have tried to bring similar epinephrine devices to market, but the FDA keeps shooting them down. In 29 states, it's illegal to substitute a generic version of the EpiPen, even if one were available. The EpiPen debacle is the product of too much regulation, not too little. Yet Clinton wants to add more rules.

But the biggest problem with having a plan for everything, as Clinton does, is the erroneous assumption that you should.

Clinton has a plan to address Alzheimer's disease. And another for autism. And animal welfare. And the cost of college. And the challenges facing rural America. And those confronting small business. And workforce training. And youth unemployment. And on and on and on.

It's easy to see why: Leave no potential constituency untapped. Hillary Clinton wants you to know she cares about the issue that matters most to you, good sir or madam, no matter what that might be, and she has a plan to address it.

In some cases her plans also make sense. (Simplifying federal taxes for small business is a good idea, for instance.) In other cases, it's fair to assume she is just checking off a box. President Clinton probably would not devote many Cabinet meetings to "cracking down on the practice of horse soring," no matter how inhumane the practice.

Trouble is, having a plan to address every issue under the sun implies the federal government generally, and the executive branch specifically, has both the authority and the responsibility to address every issue under the sun.

And that's not just false. It's dangerous.

It's false because, under our federal system, states and localities are supposed to maintain jurisdiction over many policy areas. The Constitution is quite clear on the point: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The list of powers delegated to the United States is not infinite. It is not even that long.

The implication is dangerous for a number of reasons. First, it robs the country of initiative. If the president is in charge of fixing everything wrong with America, then nobody else is, so all the rest of us need to do is sit around and wait until the administration takes care of things. (Don't sit on a hot stove while you do wait, though.)

It's also dangerous because it concentrates power. The executive branch already has amassed far more power than it should, thanks to unjustified deference from the judicial branch and irresponsible abdication by the legislative. Giving the executive branch even more power would further disrupt the country's system of checks and balances, and leave the nation in a precarious state. Imagine what someone like Donald Trump—or for that matter Hillary Clinton—could do with all the authority Clinton thinks the president ought to have.

Third, the assumption that the president should fix everything is dangerous because it erases every limit on government power. Clinton thinks the White House should decide what the acceptable price for a drug is—and impose it by fiat. If the president can do that, then what can't she do?

A president who can intervene with equal ease in the realm of drug pricing, animal welfare, workforce training, higher education and medical research is, to borrow from the Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards, completely free to exercise his "sovereign pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no manner of difficulty."

Edwards, however, was talking about God.

This column originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NEXT: Pennsylvanians Will Have To Pay For Gov. Chris Christie's Bad Spending Habits

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’ve give real money if somebody would sit in the front row of one of her “press conferences” and just shit their own pants, and see how long people sit there and pretend not to notice it.

    1. [S]hit their own pants, and see how long people sit there and pretend not to notice it.


      1. *puts on Swiss novelty narrowed gaze glasses*

        1. For me that’s just taking off my glasses and attempting to read off a fast food menu.

          1. Best narrow gaze ever?

            Lee Van Cleef.


              1. so then Clint would have the best squint ever?

            1. Lee Van Cleef is a fucking ninja!

              1. A master ninja, no less! Definitely Demi Moore’s finest performance.

            2. I bow before Lee Van Cleef’s Mighty Narrowed Gaze!

              *deep, courtly bow*

            3. Who would win in a narrow gaze off between Lee Van Cleef and Fry?

      2. They sell Depends in the Ukraine? Far out.

  2. Do they still have those Web sites keeping track of Presidents’ campaign promises and whether they kept them?

    1. If there is they’d strangely find themselves incapable of developing a methodology for assessing the honesty of the Clintons’ “atypical campaign model”.

    2. Nah, once Obama started ignoring practically every promise he made during the 2008 election, we collectively realized that tracking candidates’ campaign promises is racist and called for an end to the oppressive practice.

    3. perhaps isidewith for tracking promises

  3. You don’t want a president confronting big issues de novo.

    No, but in utero (her) and ex vivo (us), by all means.

      1. In the sun we’ll be as one.

  4. Selective thoroughness may be Clinton’s greatest virtue

    1. “Thoroughness may be Clinton’s greatest virtue, especially when juxtaposed with the colossally dangerous unreadiness of Donald Trump.”

      Has he hit today’s social signaling quota yet? I think so.

  5. The Constitution is quite clear on the point: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

    What is this “Constitution” of which you speak?

    1. It’s this old document written like 100 years ago by a bunch of white male slaveowners. It’s ridiculous and should be ignored.

      1. I know you are kidding but I get this as serious response from a lot of people when I try to engage in a rational discussion about issues of the day. At first it got me angry but now I am just depressed.

        1. They picked it up from Ezra Klein, the most worthless public “intellectual” of the modern age.

          1. I don’t know, SugarFree. That’s a pretty competitive position. You can’t just claim that for Ezra Klein. There needs to be some sort of contest, vote, or death match to determine who gets that title.

          2. If you need any further proof of the degradation of American political culture, you don’t have to look any further than the fact that a nondescript poli-sci B.A. holder is considered any sort of intellectual. The guy’s entire life experience is blogging. It’s probably the only paid work he’s done since high school. He has absolutely no practical experience in anything else, yet he deigns to lecture the rest of us on a very wide variety of subjects. Fuck that clown.

        2. It is to me a tacit admission on their part that never really have anything more than a slim and transient majority. If they actually commanded the “will of the people”, they could amend the Constitution easily. That they intentionally eschew that route nowadays reflects the divisiveness of their ideas. Of course, it is also integral to the success of the Fabian strategy; avoid grand overtures and instead slowly and somewhat subversively move the institutions in your direction.

        3. I decline to be depressed about it. This is the calibre of our enemies; despite their pretensions of being intellctuals they are ill-educated and ostentatiously stupid. Provided we don’t defeat ourselves (still all too possible) their destiny is the same historical ashcan where the old-style ‘FDR is a traitor to his class’ Republicans ended up.

          1. From your lips to God’s ears (and/or the non-religious equivalent of that sentiment).

  6. Hillary Clinton’s got a plan for everything.

    And that’s why Peter Suderman loves and reveres her.

    1. Brooksie, Shrill Bot is a serious Adult-in-the-Room. She naturally would appeal to his inner policy wonk. She’s got gravitas!

      1. You misspelled “cankles”.

  7. If you fail to plan, you plan to fail!

    1. If you plan to fail, success is guaranteed.

      1. Pretty much. See Kiffin, Lane, Career Of.

        1. That was all Pete Carrol’s fault.

          He fouled up the restroom and blamed the next guy.

          1. Pete Carrol didn’t put a gun to his head to make him take a giant shit on Tennessee.

            1. If one is going to take a giant shit, the Land of the Viles is the most appropriate place.

              “It’s that throw up orange. It’s not that orange you can sit with”

  8. What is this “Constitution” of which you speak?

    It’s just some old boat.

    1. Ah. That explains quite a lot.

    2. They called it old iron sides which leads me to the question, “why not make it out of actual iron?”.

      1. *** rolls eyes ***

        As if “actual iron” could float.

        1. Which is why we build boats out of witches.

          1. Controlling the newt population is the real challenge.

            1. The Newt population is too high.

          2. Who are you, so wise in the ways of engineering?

  9. That’s one reason the federal government has 33 separate housing programs run by four different agencies.

    The real reason is that bureaucracies engage in empire building and none of the three branches do a damn thing to prevent them from doing so. In fact, they actively encourage it.

    I want a candidate that will swear to gut the federal bureaucracy and lay its innards out on the table for everyone to see.



        1. The cupboard is never bare until we run out of gay midgets.

    2. I want a candidate that will swear to gut the federal bureaucracy and lay its innards out on the table for everyone to see.

      A good place to start enlightenment about “its innards” is to pull up a few random organization charts.

        1. Contest: Spot the silliest federal agency on that list.

          I submit as a starting point the Indian Arts and Crafts Board.

          1. “Women’s Business Enterprise Interagency Committee”

            1. Game on.
              Assassination Records Review Board
              Just one silly agency or one silly agency per letter of the alphabet?

              1. Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Jubilee Commission

                1. That’s silly and outlived its “usefulness” by 24 years. Perfect.

          2. Oh, come on…it’s the second on the list!
            National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

          3. Hmm I can’t seem to make up my mind which is silliest. I propose we create a new agency to determine the silliest waste of taxpayer money

    3. “In fact, they actively encourage it.”

      Of course they do. Government employment has become a jobs program. No one is going to reign it in because they would loose too many votes. And, they don’t want to loose the cushy job.

    4. That is so unbelievably racist.

      I bet you deny the Holocaust and supported Apartheid too!

      1. Holodecks are total bullshit and algaecide is sometimes necessary.

    5. I’m sure Hillary has plans for creating an advisory board to study the issue of establishing a blue-ribbon committee to consider the issue of creating a panel of experts tasked with creating a Bureau For Studying The Creation of the Federal Bureaucracy Gutting Agency. Those damn Republicans won’t appropriate the funds to create the bureau, though.

  10. One of the worst (and most common) forms of argument i hear these days is =

    – [someone proposes idiotic Command-Economy concept]
    – [someone else points out self-evident problems with top-down control-economics]
    – response = “WELL I DONT SEE *YOU* PROVIDING ANY PLAN!!!”
    – [points finger at hundreds of years of evidence suggesting that markets function better than…]
    – [waves hand] “Oh, so DO NOTHING is your plan, huh!? FIGURES

    1. It’s like announcing you’re an agnostic to either sides of the GOD/NO GOD war.

    2. And it reifies all the way down.

      – command-economy proposal implemented over objections
      – fails exactly as predicted
      – supporters respond with technocratic hedge-trimming
      – critics point out inadequacy, recommend getting out while it’s cheap
      – critics panned for having no plan, hedge-trimming ensues
      – start over at step one

      1. Apply the same argument to war.

        – We can’t leave now, all those lives lost would have been in vain!

        1. What even is the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

      2. – supporters respond with technocratic hedge-trimming demands for massive increases in funding


        1. Well, that’s a given. But actual on-the-ground implementation changes are going to be laughably myopic and weak-willed.

        2. – command-economy proposal implemented over objections
          – fails exactly as predicted
          – supporters respond with technocratic hedge-trimming

          Seattle spent $70 million on homelessness, you won’t believe what happened next.

          1. Let me guess: they destroyed the article that documented their failures.

        3. “there outta be a law” is synonymous with “there should be higher prices and less competition”

          1. It’s also synonymous with “there should be more police violence”.

      3. Reminds me of a Suderman article.

      4. – command-economy proposal implemented over objections
        – fails exactly as predicted

        Don’t forget “supporters blame deregulation”.

        1. Pay Up is fast.

      5. You forgot “blame free market”

        1. Hoarders, Kulaks, Wreckers, and Greed

        2. DO SOMETHING! DO SOMETHING! We don’t care if it hurts, but DO SOMETHING about those EpiPens!

      6. I was discussing free markets with a big government devotee once. He asked me, “so the government should just do nothing?! What if doctors just did nothing when someone was sick? That would be a pretty terrible doctor, right?”

        I pointed out that doctors very often let a disease “run the course” and resolve on its own, or engage in “watchful waiting”, and that these are the best strategies when all treatments attempted have just made things worse.

      1. or any participatory form of govt.

        the benefit of democracy over more-direct forms of govt is that, while everyone is bickering about what “plan” to implement, it leaves at least some room for markets to quasi-function.

        democracy often results in ‘more’ of a market-role than other forms of participatory govt because it makes “consensus” so much more complex and laborious

        iow, the “inefficiency” of democracy is a virtue in that sense.

        1. I wish my local democracy were a little more inefficient.

          1. if you donate more to your local pols, they can help make it less efficient for you.

        2. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had countervailing institutions like let’s say a judiciary whose job it is to hold legislators accountable, rather than punting questions and insisting it’s the electorate’s job to ensure politicians hold to their Constitutional mandates? And while we’re dreaming, maybe it would be nice to have a legislative body that jealously guards its prerogatives against incursions by the executive. And an executive that resists calls to exceed its Constitutionally prescribed role.

          Ah, well, everyone knows voting is the most important thing about a republic.

          1. The problem with the judiciary is not so much that it punts questions to the legislature. The real problem is that the judiciary reserves the right to decide whether or not to punt questions to the legislature on judges’ whims. Lochner is evil but Roe is just dandy. Korematsu is atrocious but Wickard is essential. Baker v. Carr nobly “redefined” our democracy but Shelby County v. Holder is “retrograde”. Etc., etc.

        3. the “inefficiency” of democracy is a virtue in that sense

          Which is how it was intended to work by Madison. Bi-partisan unity was not a good thing to be wished for – factionalism is a good thing as long as you have enough of them trying to pick each other’s pockets that they’re too busy to pick yours. Once they figure out the game and agree to cooperate on the pocket-picking enterprise, you’re screwed. Especially if they’re slick enough to agree to pretend like they’re not cooperating and lull you into a false sense of security by thinking you can always pick a different, competing faction if you don’t like the one currently screwing you. You’ll know when that happens because you’ll notice that it doesn’t much matter which faction you choose to support, you’re getting the same results either way. Like if one faction promises to make government bigger and more expensive and the other promises to make government smaller and cheaper and yet the government gets bigger and more expensive no matter which faction is in charge. I’m not saying such a thing would ever happen, but you might want to keep an eye out for it just in case it ever pops up.

        4. Which is why we need a Bureau of Sabotage.

    3. The reason it can be persuasive, I think, is that there’s something to it, in other contexts. Take a given explanation of some physical phenomenon; we accept it because it accords with other physical principles, and require those who would question it to be able to demonstrate at least some minimum understanding of the implications. However, of course the actual truth of a proposition is unrelated both to a questioner’s qualifications, and the lack and/or validity of any potential alternate explanation. Maybe you doubt the validity of epicycles or spontaneous generation, but do not yet have the tools to substantiate, or even really understand, your doubts. On the other hand, maybe you are an idiot who “questions everything” and therefore doesn’t believe “the official story” on the theory of gravity. In either case, your opponent may point to your lack of knowledge and/or expertise, as well as your lack of a credible alternate explanation, to discount your contention; in the latter case rightly so, but not in the former.

    4. “Oh, so DO NOTHING is your plan, huh!? FIGURES”

      Waiting is not doing nothing.

  11. Hillary Clinton’s got a plan for everything.

    Where’s Fred Thomspon when you need him?

    1. Frantically scratching at the inside of his coffin?

  12. Nobody panics when things go “according to plan.” Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that a superpredator will get shot or a Yemeni wedding will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all “part of the plan.”

    1. And when things don’t go according to any plan, just say “what difference at this point does it make?” and get the media to run interference for you.


    2. +1 Joker

  13. Does she have a plan for learning how to identify classified information? I know we’ve determined that it’s toats cool for the Secretary of State to not recognize that information regarding drone strikes, Iran, or the Norks’ nuclear facilities should be considered classified, but…I don’t know…maybe the president?

    1. Clinton Foundation Funding – Totes classified

      Everything else – meh

  14. I cannot imagine the justification for a federal ban on slaughtering and eating one particular species of livestock while promoting the consumption of several others.

    Obviously our government is run by 11 year old girls.

    1. Whatcha hankering’ for, Bubba?

      1. He wants his horse burger now!

        And I want one too, now that I think about it.

      2. Here’s a list to choose from.

        (despite the URL, SFW).

        1. Easter eggs? That’s pretty darn exotic!

    2. Not sure why horses need protection, but not cattle or pigs.

      And it’s not as if the horses from the US that might be slaughtered for meat would otherwise live out their days happily prancing through the fields.

  15. The EpiPen’s maker could get away with jacking up prices because the FDA has given it an effective monopoly. Several other companies have tried to bring similar epinephrine devices to market, but the FDA keeps shooting them down. In 29 states, it’s illegal to substitute a generic version of the EpiPen, even if one were available.

    Liberals call this “deregulation”.

    1. It always cracks me up that “liberals” blame “deregulation” for the problems in two industries: healthcare and banking.

      Anyone who has ever studied these industries knows that they are a few laws away from being government-run utilities.

      It’s like if an alcoholic, chain-smoking, drug-addicted couch potato went to the gym once a year, then complained that all that exercise is making him sick.

  16. “why not make it out of actual iron?”.

    That’s crazy. Iron doesn’t float.

    1. Of course not. It weighs more than a duck

  17. These plans seem to be all over the place. She clearly needs to come up with a better plan for how she comes up with plans.

  18. OT trivia: did you guys know there is a 276th episode of cheers commissioned by the US government to sell savings bonds?


    1. Who the hell is the target audience for that?

      1. People who won’t need their $25 for 30 years?

  19. I’m pretty damn tired of libertarians attacking Trump based on his dangerous unpreparedness and similar lines. I’ve been saying since day 1 that in attacking this guy you are undercutting libertarianism itself. You are basically putting these political hacks who get elected for everything besides their policy proposals on a pedestal and government along with them. It’s reinforcing the narrative this article itself eventually tries to undercut – that politicians should have a plan and be involved in all this bullshit.

    Don’t glorify the hacks we have in your pearl clutching over Trump.

    1. As I’ve mentioned above, I believe that it’s social signalling all the way. Trump strikes fear to writers of their ilk because he’s so openly and brashly proud of himself, unlike what classy rich folks “should” be.

      1. He’s not in the politicians/political writers club.

        1. I think that he was signaling to protect himself from said writers’ club. It’s like when artists/painters are sponsored by the nobility; they can’t oppose their narrative too much unless it’s really subtle.

        2. Worse than that. He doesn’t seem to want to join the club, and actively threatens the lucre of those who have.

          1. I misunderstood Derp completely on that one, I thought that he was referring to the author, not Trump. Indeed, Trump is a major threat to their perch, and they’re doing anything to mobilize and protect it even if it means supporting a criminal.

            1. “We know Bill Clinton is a rapist but at least he isnt a Republican.”

    2. Look, I can dislike Trump and dislike other political hacks while I’m at it. I’m just that talented.

      1. Thing is, though, at least Republican voters are trying something different this time around. May not be my cup of tea, but it’s different. The same cannot be said for the illiberals.

        1. Thing is, though, I’m still not voting for him.

          Kudos to the Stupid Party for thinking outside the box on this one, though.

          1. Agreed, I’m voting Johnson all the way. I’m still more sympathetic to Trump voters than Clinton voters, though, because I can at least understand why he’s appealing to them. I have no idea how Clinton gets any supporters besides out of fear.

            1. I find the media treatment of Trump to be almost as horrifying as Trump himself.

            2. Oh don’t worry—Trump gets his voters from fear too

        2. They’re actively beating themselves in the face instead of trusting Lucy to hold the ball. So yeah, I guess that’s new.

          1. I don’t personally think that at all, actually. Unlike Clinton, he actually has groups of voters that flat out love him and will show up to vote for him rather than purely against Hillary. That’s why I think that he has way more of chance to win than most pundits think. His campaign strategy is brilliant, as well, especially considering that he has a pittance of funds compared to Clinton and her patrons.

            1. I didn’t say they realized what they were doing.

            2. They are sticking it to the elites by voting for a New York billionaire.

              1. Who talks like a guy with a big foam #1 on his hand and a beer-guzzler helmet.

                1. And turned a cakewalk election into an uphill battle against his own propensity to fuck himself in the ass with his own mouth.

                  1. Oh man… I remember when my hometown would have cakewalks in the city hall during various town festivals. Sigh. It was a different time.

              2. In a sense you’re right, but they’re really voting for one billionaire, one who openly loves to flaunt his wealth and has no interest in portraying himself as anything but superior to the average person. I completely understand how that’s refreshing and appealing to a Trump supporter. With Hillary, you get a team of billionaires and top men that promises to maintain the status quo. I can kind of see why Trump is a “rebel” candidate in that context.

                1. I completely understand how that’s refreshing and appealing to a Trump supporter.

                  Fuck the Trump supporters. If he showed up to the debates wearing a monocle, with orphans in tow; I might have to reconsider voting for Gary “I might not be value added” Johnson.

                  1. There’s a lot of value to be had out of a president who doesn’t add value.

        3. Democratic voters are trying something different this time: Voting for a vag.

          1. That’s if you think that voting for a vag and voting for a skin color are two different things. To the average prog…yeah, I think you’re right.

            1. Queue the Latino for 2024. Maybe as soon as 2020 given Hillary’s health

        4. Trump is sort of an Obama for the right. An inexperienced politician promising change and great things, and pretty much a blank slate that they can project their hopes and desires onto.

          1. The blank slate is an effective campaign strategy. Get specific on details and voters have something to react against. Leave things vague and if they like you they’ll assume that you’ll be like them.

      2. My comment had nothing to do with liking Trump. It didn’t imply you should like him. It just said a particular line of attack that happens to feed the bullshit narrative that our political class is competent and prepared is a dumb one for libertarians to take.

        1. I hear you. You can’t say Trump is BAD! because he is not part of the establishment and then say vote for GJ because he isn’t part of the establishment.

          1. But being prepared to be president isn’t necessarily being part of the establishment. The president actually is supposed to do some things.

            Or maybe it doesn’t matter. I’d be willing to give it a shot (though given the choice, I’d have someone a lot more humble and less ridiculous than Trump).

            1. and being re-elected governor demonstrates that you can do the domestic side of things that the president is supposed to do.

      3. Unpossible. If you are not for Hillary, you are obviously an evil, racist, sexist f*ck, i.e., a Republican and Trump-voter. /prog

    3. I’m pretty damn tired of libertarians attacking Trump

      [Matthew Sheffield quickly links to this as proof that “Libertarians 4 Trump” is real]

    4. I see your point. But even from a libertarian perspective, isn’t having a candidate who is prepared and somewhat experienced with the few things that the federal government is actually supposed to do a desirable thing?

  20. Just ignore the fact that the head of the EpiPen company, the one who made the decision to jack the prices, is a Democrat crony, the daughter of Dem. Sen. Manchin.

    1. Hey, he’s as upset as everyone else!

      1. I laughed out loud at this. I don’t know why.

      2. Oh, wait, you weren’t making a joke. Now I’m perplexed.

        “No one’s more frustrated than me,” Bresch told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Thursday when she was pressed on the question of why Mylan needed to have such a high price for EpiPens, and why she just didn’t cut their price.

        “Everybody should be frustrated,” said Bresch, who in recent days has come under fire from U.S. Senators, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and patients who are outraged by EpiPen’s 400 percent price increases in recent years.

        1. It’s the same shit I used to pull in High School when my report card came home.

          “Mom! Dad! I’m as mad as you guys! This is so unfair!”

          1. Man detonates suicide vest in Belgian Cheese Shop, leaves Facebook post declaring loyalty to ISIS
            Abu Bakr al Baghdadi quickly contacts BBC, saying, “No one’s more upset about this than we are”, and that while a Pan-European Caliphate is indeed an inevitability, insh’allah, he’s still “concerned and angry” about the situation, and “shares everyone’s frustrations” and says he’s convinced “we can all do better”

            1. His motives may never be known…

        2. He’s a chick, you know.

          I find it absolutely amazing that the CEO of a company that just raised prices is “frustrated” by her inability to go back to the old pricing. What’s stopping her, exactly?

          1. Reality of the failed healthcare system.

            Bresch argued that the problem of drug prices isn’t with Mylan or even the pharmaceutical industry, but instead with a health-care system that often requires consumers to pay not just insurance premiums also out-of-pocket for prescription medications, sometimes to the full retail price.

            That phenomenon, Mylan has said, has been exacerbated by the increase in the number of high-deductible health plans.

            1. a health-care system that often requires consumers to pay not just insurance premiums also out-of-pocket for prescription medications, sometimes to the full retail price.

              Maybe I’m missing something. But it seems to me that if anything, that should drive prices down. I suppose the complete lack of competition is a problem there.

            2. so the problem according to Bresch is that the price-gouging is more transparent than before now that we’ve had to raise our deductibles to offset the rising premiums.

              1. Rising deductibles and forcing people to notice the cost of medical care is probably one of the few positive effects of Obamacare.

      3. Must be Bush’s fault

    2. SHHH! Don’t forget, Hinkleheimerschmidt, is a card carrying Vriginian, and it’s been made clear to me that Virginia is currently the EpiPenCenter of this Libertarian Moment(tm) I hear so much about these days.

    1. With a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a fox.

  21. For the EpiPens, here’s the only plan you need:

    (1) The President orders the FDA to authorize for sale in the US any EpiPen clone authorized for sale in the EU.

    That’s it. No commission, no new regulations, no new bureaucrats. The old pen and phone, used as God intended.

      1. If you want democracy to work for you, find some dead kids to stand on. That’s how the FDA got started.

        1. find some dead kids to stand on

          Probably less fun than, say, a trampoline…

          1. Depends how long they’ve been dead.

          2. Trampoline fails is one of my favorite YouTube searches.

  22. “Clinton’s plan for reining in drug prices entails creating a “dedicated group” of federal officials who would come up with new rules to decide which price hikes are unjustified, and then punish wayward companies with fines. ”

    Didn’t Venezuela start off like this?

    1. It takes a while to get to the toilet paper manufacturers, but they’ll get there.

  23. How come Epi’s Penis is such a hot-button issue lately? Is that why he hasn’t been around in a while?

    1. So Cankles wants to nationalize Epi’s schlong?!

    2. “How come Epi’s Penis is such a hot-button issue lately?”
      Recall this answer to the question from the first Democratic presidential debate:
      Which enemy are you most proud of?
      Hillary Clinton: Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians. Probably the Republicans.

      So this kerfuffle is all part of paving the way for her soon-to-be electoral mandate to crush drug companies and insurance companies

  24. “Clinton’s plan for reining in drug prices entails creating a “dedicated group” of federal officials who would come up with new rules to decide which price hikes are unjustified, and then punish wayward companies with fines. Clinton also would arrange for “emergency importation” of drugs from abroad to combat price spikes, and so on.”

    This is textbook fascism. This woman is a fucking nightmare on wheels and everyone is running around shitting their pants over Trump? It is insanity.

  25. Trifle OT:

    RCP’s poll average gives Hillary a borderline lead of 3% nationwide, and that’s mixing registered voter and likely voter polls. For likely voters, its less than that.

    The EC math still looks bad for Trump, true. But I think I detect a whiff of panic from the Dems, as even their DemOp allies in the press are having a hard time not printing stories that are less than supportive of Hillary.

    Its getting to be popcorn time.

    1. Forget about the “EC math” . That’s a pathetic head fake that’s trotted out by the media wizards.

      If Trump wins the popular vote by 2 or 3 points, he’ll win the election.

      1. Probably less than that. People who are focused on battleground states miss the picture.

        If you win the popular vote, the swing states will follow, with very little exception.

    2. Romney lost by 3% of the popular vote and got crushed in the EC.

      But the press is now reporting that the press is being too hard on Hillary. Oh my

      1. Romney lost by almost 4% and picked up 206 electoral votes. He was 64 EC votes short.

        He lost Ohio (18 EC votes) by @ 160,000 votes, FL (29 EC votes) by @ 70,000 votes, and Pennsylvania (20 EC votes) by @ 300,000 votes. Those three states would have swung the EC. and he would have won the EC while losing the popular vote by possibly 3%. I still believe his colossal failure on election day turnout (you may recall he had some software for this that screwed the pooch) is what cost him the election.

        That said, I think its very hard to lose the popular vote by 3% or more and still win the EC. That’s why the EC math still matters in close elections. And why election fraud is not a made up issue – done correctly, it can swing a national election with a relative handful of fraudulent votes in the right places.

        1. 62% vs 38% in EC is what I mean by saying he got crushed there.

  26. “The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.”

    1. “Proper prior planning prevents poor performance.”

  27. “Good evening, comrades. I’m here tonight to tell you about the new Five Year Plan. The Socialist Worker’s Utopia is closer than ever!” (Everyone watching takes a drink of Victory Gin)


  29. In an ideal libertarian world, patents would not be enforced by government bureaucrats. Infringement of patents and other intellectual property would be mediated by juries and mediators, preferably by a privately run system. And many libertarians don’t recognize patents and other “intellectual property” as property that needs any protection. Since the US Constitution gives Congress the power to set their duration for “limited times”, the federal courts has deferred to Congress the power to set the duration from one second to a million years. Congress could, in theory, set “limited times” to vary depending on whether the patent holder abuses their patents, including excessive profits, refusing to allow competition by payment of “reasonable” royalties, or withholding the technology from the market. I’m aware such a system has its own set of challenges, since libertarians believe sellers alone have the power to set or negotiate prices, limited only by the realities of competition. But patents represent a monopoly.

  30. I just got paid ?6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over ?9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do,……..

  31. Clinton has a plan … for autism. … It’s easy to see why: Leave no potential constituency untapped.

    Does that actually work with autistic voters? Because my response to this type of thing is always along the lines of “screw off and stop insulting me” but a bit more polite.

  32. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.NetNote70.com

  33. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this ? 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    Please click the link below

    == http://www.Note50.com

  34. before I saw the paycheck which had said $4647 , I have faith that my mom in-law woz like they say realie taking home money part-time at there labtop. . there moms best frend has done this less than six months and just now repayed the mortgage on there home and got a great new Ford Mustang . more tips here ..
    –?????>>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  35. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do,

    ?? ? ? ? http://www.review40.com

  36. uptil I looked at the paycheck which had said $7458 , I did not believe that my brothers friend woz like actualy earning money parttime from their computer. . there neighbor has done this 4 only thirteen months and a short time ago paid for the morgage on their mini mansion and bourt a top of the range BMW M3 . more information..

    CLICK THIS LINK?? ? ? ? >> http://www.earnmax6.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.