View Story | 542 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Thanks for reading. Before I heard of the non-renewal of his contract yesterday, I had written another piece contrasting Montel Williams with John McCain over at VetVoice.
AR
VetVoice: The blog for troops and veterans | My book on Amazon
by Brandon Friedman on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:39:46 PM PDT
Thanks Brandon for alerting us to this!
What a brave thing for him to do, and what pieces of shit those hosts are.
by cycloptichorn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:45:13 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
this hasn't gotten more coverage.
by Brandon Friedman on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:47:13 PM PDT
nobody watches that show, so that part isn't surprising :)
Cheers
by cycloptichorn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:48:06 PM PDT
by Brandon Friedman on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:48:48 PM PDT
should be playing it up. That they are not doesn't surprise me either.
Support the Troops; Buy Mojo Friday Apparel Proceeds support Ninepatch's Endeavors
by TexDem on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:56:20 AM PDT
networks to take a swipe at Fox by playing up the story. On the other hand, they're not doing any better so they probably won't give it much play.
Sigh.
Montel ROCKS!
Now, go spread some peace, love and understanding. Use force if necessary. - Phil N DeBlanc
by lineatus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:17:37 AM PDT
I would send it to him, but the email address I have no longer works.
Hope his staffers are reading dKos today.
Healthcare for ALL! NOW! & OneCare at MySpace
by SarahLee on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:08:18 PM PDT
You put integrity ahead of money, these Corporatist stooges are going to do their damnedest to get you fired.
-- Putting a Kerry bumper sticker on your truck
-- Writing up the Pentagon using firebombs and such going after turncoats during/after Vietnam
-- Speaking out on one of their propaganda shows
The righties are pro-fascist. Not a drop less.
Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse, Imus, and Rev. Wright. Overcome our evil with good.
by vets74 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:50:24 AM PDT
"The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald
by Geenius at Wrok on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:27:41 AM PDT
nt
Candidates that court voters who won't vote for a black man are called Republicans.
by PrometheusSpeaks on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:33:02 AM PDT
by Aug6PDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:41:01 AM PDT
n/t
by PrometheusSpeaks on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:42:20 AM PDT
replace Tucker. :-)
by Aug6PDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:43:39 AM PDT
Sunlight is the best disinfectant
by historys mysteries on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:51:58 AM PDT
so maybe he can get Montel's coffee during breaks.
My political compass: Economic: -7.38 Social: -5.79
by musicalhair on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:00:25 AM PDT
by Miles in WesternWA on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:16:58 AM PDT
I wonder how well Tucker rolls joints?
We must defeat John McCain. Period. End of story.
by Pris from LA on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:53:33 AM PDT
Like himself.
If we continue to accumulate only power and not wisdom, we will surely destroy ourselves. -Carl Sagan
by LightningMan on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:39:35 PM PDT
In TX-32, track the voting record of Pete Sessions at SessionsWatch.
by CoolOnion on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:02:16 AM PDT
why does this dipshit tucker even have a job. That goes for the complete idiot joe scarbough too
by mpc 12 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:25:08 AM PDT
He's lucky he hasn't gotten a visit from Mika's Dad in the middle of the night.
by TexDem on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:59:27 AM PDT
makes you sick to watch these 2 A$$ H***
http://www.ryanforkentucky.com/ http://www.gregfischer.com/
by vet on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:06:27 AM PDT
Give Tucker the boot and put Montel on! I love it!
I'd sneak out of work early to watch that show!
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? T Jefferson
by TheCorkBoard on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:02:25 PM PDT
I have a serious criticism.
I applaud his support of our troops, of course, and I admire the courage it took to speak the truth in the video above.
As a someone who has the very same kind of Multiple Sclerosis that Montel has, I take inspiration from his example of never giving in to its ravages.
BUT... BUT... BUT...
He's a schill for Big PhARMA. He does those stupid "drug company bus" commercials like they really give a shit about making drugs cheap.
Until he gives up that gig and speaks the truth on that issue, he can stay far, far away from Air America or anywhere else that is fighting the good fight against the Murder-by-Spreadsheet industry.
Barack Obama -- The President we were promised as kids!
by Jimdotz on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:58:37 AM PDT
While I agree the phama industry is, as a whole, quite evil, maybe Montel figures it's better to get something out of them for the people who can't afford any of their medicine, even if doing so provides them with some cover.
I am in no way condemning your post's sentiment. Not at all. But IMHO the question he faces is debatable.
I'd be very interested to see what they're paying him and how much of that he keeps or spends helping other people.
"we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization" - Al Gore
by racerx on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:37:13 AM PDT
but I just can't passed that "drug company bus" thing, especially because we both have MS and I know too many people with MS who are getting financially screwed by the industry he schills for.
My MS drug costs more than $1000 per month in the US, but many hundreds less than that anywhere else in the world. Until he repudiates that, he won't have my affection.
by Jimdotz on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:47:03 AM PDT
I'm making a complex point here and I don't mean to excuse the drug companies or Montel here. My point is that we can change this and we cannot expect the corporations or Montel to really make a difference. Anyhow...
The pharmaceutical companies charge "what the market will bear". They are corporations and, as such their primary motivation is to maximize profits. We should expect no more or less of them. "The bus" is nothing more than a PR line item on a budget spread sheet. None of it has anything to do with morality because corporations are, by their nature, amoral creations. They are, in fact, legally obligated to be amoral and instead maximize profits for their shareholders.
The reason why we pay more here than people in any other country is because the rules of the game are different here than they are in any other country. In every other country they are either:
These corporations will not change and become moral unless it benefits their bottom line. They are hard wired against it. It is better for their bottom line to construct a faux morality that makes them sound just nice enough to not come under some kind of regulatory regime. They will lobby and they will do everything to convince us that they are the primary source of innovation when really the majority of innovation is still happening on university campuses. That's their job. We should expect nothing better.
We must fundamentally change how drugs are purchased in this country. We need bulk purchasing by the government to negotiate down prices and change this equation. If we want to stop subsidizing the drugs for the rests of the world, we need to get our government to step in.
--- Some of my best friends are wrong
by sterno on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 07:44:01 AM PDT
drug makers. Hillary and the Corporatists will continue this.
A Populist like Obama (or Edwards or Kucinich) will end it.
by Jimdotz on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 07:57:08 AM PDT
gave Obama so much $$$, same as they gave Hillary.
HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.
by kck on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:37:50 AM PDT
are doing so much for us now! Onwards!/snark.
Remember Nataline.
by means are the ends on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:44:56 AM PDT
Progressive, yes; populist, no.
Please support .Beyond the Storm: Shadows of the Big Easy
by Magenta on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:42:01 AM PDT
What's YOUR definition of a populist?
"The political system, including elections, is carefully managed to prevent the threat of democracy." ~Noam Chomsky
-5.25, -4.87
by cotasm on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:26:59 PM PDT
--
The President is not my master. He is Chief among my servants.
by DemCurious on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM PDT
populists set up "the people" vs. "the elite." There are shades of nuance to that, of course, such as where candidates draw the line between "people" and "elite" and what the proper response is.
But a populist agitates for conflict between the common folk and the not so common folk. Emphasis on "let's grab the pitchforks and get 'em" varies. It's not my definition, it's just the actual definition.
by Magenta on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:00:16 PM PDT
NONE of the other have advocated not-for-profit health care or EVEN a single-payer system.
by cotasm on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:25:53 PM PDT
any of you out there willing to devote your lives and all your money (which wouldn't be enough) to developing new drugs? which have to be endlessly tested and perfect so as to avoid litigation from angry kossacks should something go wrong?
what perfect world is that will give us the miraculous advances in medicine we've seen in the last fifty years and make it cheap?
by antoniomachado on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:09:07 AM PDT
research is done in the universities. Actual research costs to pharma companies is less than 1%
We have no future because our present is too volatile. We only have risk management. The spinning of the given moments scenario. Pattern Recognition. ~W. Gibson
by Silent Lurker on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:12:04 AM PDT
and where's that link on 1%?
by antoniomachado on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:18:07 AM PDT
some real rigorous tests for all those pills to cure me of foot fungus.
I think you'll find that the FDA has been rushing drugs to the market lately to help out big Pharma rather than doing the kind of testing they should be to protect consumers.
I'm sure you remember those lawsuits against Vioxx?
"The meek shall inherit nothing" - F. Zappa
by cometman on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:25:18 AM PDT
the gov't pays for FDA studies from products from public universities, since the goal is to produce a healthier country, which in turn will lower health care costs for the country, leaving people more productive so they can pay more taxes?
Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.
by drbloodaxe on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:26:03 AM PDT
I mean yes, our taxes would go up to do this, but the end results would be:
by sterno on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:26:17 AM PDT
Taxpayers do. You are advocating that taxpayers pay for testing.
Ban Intolerance Now!
by brahma on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:54:22 AM PDT
is non-profit. That means taxpayers get a better deal by not having to pay bloated salaries to CEOs who sit on each other's compensation boards and award themselves salary and bonuses equal to 500 times that of the average worker, nor does government waste money on unnecessary advertising, nor does it take a chunk of taxpayers' money to award as dividends to investors who don't lift a finger to do any of the work of research and manufacturing and distributing.
The goal of government is to serve the people. The goal of private industry in the "free market" is to make a profit by any means necessary, even if it means exploiting workers and consumers and raping the environment.
Taxpayers, who are also workers and consumers, and who also breathe the air, drink the water, and eat the food from the environment, are the end users of all products, so they--WE--end up paying for testing, and everything else, so why should we pay more for everything merely so that a tiny few at the very top can benefit disproportionately from our labor?
Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.
by drewfromct on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:14:02 PM PDT
The goal of government is to perpetuate itself. It has no particular incentive to be efficient in doing so and has many incentives against it. So long as they don't piss off enough people to get them kicked out of office, it's all good by them.
I tend to think that the best way to do things is to align societies interests with profit motives. The problem we have is that corporations are most profitable when they provide the least service for the most money. A perfect world for an insurer is a large collection of people who only get sick occasionaly, but still pay into insurance, and then are suddenly run over by a bus when they are in their 50's. no lingering expensive medical costs that eat into their profits.
If you want to fix this system you have to make it in the interests of those insurers to take on the 60+ year old person with a chronic and expensive to maintain ailment. Then all of that competition and profit driven efficiency will be made to work for the people rather than against them.
I'm just not sure exactly HOW you do that :). So government operation seems like the least bad option to me, but it's no panacea either to be clear.
by sterno on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:50:04 PM PDT
is certainly no panacea, and I did not say or mean to say or imply that it is. Government, like any other human institution, is only as good as the people whom are choose, and are chosen, to serve in it. Garbage in, garbage out. That certainly applies when single-minded worshipers of Laissez-Faire who make no secret of their hatred of government are elected to run it. Putting free market conservatives in charge of government is like putting Vegans in charge of a slaughterhouse.
As for capitalism and the profit motive, I certainly would not advocate doing away with it entirely, but there needs to be limits. Capitalism is like fire--extinguish it and we'll freeze and starve. Let it run wild, and it'll destroy us all.
by drewfromct on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:06:54 PM PDT
by sterno on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:21:47 PM PDT
I'm all for it. I mean I'm already paying for it through insurance premiums and tax dollars that go to medicare and medicaid. So hell, I may as well just tack a little more onto my tax check next year.
by sterno on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:44:53 PM PDT
that little extra will save you money on drugs you no longer have to pay 6 times as much for to cover pharma bloat, and in fact, your insurance premiums should go down too, since the drugs they're paying for you to take will cost far less.
The point is, if you take the shareholders out of the equation, costs drop.
by drbloodaxe on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 07:14:52 AM PDT
Taxpayers are the ones who are going to be using the drugs.
Bu I'm suggesting these are trials and processes run after research in public university labs, not for profit companies.
by drbloodaxe on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 07:11:36 AM PDT
Reagan purposely made passing the FDA both faster and much more expensive, so that pharmacos could be sure of both getting their products certified, and of fewer entrants to compete with them.
So we have less competition, and worse drugs, at higher costs, including the basic research paid for by the government and other public institutions like universities - which is us, not the pahmacos that don't pay taxes like we do.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST
by DocGonzo on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:22:13 AM PDT
and you may get hidden for your capitalist comments. jk. I agree, gvt interference usually ends up favoring the corps. already in existence, and the gvt programs established are usually co-authored by the corps. too (you need experts to assist in your drafting). Litigation makes it pricey too, but one could say that if the FDA was doing is job, there would be less litigation, but ah, fat chance on that.
by KLRinLA on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:47:17 AM PDT
People on Daily Kos like freedom, including free markets. What we don't like are fake free markets, like the ones Reagan and every other fake "Conservative" has built. The ones that are subsidized by everyone but the capitalist, risks that are mitigated by everyone else, especially the public bailing them out when they fail, and sponsoring them with no-bid customers and privatized public assets to start.
We don't like corporate anarchy. We like a government that protects freedom, of individuals and markets. So when we know that eg. Reagan made the FDA an assembly line for pharmacos mining public R&D investments, but with a gatekeeper checking billionaire credentials (inflated by not taxing billionaires), we don't like it.
Republicans, voting with their votes, have loved it for generations. That's why I'd expect to get kicked out of any of their blogs for posting what I did.
by DocGonzo on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:20:11 PM PDT
The Kossacks hate free market theory so much they are falling all over themselves to "troll" this comment.
You got a link? Or does that ludicrous talking point make up the totality of your arsenal?
America: It's a good IDEA for a country ...
by Tony Seybert on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:05:01 PM PDT
where private companies stop using research done by the government and universities which we all pay for and then get the patents for themselves and make billions.
Their excuses about expensive R&D are complete BS.
by cometman on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:18:42 AM PDT
That is public information in every financial report of every publicly traded pharmaceutical company.
by Donner on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:38:37 AM PDT
they claim huge R&D expenses but they spend billions to market marginally successful drugs which 'cure' fairly minor ailments.
by cometman on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:47:19 AM PDT
They're repackaged versions of the same drug with a couple of molecules rearranged so the company can extend the patent.
The Best Anti-McCain Ad [-4.25, -5.33]
by GTPinNJ on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:10:46 AM PDT
Change what it is mixed with so it enters the body slower, and you go from 4 pills a day to 2 or even 1 a day.
by Donner on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:20:36 PM PDT
you're saying that Pharma comapnies
devote your lives and all your money (which wouldn't be enough) to developing new drugs?
Why are you asking us to do more than they do?
It's good enough for you if they do it to make enormous profits, but if we want to complain about enormous profittaking with people's lives and health at stake, we have to be willing to go to the other extreme and spend our lives and all our money?
Well, actually, advances in computer modeling and biochemical research done by universites to understand biological system behaviours will give us this. If we poured the same money into public university departments doing these studies rather than stockholder run for-profit companies, we'd have the best science labs in the world, and be churning out tons of highly educated scientists to boot.
by drbloodaxe on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:24:18 AM PDT
by cometman on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:25:52 AM PDT
where an entire infrastructure of superhighways spanning tens of thousands of miles and requiring constant maintenance and upkeep can be driven on for only nominal fees?
Surely, that's impossible.
What a perfect world where each city or county has it's own security and fire fighting force that will come to your house if you report a crime or fire, and not charge you a thing.
The truth about John McCain.
by Jawis on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:07:03 AM PDT
Those miraculous advances in medicine have come through R&D done at Universities and through government funding. The pharmaceutical companies do some research in terms of funding clinical trials but they also spend a hell of a lot of money on marketing which increases costs for us but do nothing to improve the drugs we receive (and arguably increase the risk of us getting less effective drugs).
Ultimately all of this does cost money, no doubt, but the problem is that because of the way the system works right now, the US pays a disproportionate cost for the medical advances of the world. I don't expect that we're going to suddenly get miraculously cheap drugs through judicious use of fairy dust, but we can definitely rebalance the equation so that we aren't subsidizing everybody else.
As for the litigation, if a pharmaceutical company hides evidence of failures in their clinical trials, they deserve what they get. If a company puts a good faith effort into insuring the safety and effectiveness of their product, they expose themselves to less liability. Sure there are some frivolous lawsuits, but by and large the big damages only happen when a company tries to pull a fast one.
There is no perfect world and even with some form of universal coverage and drug price negotiation we will have to balance the costs of new therapies against their results. But we can absolutely do better than we are today as there are countless examples of countries doing just that.
by sterno on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:22:19 AM PDT
It is going for advertising. All the TV spots and glossy magazine ads aren't cheap. Ever noticed how much of both kinds there are?
The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket.
by Philpm on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:36:39 AM PDT
The type of research a pharmaceutical company pays for is typically how to make a certain drug more efficiently. Mixing faster, catalyzing with something less expensive, that sort of thing. Stuff that has no effect on the health of the consumer.
Pure research into new medications is often done by people in universities. They occasionally get relatively small grants from corporations, but it often just comes from the NSF.
Universities nowadays pride themselves on "technology transfer": giving away results of pure research to companies who will then make a profit on them.
I'm an Obama supporter, but I'll still defend Clinton.
by sxp151 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:14:43 PM PDT
I recently read a debate in Reason Magazine Between Milton Friedman and John Mackey, founder and CEO of Whole Foods. In it they debate your above premise, the moral and ethical responsibility of corporate entities.
It's here: http://www.reason.com/...
I don't so much have a point as I wanted to share this discussion, at it was interesting to me and relevant to your premise.
Out of touch, bitter voter
by nwgates on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:51:12 PM PDT
is a program for free meds for people who can't afford it. I think it's a decent man who helped make that known. A lot of people don't know that drug companies have programs for free, or nearly free meds for low income or the uninsured. Until Montel's commercials, even less knew about it, or how to find out. He helped make it easier to find out from hundreds of manufacturers in one place.
I don't think that makes him a drug company schill, I think it makes him someone who is helping people find their way in this high dollar, big pharma maze.
He also preaches more natural ways to live instead of relying on any and every drug that comes down the pike. That doesn't sound like a drug company schill to me.
He's also for legalizing marijuna.
Just sayin'
"No Democratic candidate has ever won the White House without first winning the nomination." ~Shahryar
by second gen on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:58:34 AM PDT
a lot fewer people would be dead or bankrupt right now.
Montel's work may seem noble, but all he's doing is helping their PR machine make drug makers seem Oh-So-Concerned about poor people when, in fact, they don't give a shit how many people they hurt as they sqeeze profits out of peoples' misery.
Health care should be not-for-profit, and Montel is helping prevent that.
by Jimdotz on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 07:12:19 AM PDT