The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on August 01, 2019, 12:52:58 pm
-
By Craig Bannister | July 31, 2019 | 9:08 PM EDT
Companies that develop drugs will have to go to the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) to be told what they’ll be allowed to charge for their products if Joe Biden is elected president, the former vice president declared Wednesday during the Democrat presidential debate.
Biden made the claim while defending his health care plan against the charge that it would not cover everyone in America, adding that his administration would also dictate any price increases:
“My plan does cover everyone, number one. Number two, the fact is that my plan also calls for controlling drug prices. The biopharma is now where things are going to go. It’s no longer chemicals.
“It's about all the breakthroughs we have with the whole -- excuse me, immune system.
“And, what we have to do now is we have to have a form that sits in the HHS and says: as you develop a drug, you got to come to us and decide what you can sell it for.
“We will set the price. And, secondly, it says that you cannot raise that price beyond the cost of inflation from this point on.â€
more
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/bidens-health-care-plan-drug-companies-will-have-come-us-and-we-will-set-price (https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/bidens-health-care-plan-drug-companies-will-have-come-us-and-we-will-set-price)
-
Companies that develop drugs will have to go to the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) to be told what they’ll be allowed to charge for their products
Unbelievable.
-
It’s not unbelievable. It’s exactly what happens in European countries that control healthcare. Plus, this admin has proposed using that index for price matching.
Trump Proposes Setting Some Drug Prices Using Global Index
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-25/trump-to-attack-global-freeloading-in-drug-price-address (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-25/trump-to-attack-global-freeloading-in-drug-price-address)
Trump aims to make US drug prices like Europe's
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-aims-to-make-us-drug-prices-like-europes/ar-AAEQaLq (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-aims-to-make-us-drug-prices-like-europes/ar-AAEQaLq)
-
This is pretty much what fascism does in an economy. Unlike its Marxian sibling that kills business owners and confiscates their companies, fascism lets businesses continue, as dictated by government.
-
Joe needs to read a couple of chapters of that Russian-American writer's book.
-
It’s not unbelievable. It’s exactly what happens in European countries that control healthcare. Plus, this admin has proposed using that index for price matching.
Trump Proposes Setting Some Drug Prices Using Global Index
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-25/trump-to-attack-global-freeloading-in-drug-price-address (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-25/trump-to-attack-global-freeloading-in-drug-price-address)
Trump aims to make US drug prices like Europe's
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-aims-to-make-us-drug-prices-like-europes/ar-AAEQaLq (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-aims-to-make-us-drug-prices-like-europes/ar-AAEQaLq)
Get back to me when Trump promises to force drug companies to come to him on bended knee when they need to decide what to charge, like Biteme said in his most idiotic comment last night.
-
Get back to me when Trump promises to force drug companies to come to him on bended knee when they need to decide what to charge, like Biteme said in his most idiotic comment last night.
What’s this sound like to you?
“Why should other nations like Canada, why should other nations pay much less than us? They’ve taken advantage of the system for a long time, Pharma, so we’re working on right now a favored nations law so that whatever the lowest nation is anywhere in the world, or company, then what happens is we will pay that amount. That’s being worked on right now,†Trump said.
https://nypost.com/2019/07/05/trump-promises-he-will-force-big-pharma-to-lower-drug-prices/
-
What’s this sound like to you?
“Why should other nations like Canada, why should other nations pay much less than us? They’ve taken advantage of the system for a long time, Pharma, so we’re working on right now a favored nations law so that whatever the lowest nation is anywhere in the world, or company, then what happens is we will pay that amount. That’s being worked on right now,†Trump said.
https://nypost.com/2019/07/05/trump-promises-he-will-force-big-pharma-to-lower-drug-prices/
He's still not saying that the government determines the actual price. He's just saying that they can't sell it for less overseas than they sell it for here. But the drug companies themselves still get to determine what that price is.
I would agree that is still terrible policy, though.
-
I was wondering why there were suddenly so many "overprescribing of opioids" stories right now.
-
He's still not saying that the government determines the actual price. He's just saying that they can't sell it for less overseas than they sell it for here. But the drug companies themselves still get to determine what that price is.
I would agree that is terrible policy, though.
It’s kind of splitting hairs, though. A government, though not our government, is negotiating the price, for another nation. What bothers me the most about it is the fact a system like that looks at the cost effectiveness of a drug, not the overall effectiveness. You may not get something you need, because a government can’t negotiate a good price for it. That is, essentially, a death panel.
-
What’s this sound like to you?
“Why should other nations like Canada, why should other nations pay much less than us? They’ve taken advantage of the system for a long time, Pharma, so we’re working on right now a favored nations law so that whatever the lowest nation is anywhere in the world, or company, then what happens is we will pay that amount. That’s being worked on right now,†Trump said.
https://nypost.com/2019/07/05/trump-promises-he-will-force-big-pharma-to-lower-drug-prices/
Sounds like something different than what Biteme was talking about. I understood him to say he wanted to price the drug first, something no private company can do with a new drug. I'm sure if the Pharma's put up a convincing argument about a higher price, Biteme (and future Presidents) will always be reasonable. /sarc
-
I was wondering why there were suddenly so many "overprescribing of opioids" stories right now.
"Orange Big Pharma Bad!!" (repeat for exactly two minutes, every day.)
-
What if the 'Drug Companies' give Hunter a little something to
smooth things over?
-
What if the 'Drug Companies' give Hunter a little something to
smooth things over?
You can count on some version of that, the moment the very first application hits his desk.
-
It’s kind of splitting hairs, though. A government, though not our government, is negotiating the price, for another nation.
It is still ultimately up to the company to determine the single price at which they want to sell the drug. Maybe those other governments will say "too expensive, we're not buying", and of course that is their choice as well.
What bothers me the most about it is the fact a system like that looks at the cost effectiveness of a drug, not the overall effectiveness. You may not get something you need, because a government can’t negotiate a good price for it. That is, essentially, a death panel.
That seems to be an entirely different complaint. Let's say we leave the government out of it completely. Suppose the drug company on its own set a price that turns out to be twice what you personally can afford. How is that different from a "death panel"? I mean, even where there is either a government or insurance company deciding what they will pay for a drug, individual consumers are still free to pay for them out of their own pocket if they so choose.
Again, I think being able to sell the drug at different prices to different countries ultimately benefits consumers here in the U.S., which is why I don't like the idea of saying that whatever price the drug company chooses to charge, it has to be the same everywhere.
-
It is still ultimately up to the company to determine the single price at which they want to sell the drug. Maybe those other governments will say "too expensive, we're not buying", and of course that is their choice as well.
That seems to be an entirely different complaint. Let's say we leave the government out of it completely. Suppose the drug company on its own set a price that turns out to be twice what you personally can afford. How is that different from a "death panel"? I mean, even where there is either a government or insurance company deciding what they will pay for a drug, individual consumers are still free to pay for them out of their own pocket if they so choose.
Again, I think being able to sell the drug at different prices to different countries ultimately makes it cheaper for consumers here in the U.S., which is why I don't like the idea of saying that whatever price the drug company chooses to charge, it has to be the same everywhere.
The problem is, the drug companies MUST deal with governments, in other nations, because they run the healthcare systems. We end up paying more, because they make it up on the back end, after giving other nations the discount. What's likely to happen, if we get into this game where the pharma companies have to honor the lowest price, is they'll do the bare minimum to develop new treatments, if they bother at all. It's similar to the development of the polio vaccine. The saying at the time was 'put government in charge of treating polio and we'll develop the world's best iron lung.'
-
The problem is, the drug companies MUST deal with governments, in other nations, because they run the healthcare systems. We end up paying more, because they make it up on the back end, after giving other nations the discount. What's likely to happen, if we get into this game where the pharma companies have to honor the lowest price, is they'll do the bare minimum to develop new treatments, if they bother at all. It's similar to the development of the polio vaccine. The saying at the time was 'put government in charge of treating polio and we'll develop the world's best iron lung.'
Exactly right.
-
The problem is, the drug companies MUST deal with governments, in other nations, because they run the healthcare systems. We end up paying more, because they make it up on the back end, after giving other nations the discount. What's likely to happen, if we get into this game where the pharma companies have to honor the lowest price, is they'll do the bare minimum to develop new treatments, if they bother at all. It's similar to the development of the polio vaccine. The saying at the time was 'put government in charge of treating polio and we'll develop the world's best iron lung.'
Well, yes and no. The drug companies can always choose not to sell the drug in those other countries below the (higher) price they want to charge in the U.S.. It would all depend upon whether the increased volume that comes from selling the drug overseas makes up for the lower price at which they'd have to sell it in the U.S..
But either way -- 1) keeping the price high here and not selling it overseas, or 2) lowering the price here to match what it is sold for overseas, the net result is going to be lower revenues from the development of that drug. And if they expect revenues to be lower, then they're not going to invest in as many new drugs.
And that's why I'd agree with you that requiring drug makes to sell it at the same price here as they sell it overseas ultimately is a bad idea that will hurt Americans. It's just not as bad as the U.S. government setting the actual price at which the drug must be sold.
-
I understand all of the pro/con arguments.
But from what I read...a great deal of the research is federally (taxpayer) subsidized. So haven't we already paid for the development of the drugs?
-
Exactly right.
Yes, but people look at it as good for them and bad for us, so we need to do the same thing. It ends up being bad for everyone, because the governmental beauracracy is part of what makes the drugs so expensive, in the first place. You want a regulatory body like the FDA to keep companies accountable. However, you can't realistically impose stringent regulations, then say we won't pay the costs of it. That's absurd.
-
Alright folks. Take a deep breath, and consider: when a good or service is sold in a "natural monopoly" due to the absurdity of introducing redundant infrastructure to produce competition, we call the provision of the good or service a utility and regulate prices in the public interest, at least when demand for the good or service is inelastic because it's a necessity (e.g. clean drinking water provided to the tap, which we have usually socialized at the local level, or electricity or piped-in natural gas which we haven't). This is not obnoxious to free market economics because there is not a free market in such goods or services.
Explain, then, why so many on this board regard the regulation of price of goods with inelastic demand because they are necessities (e.g. the only effective drug for a potentially fatal illness) which are sold under an artificial monopoly called a "patent" created only by government intervention in the market is obnoxious to free market economics. Development costs? Nope, utilities also have sunk costs in infrastructure, but they are regulated in the public interest. There is not a free market in the only treatment for the disease (because the government has granted a monopoly on it) any more than there is a free market for tap water -- development costs provide no moral basis for the collection of monopoly rents on the drug any more than infrastructure costs provide a moral basis for monopoly rents on tap water -- the more-so when those development cost have been paid in part or whole with tax-payer funds under grants from the NIH or NSF.
-
I understand all of the pro/con arguments.
But from what I read...a great deal of the research is federally (taxpayer) subsidized. So haven't we already paid for the development of the drugs?
Not unless the drug is developed with only federal money.
-
I understand all of the pro/con arguments.
But from what I read...a great deal of the research is federally (taxpayer) subsidized. So haven't we already paid for the development of the drugs?
No
Those private sector efforts are now the dominant form of research activity in the United States, with business spending $3 on research for every $1 invested by the U.S. government. In the 1960s the federal government outspent industry by a two-to-one margin, but the balance tipped in 1980.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50 (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50)
-
No
Those private sector efforts are now the dominant form of research activity in the United States, with business spending $3 on research for every $1 invested by the U.S. government. In the 1960s the federal government outspent industry by a two-to-one margin, but the balance tipped in 1980.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50 (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50)
Thanks for that info. Not that I doubt you, but I may have to do a little more research. It could, will change my opinion on this matter.
-
Biden: Drug Companies Will Have to ‘Come to Us’ and ‘We Will Set the Price’
And yet it's Trump that gets called "authoritarian" and a "dictator" *****rollingeyes*****
-
Alright folks. Take a deep breath, and consider: when a good or service is sold in a "natural monopoly" due to the absurdity of introducing redundant infrastructure to produce competition, we call the provision of the good or service a utility and regulate prices in the public interest, at least when demand for the good or service is inelastic because it's a necessity (e.g. clean drinking water provided to the tap, which we have usually socialized at the local level, or electricity or piped-in natural gas which we haven't).
You are pointing to products/services that are mature -- where the infrastructure is already present, and all that is required are relatively predictable/stable operating and maintenance costs. So, a fixed rate of return -- even one paired to the cost of raw materials -- can work decently. Also, the products you are talking about are fungible -- a KwH is a KwH, a gallon of water is a gallon of water, and an MCF is an MCF, regardless of how or by whom it is provided. So, you have a clear, objective, stable measurement of the product being produced/delivered so pricing is predictable and quantifiable in advance. You also are talking about products/services that are inherently monopolistic such as water, and local distributors (thought not suppliers) of gas/electricity. That latter point is important -- why do you think suppliers of gas or electricity are free to charge what they wish, but the local distributors who actually deliver it to homes via pipes/conduits are not?
Explain, then, why so many on this board regard the regulation of price of goods with inelastic demand because they are necessities (e.g. the only effective drug for a potentially fatal illness) which are sold under an artificial monopoly called a "patent" created only by government intervention in the market is obnoxious to free market economics. Development costs? Nope, utilities also have sunk costs in infrastructure, but they are regulated in the public interest.
1) They're not monopoly providers. There are multiple drug companies who compete against each other for the development of new drugs.
2) They are not providing necessities in the normal sense of the word. Necessities are things that a particular society cannot survive without. But by definition, newly developed drugs are things society has survived without even last week. Even if a company decided it was no longer going to sell new drugs - a withholding of a good/service equivalent to turning off your water -- the tens of thousands of drugs already developed and outside patent, as well as all the drugs developed overseas, would still be available for purchase. We'd be chugging along just as well as we were a week ago. The developers of new drugs don't have the power to bring a society to its knees in a matter of day by withholding their product. The utilities you mentioned do.
3) Drugs are not fungible like KwH of electricity, or gallons of water, so the predictability of pricing is impossible. That problem is magnified by the reality that most drugs that begin development never make it to market, so you don't know if the thing you're developing for sale can even be sold at all. So how to you account for the cost of that?
4) Most importantly, if you treat drug companies like a utility -- with guaranteed rates of return, build-in profit margins, etc., that's exactly how they're going to act. You will significantly reduce their incentive to take the financial risks inherent in developing new drugs, because the chance to make a big profit for the limited period under the drug is no longer under patent won't exist.
-
With the egregious overcharging for their products by some drug companies, threats like that made by Biden are to be expected.
And they will engender considerable public support, "facism" or no.
See:
Epi-pens...
-
With the egregious overcharging for their products by some drug companies, threats like that made by Biden are to be expected.
And they will engender considerable public support, "facism" or no.
See:
Epi-pens...
Epipens became expensive BECAUSE of the government.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/8764/two-real-reasons-epipen-prices-skyrocketed-ben-shapiro (https://www.dailywire.com/news/8764/two-real-reasons-epipen-prices-skyrocketed-ben-shapiro)
-
What happens when Biden says the same thing about electric/gas/water or college tuition prices?
-
@Cyber Liberty
Went to family doctor. Had a breaking out of dryness/roughness on my hand, a type of eczema he said. He sent in a prescription of a cream for me to get at Walgreen's where I get all my meds. I went in pharmacy, Bob stayed in car. The price of the cream was over $1,000 even with my insurance. I refused the cream, went back to car. Bob said I needed the cream so he would pay for it. We both went in drugstore to pharmacy. The manager must have already talked to the clerk because they both immediately came to the counter and manager told us they had the same cream from another company and it would be $20 with my insurance.
Does the above make any sense at all? One company over $1,000 for me to pay and one $20. If I had paid the over $1,000, I would never have known there was one for $20. This should never happen to anyone. What if that had been a life saving medicine that cost over $1,000 and there was the same thing for $20 and they didn't tell me? Both the clerk and manager seemed "sheepish" when manager said $20.
I think we should always ask the clerk at drug store, before we buy a med, if there is a cheaper one of the same medicine. The cream did do away with the eczema.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Went to family doctor. Had a breaking out of dryness/roughness on my hand, a type of eczema he said. He sent in a prescription of a cream for me to get at Walgreen's where I get all my meds. I went in pharmacy, Bob stayed in car. The price of the cream was over $1,000 even with my insurance. I refused the cream, went back to car. Bob said I needed the cream so he would pay for it. We both went in drugstore to pharmacy. The manager must have already talked to the clerk because they both immediately came to the counter and manager told us they had the same cream from another company and it would be $20 with my insurance.
Does the above make any sense at all? One company over $1,000 for me to pay and one $20. If I had paid the over $1,000, I would never have known there was one for $20. This should never happen to anyone. What if that had been a life saving medicine that cost over $1,000 and there was the same thing for $20 and they didn't tell me? Both the clerk and manager seemed "sheepish" when manager said $20.
I think we should always ask the clerk at drug store, before we buy a med, if there is a cheaper one of the same medicine. The cream did do away with the eczema.
Must have been the first time the Doc wrote that scrip. They wise up quickly when patients give them the riot act for doing it. I know I would.
-
1) They're not monopoly providers.
The company that has been granted a patent -- a monopoly -- on the only treatment for [fill in a disease here] is, not suprisingly, a monopoly provider.
-
The company that has been granted a patent -- a monopoly -- on the only treatment for [fill in a disease here] is, not suprisingly, a monopoly provider.
Nope, doesn't meet the criteria for monopoly, as other companies could come up with alternative treatments. It's simply IP protection for a (supposedly) limited time to promote innovation.
-
Nope, doesn't meet the criteria for monopoly, as other companies could come up with alternative treatments. It's simply IP protection for a (supposedly) limited time to promote innovation.
Reifying the government grant of a monopoly as "intellectual property" (incidentally a notion the Founders would have objected to, since the whole point of the Patent and Copyright clause was to limit the granting of monopolies to authors and inventors, not to create monopolies which could be transferred in toto to a publisher or manufacturer) and noting that the grant of a monopoly is time limited does not change the fact it's a monopoly.
-
In the real world of IP, other companies will manufacture the item, and pay licensing fees to the holder of the Patent if it's worth the cost. Samsung and Apple had a battle royal over displays a few years back, IIRC, and the losing company wasn't prohibited from manufacturing the displays, they had to pay a licensing fee to the winner.
Sure, it adds expense, but is it being a Monopoly?
-
Reifying the government grant of a monopoly as "intellectual property" (incidentally a notion the Founders would have objected to, since the whole point of the Patent and Copyright clause was to limit the granting of monopolies to authors and inventors, not to create monopolies which could be transferred in toto to a publisher or manufacturer) and noting that the grant of a monopoly is time limited does not change the fact it's a monopoly.
It's not a "fact" that it's a monopoly just because you think so. It has to meet the criteria, which it clearly does not.
-
already posted this.
-
Well, yes and no. The drug companies can always choose not to sell the drug in those other countries below the (higher) price they want to charge in the U.S.. It would all depend upon whether the increased volume that comes from selling the drug overseas makes up for the lower price at which they'd have to sell it in the U.S..
But either way -- 1) keeping the price high here and not selling it overseas, or 2) lowering the price here to match what it is sold for overseas, the net result is going to be lower revenues from the development of that drug. And if they expect revenues to be lower, then they're not going to invest in as many new drugs.
And that's why I'd agree with you that requiring drug makes to sell it at the same price here as they sell it overseas ultimately is a bad idea that will hurt Americans. It's just not as bad as the U.S. government setting the actual price at which the drug must be sold.
Right. Sell it for the same price as it costs in the US, when Americans make more an hour than many there make a week.
Whatever happened to charging what the market will bear?
Watch Big Pharma move offshore. Then they can charge what they please or you can do without.
-
That is a sure formula to kill the incentive to do more medical research. We already have a shortage of Doctors and nurses, due to the government control of Medicare/ medicaid.
-
That is a sure formula to kill the incentive to do more medical research. We already have a shortage of Doctors and nurses, due to the government control of Medicare/ medicaid.
It's all in keeping with the desire to control people .
-
I didn't read the article; just commenting on the title; 'Will have to "Come to Us" and "We will set the Price"...sounds like a scenario for "The Godfather".
-
It’s not unbelievable. It’s exactly what happens in European countries that control healthcare. Plus, this admin has proposed using that index for price matching.
Trump Proposes Setting Some Drug Prices Using Global Index
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-25/trump-to-attack-global-freeloading-in-drug-price-address (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-25/trump-to-attack-global-freeloading-in-drug-price-address)
Trump aims to make US drug prices like Europe's
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-aims-to-make-us-drug-prices-like-europes/ar-AAEQaLq (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-aims-to-make-us-drug-prices-like-europes/ar-AAEQaLq)
Trumps not much different than creepy Joe.
-
I didn't read the article; just commenting on the title; 'Will have to "Come to Us" and "We will set the Price"...sounds like a scenario for "The Godfather".
True.
-
@Victoria33
I paid $300 last week for a script. The second one was 1.83.
@Chosen Daughter like your new avatar.
goopo 888heartkitty 888heartkitty
-
I didn't read the article; just commenting on the title; 'Will have to "Come to Us" and "We will set the Price"...sounds like a scenario for "The Godfather".
@libertybele
Yes, it does, that is what I thought, too. One man should not have the power to regulate anything the pubic uses.
-
The problem is, the drug companies MUST deal with governments, in other nations, because they run the healthcare systems. We end up paying more, because they make it up on the back end, after giving other nations the discount. What's likely to happen, if we get into this game where the pharma companies have to honor the lowest price, is they'll do the bare minimum to develop new treatments, if they bother at all. It's similar to the development of the polio vaccine. The saying at the time was 'put government in charge of treating polio and we'll develop the world's best iron lung.'
Our healthcare, which includes pharma is out of control and not operating in the best interest of our population. I have mentioned this on other threads, but the way pharma operates in the USA is abusive. To claim that the effort to create a more fair market for USA citizens would curtail efforts in the pharma industry is just plain wrong.
If the USA establishes a policy of pharma must sell any and all pharma for the same price as the lowest in the market, what that will do is increase rates in the rest of the market while lowering them here. How bad is the present day abuse? Extreme!!
Well, Cipro is $120-$200 per script here. In 2001 when I was in Russia, I bought Cipro for $2 and I did not need a script from a doctor, I could go down to any drug store there and buy one or buy 100 scripts. This is wrong. Citizens in the USA have been bent over by pharma and corrupt politicians for decades, and this abuse has to end.
Folks here have mentioned high cost pharma. I went to a doctor for a rash, she wrote a script that cost $650, my Blues coverage denied the script. So, I called and said, can't you write a script that is more reasonably priced, she sent over a script to the pharmacy that had a total cost of $10. The difference is the doctor I am certain was getting a huge kickback for the high cost pharma. And I would bet that same drug is $10 in other countries.
It is time the politicians in the USA begin representing the citizenry of the USA. PERIOD!!! Again, this is why Trump resonates, for at least he is trying to do something for the American people, which is more than the Democrats and Republicans have done for anyone in decades.
-
Biddn proves he lacks the economic intelligence to operate a neighborhood lemonade stand.
-
@jafo2010 Contrast....https://www.valleyvet.com/ct_detail.html?pgguid=3f34be68-81eb-49ba-b2bf-e3411f1d3f39&sfb=1&itemguid=a08f3205-616f-4993-9964-5cabac548844&utm_content=40712&ccd=IFP003&CAWELAID=120295250000392236&CATARGETID=120295250000478173&cadevice=c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8ujnvpiI5AIVBtRkCh2nQAFhEAQYBSABEgIHZvD_BwE (https://www.valleyvet.com/ct_detail.html?pgguid=3f34be68-81eb-49ba-b2bf-e3411f1d3f39&sfb=1&itemguid=a08f3205-616f-4993-9964-5cabac548844&utm_content=40712&ccd=IFP003&CAWELAID=120295250000392236&CATARGETID=120295250000478173&cadevice=c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8ujnvpiI5AIVBtRkCh2nQAFhEAQYBSABEgIHZvD_BwE)
-
Joe needs to read a couple of chapters of that Russian-American writer's book.
Directive 10-289