<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: bernie sanders</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'bernie sanders'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22bernie+sanders%22&t=%22bernie+sanders%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:59:49 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Prizes, Not Patents, For Drug Discovery?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4893919&amp;cid=t_153988_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FMA_m_JeONT8%2F</link>
            <description>Once again, Bernie Sanders, the independent Senator from Vermont, is proposing legislation that would eliminate market exclusivity for new drugs and, instead, would give inventors or developers cash rewards from a pair of prize funds. A separate fund would similarly offer rewards for those who develop drugs specifically for HIV and AIDS.
The first bill, known as the Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act, would eliminate legal barriers to making and selling generics, including vaccines, and create a fund equal to .55 percent of the US Gross Domestic Product, which would be worth an estimated $80 billion annually at current levels. The HIVAIDS Prize Fund would be funded at .02 percent of US GDP, or equal to more than $3 billion a year (you can read each bill here and here).
Where would the money...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4893919</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:33:43 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4893919</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Senate to Limit ATM Charges?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3556080&amp;cid=t_153988_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F1hErx1lNQds%2F</link>
            <description>By Mark A. CalabriaThe great thing about Cato policy papers is that even sometimes obscure topics are timeless, because government never rests when it comes to running our lives and restricting our choices.
Take the issue of bank ATM surcharges, those fees you can sometimes be charged for using another bank&amp;#8217;s ATM.  Back in 1998, then Senator Al D&amp;#8217;Amato proposed capping those fees.  Thankfully that effort failed.  I would like to believe one of the reasons for its failure is a 1998 Cato Briefing Paper by John Charles Bradbury, describing how ATM surcharge fees actually increase consumer choice by funding ever increasing ATM locations.
Well the Senate is at it again.  Senator Harkin has proposed an amendment to Dodd&amp;#8217;s financial regulation bill that would cap ATM surchar...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3556080</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 19:23:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3556080</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Federal Reserve 1, Transparency 0</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3542572&amp;cid=t_153988_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FZem9aTCQNvw%2F</link>
            <description>By Mark A. CalabriaIt is being reported that the Senate has reached a &amp;#8220;compromise&amp;#8221; on Bernie Sanders&amp;#8217; amendment to audit the Federal Reserve.  This amendment was a companion to Ron Paul&amp;#8217;s House bill that would have subjected both the Federal Reserve&amp;#8217;s lending facilities and monetary policy to a GAO audit.  The compromise?  Drop the monetary policy audit.  It is hard to match Ron Paul&amp;#8217;s reaction:  &amp;#8220;Bernie Sanders has sold out.&amp;#8221;
Congressmen Paul is 100% right on this.  While it is important to get details on the Fed&amp;#8217;s emergency lending facility, those decisions are behind us.  The public has a right to know who benefited from the Fed&amp;#8217;s actions, but the reality is that such an audit would change little going forward.  The re...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3542572</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 15:40:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3542572</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How Many Senators Are More Liberal than the Socialist One?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3204841&amp;cid=t_153988_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FPdBqaf1Ahd8%2F</link>
            <description>By David BoazIn a profile of the poetry-reading chief of staff to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the Washington Post calls Sanders not only &amp;#8220;the only socialist in the U.S. Congress,&amp;#8221; but also &amp;#8220;surely [the Senate's] most liberal [member].&amp;#8221; Surely. I mean, he&amp;#8217;s a socialist, right? (And by the way, that isn&amp;#8217;t a label that Sanders rejects.)
Well, maybe not. According to the National Taxpayers Union, 42 senators in 2008 voted to spend more tax dollars than socialist Bernie Sanders. They include his neighbor Pat Leahy; Californians Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, who just can&amp;#8217;t understand why their home state is in fiscal trouble; and the Eastern Seaboard anti-taxpayer Murderers&amp;#8217; Row of Kerry, Dodd, Lieberman, Clinton, Schumer, Lautenberg, Me...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3204841</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:24:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3204841</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Go Bernie!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2923466&amp;cid=t_153988_150_f&amp;fid=34768&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmagossip.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F10%2Fgo-bernie.html</link>
            <description>http://sandersunfiltered.com/ (Source: PharmaGossip)</description>
            <author>PharmaGossip</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2923466</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:02:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2923466</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Prizes, Not Patents: Jamie Love Explains The Idea</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=995117&amp;cid=t_153988_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F177720247%2F</link>
            <description>Last week, Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont, introduced a Senate bill that would swap prizes for patents. Essentially, the idea would eliminate market exclusivity for new drugs, but give inventors or developers cash rewards from a fund that would start with $80 billion a year. By doing so, the scheme would eliminate monopolies, allow generic competition, lower drug prices and produce savings of more than $200 billion annually.
Working behind the scenes on the concept for several years was Jamie Love, a consumer advocate who heads Knowledge Ecology International and who brainstormed with numerous people, including members of Sanders&amp;#8217; staff and Aventis execs during a 2002 global health planning meeting. The proposal, not surprisingly, is controversial and whether the bill w...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=995117</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:17:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">995117</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Prizes Shouldn’t Replace Patents: Reader Poll</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=982728&amp;cid=t_153988_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F175487660%2F</link>
            <description>The other day, we wrote about a bill introduced by Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, who proposes eliminating market exclusivity for new drugs. Instead, inventors or developers would receive cash rewards from a new “Medical Innovation Prize Fund.” A key requirement - the products have to improve health outcomes.
The funding would start at $80 billion a year, and increase with the growth in the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. The idea is to eliminate monopolies and allow generic competition in the hopes that drugs prices would fall ‘dramatically,’ and produce savings of more than $200 billion a year.
Each Each new prescription drug or biologic registered by the FDA would “win” something from the prize fund, but the amount given to a developer would...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=982728</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:38:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">982728</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

