Issue link: http://www.epageflip.net/i/731313
SometimesIfeelasthoughIambeingtaken as a fool, particularly when I read some of the claims being made this election season. It has become very clear how we are viewed by those trying to woo us for a vote. We are treated as though we will believe anything that is well packaged and has the right buzz words in it. We are fed a bunch of baloney on a regular basis. It reminds me of the study of propaganda I undertook as an undergraduate. Forexample,werecently received a very well-pro- duced colorful brochure ask- ing us not to vote for Propo- sition 61. In rel- atively small print on the back it stated the brochure was "paid for by No on Prop 61, a coalition of veterans, doctors, patient advocates, seniors, taxpay- ers, and members of Pharma- ceutical Research Manufac- turers of America with major funding by Merck & Co, Inc., Pfizer, Inc. and other compa- nies." While I haven't studied the Proposition well enough to make up my mind, I do know I will not base my decision on the misleading, overgeneraliz- ing, and fear mongering pub- lication those drug companies and their affiliates sent me. Proposition 61 would limit the amount the state could pay for certain drugs to a price no higher than the drug manufactures charge the De- partment of Veterans Affairs. It appears that Proposition 61 will go down as the most expensive statewide proposi- tion in history; at this point over $96 million has been raised to either support or defeat the measure. Of that amount over $86 million has raised to defeat it; the major donors are the drug companies: Merck & Co., Inc. ($7,212,000); Pfizer, Inc. ($7,212,000); Johnson & Johnson ($7,212,000); Amgen, Inc. ($5,617,000); Abbvie, Inc. ($5,203,000); Sanori-Avetis U.S. LLC ($5,203,000); Astra- Zeneca Pharmaceuticals LP ($4,923,000); Gilad Sciences, Inc. ($4,000,000); Allergan USA, Inc. ($3,818,000); Glax- osmithkline ($3,538,000). Is it a coincidence that the top three donors gave the same amount of money? Do you think they got together to determine that amount? Do they do the same kind of thing when it comes to set- ting prices? Clearly drug manufactures have a vested interest in the outcome of Proposition 61 be- cause it would set up a new pricing structure for some of their products under certain circumstances. The No sup- porters are outspending the Yes supporters by over nine to one. There are over 142,000 doctors in California; the brochure states that the Cal- ifornia Medical Association representing 41,000 Califor- nia doctors opposes the prop- osition. One wonders about the other 100,000 plus doc- tors and what the CMA might have been given as an inducement to support the "No" vote. The brochure claims if passed the Proposition could create 350 state bureaucratic jobs at a cost of $50,000,000 to the taxpayers. My reading of "could" is "wildly within the realm of possibility." By my calculations those hypo- thetical bureaucrats would have an average compensa- tion of $142,857; not bad, but also not likely. Maybe that guess is based on typical drug manufactures' lobbyist salaries. Who knows? The brochure brings out everybody's hero to support its claims…veterans. It claims Proposition 61 will make vet- erans pay more for drugs. There is a big leap in logic to make that statement be- cause it would only be true if, as the brochure slyly states, drug manufacturers might no longer "be willing to con- tinue to offer" lower prices to vets if those same prices were required to be offered to more folks. In other words, the drug manufactures, themselves, are telling us that they could act selfishly. Is this a confession? According to the brochure only 12 percent of Califor- nians would be covered by the Proposition. Wow, would cutting prices to 12 percent of their clients force them to raise prices for everyone? I don't know, but I do know that Merck & Co. netted al- most $5,000,000,000 in in- come for 2015. No wonder they could spare $7,212,000 to protect their profits. I guess the drug compa- nies could raise the price to veterans if they were forced to provide drugs for the very small number they claim would be covered by Propo- sition 61 at the same current low rate for veterans, if they are heartless. Interestingly the brochure says 88 percent of Califor- nians would not be covered by the terms of Proposition 61, but the brochure does not say that they should be. It merely uses innuendo to hint that only a favored few will benefit from the Proposition. So what is Proposition 61? It is very simple. It would keep state agencies from buy- ing any prescription drug from a drug manufacturer at any price over the lowest price paid for the same drug by the United States Depart- ment of Veterans Affairs, ex- cept as may be required by federal law. In other words, it is telling the drug companies that they have to give the state the same price breaks they give the veterans. After reading the color- ful scare document I received in the mail and the clear de- scription of the Proposition, I am inclined to vote yes. JoeHarropisaretired educator with more than 30 years of service to the North State. He can be reached at DrJoeHarrop@sbcglobal.net. JoeHarrop Propaganda and Proposition 61 Cartoonist's take Something craven infects po- litical candidates as the days dwindle down to a precious few, especially when prospects for vic- tory appear slim- mer than an ema- ciated giraffe in a fun house mirror. It may be darkest before the dawn, but for those scheduled to be ex- ecuted at first light, the darkness triggers a kind of dastardly cre- ativity that those made of lesser stuff might characterize as des- peration. The late hour slander- ing of an opponent has come to be called the October Surprise, and considering the volatile his- tory of this year's campaign, we should be prepared for copious disclosures of gargantuan pro- portions. Not mere October Sur- prises, but October Lightning Bolts Tossed by Odin Himself, October 80 Megaton Hydrogen Bombshells and October Exposes That Will Make Your Mouth Hang Open Long Enough To At- tract Bottle Flies. And with one week of November in the mix this time around, even more de- licious salacious wickedness awaits. Here's a sample of the ex- pected and unexpected we can expect in the final five weeks of this — the most important elec- tion of your lifetime. Yes. Again. October 2. Breitbart News discovers that when the first words of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails from October of 2009 are arranged chronologically, a love letter to Lucifer is revealed in which she calls him "Smoochie." October 3. Moveon.org posts a video of Donald Trump shouting the phrase "You're fired" to photos of family members. October 4. During the Vice Presiden- tial debate, moderators and Longwood University audi- ence members inexplicably fall asleep. Later the CDC dubs the new phenomenon "MDHS: Mass Droning Hypnosis Syn- drome" and urges the FCC to prohibit future events from be- ing broadcast on car radios. October 8. Fox News interviews a high school classmate of Hillary Clin- ton, who recalls the future Secre- tary of State going door to door supporting Barry Goldwater and referring to Lyndon Johnson as "a southern- fried booger." October 10. Photographs showing Donald Trump poking a group of special needs preschoolers with a stick are laughed off by the candi- date as "political correctness run amuck." His poll numbers rise. October 14. On route to a campaign stop in South Carolina, Hill- ary Clinton rushes into a burn- ing building to rescue a litter of newborn kittens. Her poll numbers do not budge. October 22. Donald Trump explains that pushing an old lady in a wheel- chair down a flight of stairs was a therapeutic attempt to jar loose her cramped muscles. His poll numbers rise. October 24. Bill Clinton is revealed to have adopted the Twitter handle "Carlos Danger Jr". October 26. Hillary Clinton trips on a curb and Sean Hannity calls for her withdrawal due to her obvious incurable case of me- tastasized brain cancer. Her poll numbers drop. October 28. Murky footage from a sur- veillance camera of Donald Trump shooting a stranger in the middle of Fifth Avenue in New York City racks up 3 million hits on Youtube in 4 hours. His poll numbers rise. November 1. A report surfaces that Don- ald Trump has a calendar in which October has 32 days. The candidate agrees many people have told him this. Im- portant people. Top people. Despite evidence to the con- trary, supporters feel in their heart that it must be true and make plans to vote a day late. November 8. Trump loses. Will Durst is an award-winning, nationally acclaimed columnist, comedian and former Pizza Hut assistant manager. For sample videos and a calendar of personal appearances including his new one-man show, Elect to Laugh: 2016, appearing every Tuesday at the San Francisco Marsh, go to willdurst.com. Will Durst October surprises that may lay ahead Interestingly the brochure says 88 percent of Californians would not be covered by the terms of Proposition 61, but the brochure does not say that they should be. It merely uses innuendo to hint that only a favored few will benefit from the Proposition. GregStevens,Publisher Chip Thompson, Editor EDITORIAL BOARD How to have your say: Letters must be signed and provide the writer's home street address and home phone number. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and no more than two double-spaced pages or 500words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section will be published. Email: editor@ redbluffdailynews.com Fax: 530-527-9251 Mail to: P.O. Box 220, 728Main St., Red Bluff, CA 96080 Facebook: Leave comments at FACEBOOK.COM/ RBDAILYNEWS Twitter: Follow and send tweets to @REDBLUFFNEWS Joe Harrop Will Durst Monday night's debate be- tween Hillary Clinton and Don- ald Trump is certain to exacer- bate our severe na- tional angst. There will be no winner. That's a shame, because many voters on both sides are uncom- fortable with the choices they face. They wish this debate could be as decisive as the seventh game of a World Series, with the final result posted on the scoreboard. Instead, the event is likely to confirm what we already know — for better and worse — about both politicians. It will also un- derscore the inherent weak- nesses in the format of modern presidential debates. For Trump, the showman, the exercise will actually be quite easy. He will be the cool version of himself — the one we saw standing with Mexico's presi- dent Enrique Pee±a Nieto last month — speaking in moder- ate tones, sounding almost dip- lomatic. He will most certainly not display the hot version of his character — the one we saw in Phoenix later that same day as he railed about immigration. Clinton, too, will keep it cool. This is not her first rodeo, and she's not likely to be thrown by Trump's bull. Her strat- egy will be to promote her vast knowledge of facts, while po- litely noting at every opportu- nity that Trump is careless, if not downright deceptive, in his handling of the same. Never have finalists in a presi- dential election been so different, which is why this debate looms so large. But it is the very na- ture of those differences that will make the outcome frustratingly vague. They differ in style and character and in background and experience. They each have resumes with heavy baggage. Nothing in a debate will change that, nor is it likely to sway most voters. In the simplistic de- bate format actual issues will be boiled down to generalities that will make Trump and Clin- ton seem surprisingly alike, even though they are not. ISIS? Bad. Jobs? Need more. Taxes? Let's re- form. Infrastructure? (That's a favorite.) Gotta fix it. If policy questions require more detail, the go-to answer is: "On my website I have outlined a 10-point plan to deal with (fill in blank). It's all there." And what about the moder- ator, Lester Holt of NBC News? Will he be able to make some- thing meaningful out of this? No. Holt, a mild-mannered vet- eran journalist, is not known as a combative interviewer. And now, after weeks in which both campaigns have issued warnings about how he must strive for fair- ness, he's likely to play it straight, maybe too straight. You'll know where this is headed with the very first ques- tion. If Holt goes for the head- lines — "Mr. Trump, your compa- nies have filed numerous times for bankruptcy..." or, "Secretary Clinton, your handling of emails has caused many voters to ques- tion..." — then we're headed for a brawl with little meaning. If, on the other hand, Holt goes for substance — "Let's be- gin by having each of you state the three concrete steps you would take to deal with ISIS" — then we're on a better track, but one that will devolve into stump dialogue, with little chance of affecting voters' thinking. Following the debate, you'll hear numerous cable-TV pundits declare that, "Both candidates scored some points, but only enough to reinforce their base." You'll read that the debate had the largest audience ever, out scoring "Monday Night Football." You'll watch as Hillary Clinton tells Rachel Maddow, "I believe we got our message across and, come November, it will be up to the voters to decide." And you'll listen as Donald Trump tells Sean Hannity, "I won." Peter Funt is a writer and speaker. His book, "Cautiously Optimistic," is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com. Peter Funt Clip 'n save for Monday night Peter Funt OPINION » redbluffdailynews.com Saturday, September 24, 2016 » MORE AT FACEBOOK.COM/RBDAILYNEWS AND TWITTER.COM/REDBLUFFNEWS A5