Is time to do with skyrocketing outofpocket costs and runaway drug prices. Millions of people take these drugs every month and in many cases cant afford them. Drug companies have a near monopoly in which the government says everybody has to have insurance, everyones insurance is to cover certain things, and Drug Companies take advantage of that. The pharmaceutical industry in this country is charging the american people, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Brandon to better understand this issue, we must look at why the cost of medication has been rising. One reason the cost is rising is due to competition. You are buying your competition out, and you two both at the same medications, that means you have a monopoly on it so you can charge whatever you want to charge because there are no caps or limits. The drug manufacturers, if it is a brand name drug, they can make it as high is they want because they are the ones who have the patent for that particular medication, so no one else can produce that medication. So, they can make the price as high as the need to because they know people need it. We also have some newer Companies Behaving differently from companies in the past when they buy the rights to manufacture drugs. Then turn around and try to immediately fund their purchase of that product by skyrocketing the cost overnight. We paid a very, very large amount to buy unprofitable medicine, we cant continue to lose money on the drug at that price, so we went to a price where we can make a comfortable profit. If a medication cost the pharmacy, 50, lets say, for the pharmacy to obtain the medication, and the insurance is only going to pay the pharmacy 20 for that medication, the pharmacy lost 30 because the insurance doesnt recognize the fact the medication has increased in price. The pharmacist has a decision to make, do you dispense the medication and lose 30, or did you tell the person that you cant do this because your insurance is not reimbursing me. No business can stay in business losing 30 each transaction. It is hard because the customers think it is us, personally raising those prices. That is just not how it is. There was a customer buying cholesterol medication and it was 4 for several years and out of nowhere it spiked up to 50. They were very shocked and confused and angry, and wanted answers from me that i could not give. We hear from pharmacists and our legislation is supported by the pharmacists of america. They stand behind their desk, behind their counters, and their hearts are broken when Senior Citizens cannot afford the products that their doctors are prescribing. When people are dying and when people are suffering and we have the cure right in front of us here. Some people who have no Insurance Coverage have seen their cash prices for their medications rise significantly. I always look at medications with two things in mind. They have to work and they have to not cause problems. Years ago when i first got into practice, we mostly were talking about problems in terms of medication side effects or allergic reactions. Now we have to consider that one of the problems might be the patient cannot afford the medication. It may be the best medication but if the patient cant afford it, it is not the right medicine. They might have been paying 10 but this year they are paying 45 a month. If you are on a couple medications, that adds up. And they have to decide if they are going to take medication every day as prescribed, or maybe every other day or every third day in order to make it stretch out longer. That way they can afford to pay for food or bills that are due. That way they can utilities at their house. Well, if nothing is changed, it is going to keep going as it is and it will get worse and you will see continued cost increases, continued availability issues, continued problems were patients have to switch their medication is working just fine because they cant afford it anymore. If it gets bad enough i think people will start going to mexico or canada. I know that people already do that, but i think that will increase. Peoples will start going to other countries to get their medication because it is cheaper there. Every time i am selling a customer prescription that i know is i, i just hold my breath because i know they are going to be like, what . It is not anything i can control or my pharmacists. It is a rough situation. Brandon despite these problems, there are still those that justify the cost of medication. You guys have sd that the reason you gave was in order to give research and involvement in order to give a better version. I just got up the phone with an hiv doctor who says they do not need a better version. What are you doing here . That is not true. There is a recent paper that said two patients died. Not every product being looked at will be approved by fda. For instance, out of maybe 12 compounds, it might take 10 years plus to research that compound. Maybe one will be approved by fda. That is a lot of money the pharmaceutical industries have to pay for a lot of salaries to research those 12 compounds. Brandon i live in a house divided, with my mother saying that the rise of cost is necessary to further the developments of these medications. My father on the other side, saying the rise of cost is preventing people who need these medications from receiving them. I understand my mothers point of view, but i cant help but sympathize with my fathers. After researching the topic, i recognize my dads job is much more than counting pills and filling out positions. I recognize the importance of his position. I recognize the importance of the pharmaceutical industry. Announcer to watch all the documentaries, visit studentcam. Org. The pentagon lifted restrictions on women serving in combat roles. We will hear a debate from current and former military for snow next. British Prime MinisterDavid Cameron talks about the Panama Papers and his decision to publish his tax returns. Washington journal live every day with news on policy issues that impact you. Morning, tuesday kristian berg, former deputy for theand the policy Campaign Legal center will join us to discuss the current role of money in american politics. Efforts to reform the Campaign Finance system and the impact of citizenssupreme court united ruling. Then center for responsible politics sheila crumble will talk about the latest 2015. Ampaign fundraising numbers be sure to watch beginning live at seven eastern tuesday morning. Join the discussion. Now, current and former military officers on allowing women to serve in military combat positions. This comes after the Defense Department lifted all restrictions on women serving in combat roles including infantry positions, reconnaissance, and special operations in its. The new york our association hosted this event. Bar association hosted this event. Whereome from washington think tanks and Panel Discussions are a way of life. Some of them are not so good. I hope we have a great one tonight. I think you are aware that we are here to talk about an issue that is extremely important to the military and i would argue as a reporter who covers the , import and military into the nation the immigration integration of women in all roles in the military and in combat roles. What happened for those of you who may or may not be familiar with the contours of this issue is that the current defense secretary ash carter announced in december after three years of study that all jobs would be open to women across the military. It was an interesting announcement i found sitting mr. Carter has been the secretary since last year. Very interested in this issue. Make the announcement with standingnfare and alone at a podium in what we call the pentagon briefing room. The optics of the announcement struck me, and occurred to me that it contributed to the idea that there has been some debate about the issue. And what we are here to talk about tonight is a lot about that debate. We had four panelists, and we have set this up a little bit as kind of for and against integration of women. The timing of this panel is interesting, really because of the decision has been made, so we kind of move out on the decision. There will be integration of women. It is not necessarily for against, but we are at a point where the pentagon is trying to figure out how to implement this decision. So, i think this is a good, timely topic for right now. Let me just quickly introduce the folks we had appeared up here. And then what i want to do is ask a few questions, or ask each of the panelists to stake out where they said, and explain where their position is. Im not trying to make this a point counterpoint, you are ignorant and you are stupid, just want to have a substantive interesting conversation. I hopefully you guys have great questions. I have some questions, but i hope you have even that are ones better ones, and we can get to the questions very soon after. Lets start, let me just explain i carefully on the train rewrote these little bios, and i realized it was still too long. Take it from me, these guys are all interesting people with varied backgrounds, different opinions. They have strong opinions on these issues, and i hope we will get them out here. In no particular order, dan o shea is to my left. He is a combat veteran with more than 25 Years Service in the military. Im not going to read through this, but he is a former navy seal, who has a lot of service, and returned after 9 11. He served in afghanistan and iraq. Hes recognized as a subject matter expert, otherwise known as s and e in military speak. And in asymmetric warfare, and knowledgeable about counterinsurgency, kidnapping, and hostage rescue, and managed interagency or donated coordination for more than 300 instances, and played a major role in every kidnapping incidents in iraq from 20042006. He has a lot of stories. Kate is an active Lieutenant General in the marine corps. By the way, we are heavy on the navy. We have three marines, and dan is a former navy that. Guy. Kate is still in service, at least for a little bit longer. Most recently as the commander of recruiting battalion in paris island, which is where the only place where women are trained to be marines. That was her last big command. She serves also in a bunch of different roles over the years. Most notably, as a recruiter in various forms. I think we can really yield great answers about thinking about how this integration thing happens, not only from the standpoint of training women, but also recruiting them. To her right is elliott ackerman, a former marine infantry and specialty operations officer, and has become a novelist. He is the author of a critically acclaimed novel, and in january, published a new one. He is here with us, but based istanbul. He has covered the syrian civil war. His work, both fiction and essays have appeared in the new yorker, the atlantic, the new republic and the new york times. He got out of uniform in 2009. He served in a number of tours of duty in the middle east and southwest asia, served as an advisor to the afghan commandos, one of the strongest fighting forces in afghanistan. He also served in iraq, where he led a rifle platoon in 2004 and the battle of falluja, where he earned a silver star and a number of other combat awards. He has been in my own paper, the wall street journal. Eden is a former enlisted marine sergeant. In 2003, she served as a data communication specialist. She deployed for eight months between 2005 and 2006. She served during the height of a lot of attention a lot of tensions, a very dangerous time. She also served as a photographer for her battalion. She is now a frequent contributor and freelance writer to various publications like the new york times, breitbart, and others. What we had here is a little bit of a group here. These two are generally having concerns about the policy that has been decided upon, and these two are generally in favor of the integration of women in combat. The title of this event tonight is a little bit racy, but the idea is to kind of bring out ideas about what the nation and what the military needs to think about as we integrate women in these combat roles. I think one of the theres a lot of different issues to think about. How it is done, how it is done to be successful, how it is done to improve combat effectiveness, or if it is done in a way that is limiting, effectiveness, i think all of these various questions are ones that people have, whether they are on one side of the issue or not. Im going to stop talking. I just want to ask everyone to give a quick, for a five minute intro to where they said, how they think about the issue, who they are, and then we have a couple of questions. And then we open it up to the audience. Do you want to start . Sure. I view this as even before the decision was made, i wrote a little bit about it, is that it seems very likely the decision would be made. All of my observations and conversations with people i knew close to the decision, to include officers who would be Interest Rate infantry officers, where the marine corps trains them, and was used as a test pad for women. The attitude and the conversation was very much framed as, we need to launch these multiyear studies to determine whether or not a womans body is even capable of the incredible rigor in combat. To me, that really seemed like a smokescreen, because that was not the issue. The issue is a cultural issue. When i served in the infantry, i certainly had marines who were incredibly fit, but i also had marines in combat who were not fit. One of my collateral dooleys desk duties as a second lieutenant, was i was the body composition officer. That meant 10 of the marines outside the height and weight standards would come to me, i would grab a tape measure around them, and tell them they would need to lose weight. They were outside of standards, and they continued to serve, and they did fine. I think sometimes to the outsider, there is a view that all marines are sort of marines, or soldiers, are these monolithic demigods who go to training and come out as superman. But thats not the case, they are regular people. So the argument that this is a physical issue, and that we as an organization needed to spend energy doing studies considering hip bone densities of women, and if we size sought a 10 higher rate of since wins, that that would absolve them of combat, frankly that seemed disingenuous. I thought the issue was a cultural one. In preparation for the possibility of this decision, that the leadership of the organization would be doing the organization a Greater Service by saying, we need to look at how we would reengineer what is, specific to the infantry, a hyper masculine culture, and one that works and promotes ideas of brotherhood and camaraderie through a very masculine sentiment. And that inspires men to do incredibly brave things to save one another on the battlefield. But that was not a conversation. In the lead up to this, i felt like that was concerning, because it sets up the core as an organization to fail. I think all of us regardless of position dont want this to happen. Now, we are at a moment where the decision has been made, and to me it seems to be a appropriate conversation, to say, how can we implement this most effectively that the organization is stronger . In order for the organization to implement this effectively and be strong, and change culturally as it needs to, those conversations will need to be had, and they will need to be had under the leadership of the marine corps, in my case. I think we are at a moment of truth, were at the most senior levels, the fourstar level, there needs to be very clear guidance given. Disappointingly thus far, what i have seen is there has been a perception of a Quiet Campaign that we are not happy with this, and we will proceed grudgingly. Having spent a lot of time down in infantry platoons, with 19 and 20yearold privates and corporals, they hear the message. I would call myself sort of a concerned alumni of the organization, that would like to see it in the next 1528 years 20 years doing it in a stellar manner, with no incidents that serve to blast them. That serve as a black mark. There have been incidents like that. But im looking forward to the conversation. Mr. Lubold for the sake of diversity, why dont we go down to the other side. I dont want to make too much of this pointcounterpoint thing. Sure. In addition to the intro, part of why i have some credibility, not just as an enlisted marine, are the only enlisted person on the panel, i was also secondary duty that i had at camp falluja was that i was pulled for entry checkpoint duty for explosives. That was tumbling in and out of camp falluja with marine corps infantry, being on the street on the outskirts of five different checkpoints, coming into falluja. Im really glad that the new York Bar Association is putting this on. They are doing something here that the administration and congress have failed to do, which is to hold open debate and discussion. The reason the administration has suppressed debate on this is because the case for integrating women has been so weak. And anytime what elliott would call is a smokescreen is empirical evidence, that women suffer not just average women, but activeduty women average 210 times the injuries men do in the military. That is a liability, not an asset, when you have that additional risk. These are very fit women. The argument for women in combat depends on ignoring that. It depends on a false claim that women are interchangeable with military men and infantrymen, which depends on ignoring decades worth of research, sports medicine, military medicine, military experience. The marine corps ninemonth integrations that he is only the latest in a series that have been done over time, and all finding the same conclusion, because we are talking about anatomy. No matter how culture changes, or societal norms change, you cant change human anatomy. These are differences that cannot be ignored. It ignores the problems that coed combat units already face with rates of pregnancy, sexual assault, unit cohesion. These are things that cannot be ignored and are being ignored. And ashton carter, and the secretary of the navy, said i had a difference of opinion. They are to 36 million study. The other big thing that the advocacy for women in combat depends on, is a swallowing whole. The big lie that this is an equal opportunity for women. With these rates of injury, before they are even on mens standards or infantry standards, that is unequaled for women. That does not do women any favors. Nobody is doubting that women serve honorably. We can serve in 98 of the jobs and be successful. But there is a difference between at deploying to the combat unit,