|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 29 2017 01:12 Nevuk wrote:
Seems like he wants the senate filibuster nuked. Not really sure how that would help with a 49-51 vote, but hey, no one ever accuses him of being good with logic.
We just witnessed a slow motion example of how hard it is to take things away in government. He thinks Republicans really want to give the Democrats the chance to pass entitlements with 51 votes? Please.
On July 29 2017 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:
I gotta admit: Manchin proved his worth here. I've ragged on him in excess but he did what needed to be done.
The man isn’t perfect, but he knows when to line up. The internal fight in the democratic party shouldn’t’ be fought in primaries.
|
Yeah, sign me the fuck up for 51 LOL. Just think of all the stuff we'd be able to get done once this whole Trump shpeal is over.
|
On July 29 2017 01:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah, sign me the fuck up for 51 LOL. Just think of all the stuff we'd be able to get done once this whole Trump shpeal is over.
I think dear leader is trying to say that he'll be dear leader forever, because everyone (yuuge crowd) loves him so much (fake news who says otherwise) that he'll never get voted out of office.
The two term limitation thing, well he's the president, he decided that doesn't count for him.
|
On July 29 2017 01:19 Plansix wrote:We just witnessed a slow motion example of how hard it is to take things away in government. He thinks Republicans really want to give the Democrats the chance to pass entitlements with 51 votes? Please. Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:
I gotta admit: Manchin proved his worth here. I've ragged on him in excess but he did what needed to be done. The man isn’t perfect, but he knows when to line up. The internal fight in the democratic party shouldn’t’ be fought in primaries.
Of course - Robert Higgs wrote a fabulous book on the subject called Leviathan. It's why we still have stupid shit like milk price controls from WWII. Government is an insidious destructive institution that manifests all the worst outcomes of a monopoly. Also, that conversation that the thread had about the ratio of progressives to non-progressives on this site...I mean you just have to read the last 10 pages.
I also had a laugh at the Ben Cardin legislative memo about how to reduce drug prices, by mandating it so lmao. I mean, Democrats believe in science, except when it comes to economics...
As a lawyer you must be aware of how much money is wasted in IP/Patents, not allowing import of generic drugs, the FDA mandates and regulatory capture. All of these things are why drug prices are so insane. Not because of the "market". For all the talk about how the people "against Government" intervention solutions are, these same people just yell chuck more money, instead of looking at why a thing is the reason it is. Namely, calling for the termination of IP/Patent, actual free-trade, drug legalization, dismantling of the FDA which has killed more people than it's "saved" (if a life-saving drug takes 15 years to get to market with the FDA instead of 3 years without it, that's 12 years of people dying because of a bureaucracy (that's not addressing how much the FDA artificially raises R&D costs) - Mary Ruwart has done tremendous work in this area both first-hand and with research), etc.
Anyways, that was a bit of a tangent. None of you ever get tired of the circle jerk on this site?
|
On July 29 2017 01:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 01:19 Plansix wrote:We just witnessed a slow motion example of how hard it is to take things away in government. He thinks Republicans really want to give the Democrats the chance to pass entitlements with 51 votes? Please. On July 29 2017 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:
I gotta admit: Manchin proved his worth here. I've ragged on him in excess but he did what needed to be done. The man isn’t perfect, but he knows when to line up. The internal fight in the democratic party shouldn’t’ be fought in primaries. Of course - Robert Higgs wrote a fabulous book on the subject called Leviathan. It's why we still have stupid shit like milk price controls from WWII. Government is an insidious destructive institution that manifests all the worst outcomes of a monopoly. Also, that conversation that the thread had about the ratio of progressives to non-progressives on this site...I mean you just have to read the last 10 pages. I also had a laugh at the Ben Cardin legislative memo about how to reduce drug prices, by mandating it so lmao. I mean, Democrats believe in science, except when it comes to economics... As a lawyer you must be aware of how much money is wasted in IP/Patents, not allowing import of generic drugs, the FDA mandates and regulatory capture. All of these things are why drug prices are so insane. Not because of the "market". For all the talk about how the people "against Government" intervention solutions are, these same people just yell chuck more money, instead of looking at why a thing is the reason it is. Namely, calling for the termination of IP/Patent, actual free-trade, drug legalization, dismantling of the FDA which has killed more people than it's "saved" (if a life-saving drug takes 15 years to get to market with the FDA instead of 3 years without it, that's 12 years of people dying because of a bureaucracy (that's not addressing how much the FDA artificially raises R&D costs) - Mary Ruwart has done tremendous work in this area both first-hand and with research), etc. Anyways, that was a bit of a tangent. None of you ever get tired of the circle jerk on this site?
Are you one of those people who think the US is subsidizing Europe because our medicine, which is the same medicine as your using, is so much cheaper?
US prices are so high because there is no one negotiating down the price. You let pharmaceuticals charge whatever they want and don't bat an eye.
You want healthcare costs to go down? You involve the government. You mandate insurance to increase risk pools and spread costs (yes that means the healthy pay for the sick, that's how its supposed to work). You set a minimum coverage package and you set a price for that package that insurers can charge. Insurance companies will complain but accept it because they can't walk away from the entire market.
Now you have insurance companies pressuring pharmaceuticals to lower prices to save their profit margins on the minimum coverage and provide incentives for preventive care because its cheaper then covering the illness.
The rest of the world figures this out a long time ago. The US is still scratching their heads because they are 'special'.
|
|
|
You just said terminate IP/Patent. I'm inclined to ignore every statement you make moving forward. And you obviously have no idea what the FDA is put in place to actually do. History was not your best subject, was it?
|
I would love to see the great turtle put out to his bluegrass pasture.
|
On July 29 2017 01:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 01:19 Plansix wrote:We just witnessed a slow motion example of how hard it is to take things away in government. He thinks Republicans really want to give the Democrats the chance to pass entitlements with 51 votes? Please. On July 29 2017 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:
I gotta admit: Manchin proved his worth here. I've ragged on him in excess but he did what needed to be done. The man isn’t perfect, but he knows when to line up. The internal fight in the democratic party shouldn’t’ be fought in primaries. Of course - Robert Higgs wrote a fabulous book on the subject called Leviathan. It's why we still have stupid shit like milk price controls from WWII. Government is an insidious destructive institution that manifests all the worst outcomes of a monopoly. Also, that conversation that the thread had about the ratio of progressives to non-progressives on this site...I mean you just have to read the last 10 pages. I also had a laugh at the Ben Cardin legislative memo about how to reduce drug prices, by mandating it so lmao. I mean, Democrats believe in science, except when it comes to economics... As a lawyer you must be aware of how much money is wasted in IP/Patents, not allowing import of generic drugs, the FDA mandates and regulatory capture. All of these things are why drug prices are so insane. Not because of the "market". For all the talk about how the people "against Government" intervention solutions are, these same people just yell chuck more money, instead of looking at why a thing is the reason it is. Namely, calling for the termination of IP/Patent, actual free-trade, drug legalization, dismantling of the FDA which has killed more people than it's "saved" (if a life-saving drug takes 15 years to get to market with the FDA instead of 3 years without it, that's 12 years of people dying because of a bureaucracy (that's not addressing how much the FDA artificially raises R&D costs) - Mary Ruwart has done tremendous work in this area both first-hand and with research), etc. Anyways, that was a bit of a tangent. None of you ever get tired of the circle jerk on this site?
Please explain to me how we are supposed to know that a drug is actually life-saving without testing it for long term effects? just take a look at the unregulated market and all the shit they churn out and tell me again that the FDA is useless. Even FDA approved drugs have terrible side effects, but at least this way doctors know about them and how to mitigate them because of the testing.
That things could be streamlined and that there are cases of absurd testing, I will admit and there should be something done about it, but raging that it should be done away with is forgetting the fact that there was a need for it and there will always be a need for it.
With regard to pricing, I would say it is a fair bit of both profit margin and R/D cost.
|
Having worked in the public sector, mostly for very large banks for most of professions career, claims that goverment is the worst of the "insidious destructive institutions" really don't hold that much water with me. Stupid is stupid across every spectrum of life, goverment has no special claim on it. Multinational banks are the peek of inefficient and dumb. But I know that pro-laissez-faire love to assert that the private sector is so much more efficient and productive than goverment. But that efficiency comes due to the failure of businesses and the survives rising to the top. Government institutions do not have the luxury
The FDA agencies could be updated and streamlined. But I would prefer the massively profitable pharmaceutical have its costs dealt with and assurances that any updated oversight of the industry won't let them rush untested drugs to market. They can still run ads for prescription drugs on TV, which is insane by any modern context.
On July 29 2017 01:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You just said terminate IP/Patent. I'm inclined to ignore every statement you make moving forward. And you obviously have no idea what the FDA is put in place to actually do. History was not your best subject, was it?
That is what we need. More snake oil for sale. Because the free market took care of that last time around.
I am excited for the return of the house bitching at the senate openly. Let them fight.
|
All in all, I'm mostly just impressed the US isn't doing worse than it is given how absurdly dysfunctional government and the discourse surrounding it seems to be. Also given the politicians you seem to elect (and I don't just mean Trump). Are your local and state governments a lot better than this comical mess?
|
On July 29 2017 02:18 Orome wrote:
All in all, I'm mostly just impressed the US isn't doing worse than it is given how absurdly dysfunctional government and the discourse surrounding it seems to be. Also given the politicians you seem to elect (and I don't just mean Trump). Are your local and state governments a lot better than this comical mess?
Depends on the state. Kansas/Illiniois are somehow worse
|
My god this is beautiful. This is the most satisfying 2 minutes of a congressional hearing I've seen in a while.
Edit: Massachusetts is fine. Most of the states in New England are fine. The US institutions are durable to a point and can operate with terrible or not leadership. But long term, this administration will do some damage. Any real crisis will do some damage and we may not recover from quickly. We have no disaster relief, which is somehow worse than the Bush era. Then it was just unqualified leadership and a general dislike when it came to helping black people.
|
|
|
On July 29 2017 02:18 Orome wrote:
All in all, I'm mostly just impressed the US isn't doing worse than it is given how absurdly dysfunctional government and the discourse surrounding it seems to be. Also given the politicians you seem to elect (and I don't just mean Trump). Are your local and state governments a lot better than this comical mess?
it varies, some states are better, some are worse. cities are also quite variable; there's some great ones, and some terrible ones. local politics is VERY localized and doesn't fit into the larger dem/rep wars as much.
the unelected bureaucrats tend to be markedly better than the politicians on average, at least at the federal level; and a lot of the actual work is done by them, that helps keep things running.
also stuff tended to work somewhat better in the past (at least from the 40's-80's), so holdover effects from that still provide some benefit cuz leadership came up in better times and such.
the damage caused by bad leadership tends to filter in slowly over time to the lower levels, and be rather hard to measure.
|
On July 29 2017 01:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You just said terminate IP/Patent. I'm inclined to ignore every statement you make moving forward. And you obviously have no idea what the FDA is put in place to actually do. History was not your best subject, was it?
Can't terminate IP?
|
On July 29 2017 02:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:If you want to see how drugs would operate without FDA oversight from an efficacy and contents/good manufacturing practices perspective, just look at the herbal remedies/supplements market. It's utter chaos and the best don't "rise to the top." 4/5 tested products didn't contain any of the herbs on their labels and they're mostly just filler.You just end up playing eternal catch-up with these assholes, and the same thing would happen with drugs (and does in other countries).
I think there should be serious civil/criminal penalties for claimig to sell something that's not in the bottle. I don't care if you want to sell herbs or homeopathy with no effect but it better be what you say it is. That alone would probably lead to more progress in non-pharmaceutical supplementation than anything elsse.
|
On July 29 2017 02:36 IgnE wrote:I think there should be serious civil/criminal penalties for claimig to sell something that's not in the bottle. I don't care if you want to sell herbs or homeopathy with no effect but it better be what you say it is. That alone would probably lead to more progress in non-pharmaceutical supplementation than anything elsse.
Homeopathy doesn't lie. They put on the bottle that it's X diluted a billion times in water. That's fair. The problem isn't with what they claim is in the bottle. It's with what they claim that does... the same for most other snake oils. It's far too easy to verify that what is in the bottle is what they wrote on the outside. It's only slightly harder to verify that tap water does not in fact cure cancer, yet thousands of people believe it does because it's called homeopathy.
|
I work in an FDA-regulated company. What evidence is there that the FDA has "killed more people than it's 'saved' "? FDA regulations require drug companies to demonstrate safety and efficacy, which can take 15 years or more, but that's because demonstrating safety and efficacy takes a really long time. If you brought a new drug from lead compound all the way to on the market in 3 years, there's no way you demonstrated safety and efficacy in a satisfactory way, unless you did some pretty unethical things (e.g. hhman testing right away without doing the groundwork in model organisms first). That kind of testing has been done by unethical sorts, and it kills a LOT of people.
Do you have any of the requisite knowledge of the pharma industry to be able to say these policies are obviously right?
|
On July 29 2017 02:36 IgnE wrote:I think there should be serious civil/criminal penalties for claimig to sell something that's not in the bottle. I don't care if you want to sell herbs or homeopathy with no effect but it better be what you say it is. That alone would probably lead to more progress in non-pharmaceutical supplementation than anything elsse.
There is a whole judicial economy that arises with route. It places the burden on individuals to collect evidence and prove the suppliant is a fraud. Or the local government has to bring criminal charges, often across state lines. It is snake oil 2.0, but this time they make sure it won’t kill anyone first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
