EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 1160
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
ThreeAcross
172 Posts
On November 03 2012 06:17 oneofthem wrote: i dunno about that particular case or the doctor's reason for doing that, but according to RAND VA is doing pretty well in delivering care. you need to be more specific about what "easier to work with" means http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9100/index1.html even in a high quality system there will be errors made, but your point of reference is small that you may be missing the larger picture. So you have no experience with the VA other than the Internet and studies you can find? Of course my sample is small when it comes to personal service seeing I wasn't in the military, but my experience at large when dealing with payments from VA it is more of a mess than other institutions. I will need to read the study you linked before I comment on that. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
personal connection wise my dad worked as a researcher at a va hospital and i've been to the facilities. i've never actually been sick ever that required hospital visits. so i have no personal contact with anything other than a dentist. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 03 2012 06:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Well you didn't make a good case (no data) that the R&D costs are actually inflated. Presumably they would do so to take advantage of the R&D tax credit, though I have no idea what the rules / restrictions / valuation of the tax credits are. Assuming they do inflate those costs, other than taking advantage of another stupid government program, what's the problem? If they are inflating one cost then they are deflating another. So the books still balance and at the end of the day the industry needs to at least cover its cost of capital. Linked to me through a careful observer of this thread *cough*: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/01/the-trouble-with-corporate-taxes/to-overhaul-the-corporate-tax-code-start-with-drug-companies Well, I think we can agree that they are taking advantage of a stupid government program, but that's really not what was being argued either. And inflating R&D costs with marketing costs etc. cannot justify their price gouging. Not all cost is the same and not all cost can be justified. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 03 2012 06:34 Souma wrote: Linked to me through a careful observer of this thread *cough*: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/01/the-trouble-with-corporate-taxes/to-overhaul-the-corporate-tax-code-start-with-drug-companies Well, I think we can agree that they are taking advantage of a stupid government program, but that's really not what was being argued either. And inflating R&D costs with marketing costs etc. cannot justify their price gouging. Not all cost is the same and not all cost can be justified. Ok, so the issue is supposed price gouging? Then make your case - demonstrate that drug companies are charging an unjustified price. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 03 2012 06:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Ok, so the issue is supposed price gouging? Then make your case - demonstrate that drug companies are charging an unjustified price. I just did. They inflate their R&D costs to make it seem like it's okay to charge everyone what they do. And actually the issue was not price gouging. The issue is inflating R&D costs. Edit: I gotta get to work. Talk to ya later. :D | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 03 2012 06:42 Souma wrote: I just did. They inflate their R&D costs to make it seem like it's okay to charge everyone what they do. And actually the issue was not price gouging. The issue is inflating R&D costs. Edit: I gotta get to work. Talk to ya later. :D I still don't get it. Drugs don't get priced at R&D cost plus margin... So inflating R&D cost does not equal over pricing. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is considered tax break territory even though it has low medical value http://www.rand.org/news/press/2009/09/08.html edit: no that's a different thing. however, the same mechanism should apply when producing different formulas treating the same conditions, and then making doctors prescribe your thing over something else. | ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On November 03 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I still don't get it. Drugs don't get priced at R&D cost plus margin... So inflating R&D cost does not equal over pricing. I feel like this should be pretty easy to get. He's implying that by inflating their R&D costs they are justified in charging a high price by saying, "Hey look, we spent a ton of money making this thing, so it will obviously cost a lot." If things cost a lot to make, they will cost a lot to buy. Generally, people do not price extremely expensive to create products at low costs because they're nice people. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
I'm pretty sure we're looking at a 281-257 Obama win. Romney needs OH to win and I don't think he gets it. VA I'm calling for Romney, but it doesn't really matter because OH makes the difference. I call the popular vote as a narrow Romney win. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 03 2012 09:27 Kich wrote: I feel like this should be pretty easy to get. He's implying that by inflating their R&D costs they are justified in charging a high price by saying, "Hey look, we spent a ton of money making this thing, so it will obviously cost a lot." If things cost a lot to make, they will cost a lot to buy. Generally, people do not price extremely expensive to create products at low costs because they're nice people. Ok, but demonstrating that they are inflating their R&D costs for tax purposes (separate books) doesn't mean that they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes. Moreover, even if they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes you do not know the effect because you do not know the role R&D costs play in pricing the drug. The drug industry is similar to the movie industry. Most drugs are money losers and a few blockbusters pay for it all. So yes, quite often an expensive to create drug will be priced below the level of profitability. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
brb staring at jill picture | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On November 03 2012 09:58 BluePanther wrote: Did some number crunching and was looking over the forecasts on EV today. I'm pretty sure we're looking at a 281-257 Obama win. Romney needs OH to win and I don't think he gets it. VA I'm calling for Romney, but it doesn't really matter because OH makes the difference. I call the popular vote as a narrow Romney win. It ain't over until its over. There's still an off-chance Romney can pull it out. Although what I'm secretly hoping is an Obama blow-out ... like he pulls off a miracle and takes Florida as well. I really think the best thing for America is for the Republican party is to lose big, and force them to reboot, reorganize, and re-prioritize. There is a demand for a more logical, practical conservative party that doesn't try to hold the country hostage to defend some uncompromising position, or pander to knuckleheads and extremists. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On November 03 2012 11:50 oneofthem wrote: there is no need to reorganize for the republicans. they've been moving rightward for a while, dragging the center with them as they go. one could say the reaction to them losing would be even more rightward shift. They've already alienated quite a few republicans. I mean I'm not quite sure why the Republicans in this thread are going for them, to be honest. Obama has been rather center-right in all his politicking and has always been a blue-dog as far as economics. But I guess maybe they've bought into all the hype of him being a socialist leftist guy. Shrug. If the republicans went further right I think that would cause a schism in the party, which I think is due. Honestly, it might not matter if Obama wins or loses. Republicans suddenly gaining power might also cause a schism in the party. I mean it looks like Republicans are going to lose in the House and Senate this round as well. The far-right rhetoric and the recent psychosis they've been going through is having a pretty severe backlash. Personally, I'm going with Nate Silver on this one. I really want Virginia to go blue, though. That probably has something to do with it... Edit: Trouble For the Tea Party! | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 03 2012 12:16 DoubleReed wrote: They've already alienated quite a few republicans. I mean I'm not quite sure why the Republicans in this thread are going for them, to be honest. Obama has been rather center-right in all his politicking and has always been a blue-dog as far as economics. But I guess maybe they've bought into all the hype of him being a socialist leftist guy. Shrug. If the republicans went further right I think that would cause a schism in the party, which I think is due. Honestly, it might not matter if Obama wins or loses. Republicans suddenly gaining power might also cause a schism in the party. I mean it looks like Republicans are going to lose in the House and Senate this round as well. The far-right rhetoric and the recent psychosis they've been going through is having a pretty severe backlash. Personally, I'm going with Nate Silver on this one. I really want Virginia to go blue, though. That probably has something to do with it... Edit: Trouble For the Tea Party! I don't disagree with that. Romney was on shaky ground with me before the first debate (47% fiasco comment, etc.). Republicans in general are blowing it with young voters over social issues and Hispanics over immigration. The Tea Party in has been a missed opportunity as well. In Mass we elected Scott Brown, a moderate, during the Tea Party's initial swell of support only to see the other 49 states blow it with a bunch of nut jobs. Edit: (depressing... back to the beer and 4v4's...) | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
though I'm still predicting a landslide win for Romney and a Republican take-over of the Senate. Obama might have just delivered a 16-year ascendency to the GOP on a silver-platter. if American's reject Obama, than how many other Democrats will carry the "stain", so to speak, of Obama and his policies? only time will tell, I suppose. either way, I'll be ready to eat crow if I'm wrong. it's been fun enough for the last few months that I'll probably just laugh a loss off and move on. | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3890 Posts
On November 03 2012 13:02 sc2superfan101 wrote: in the choice between becoming Democrat-lite or losing an election, I'll take the loss. though I'm still predicting a landslide win for Romney and a Republican take-over of the Senate. Obama might have just delivered a 16-year ascendency to the GOP on a silver-platter. if American's reject Obama, than how many other Democrats will carry the "stain", so to speak, of Obama and his policies. If people were able to forget about George Bush by 2010 midterms, you really think Obama's "stain" will last 16 years? If it is there, it won't last. Congress has a much lower approval rating, and people know the tea party came into congress 2 years ago His overall appeal isn't as bad as you make it out to be, and I know we disagree on the policies that make you think this way, but i think your making this Obama "stain" to be something that isn't there. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On November 03 2012 02:23 cLAN.Anax wrote: With regards to military spending, as Day[9] puts it in StarCraft terms, "It's helpful to not die." I'm not so sure people realize that investing in the armed forces of countries that promote democracy and freedom actually help deter war from breaking out in the first place. Quote from a few pages ago but I felt it deserved a response. Historically increasing your military leads to increased tension, which in turn leads to war. Perhaps the biggest and most well known example would be world war I, but it is true throughout history. It's known as the security dilemma in a general term. So what you'll do is create security issues where you previously had none, doing the very opposite of what you want to do (creating insecurity instead of security). The US already has a military that is bigger than it needs to be when it comes to dealing with anything but full-scale invasions of first-world nations - that is, the US military is already more than capable of doing its job as it is, which is also why they haven't actually requested the extra money that Romney wants to throw at them. On November 03 2012 05:57 Atrain1982 wrote: I love (not really) when people use the argument: "the rest of the world does it this way...” 200+ years ago Europe was ruled by monarchs, not represented by free people. Thankfully George Washington had the foresight to turn down offers of kingship and step-down from being President, despite what many in the public may have wanted. Certainly in the United States a better argument for a single-payer/government run health care model can be presented than: "the rest of the world does it this way". If the rest of the world was going to jump of a bridge.... Sorry for ignoring the rest of your post but I'd just like to educate you on the fact that the US was in a unique position to put in place ideas that originated in Europe. The founding of the US came about the way it did because it was the best solution for the elite of the US (/thirteen colonies), rather than creating their own monarch. To somehow make it in to an american exceptionalism fairytale doesn't alter reality. Lastly, of course, it's irrelevant because the argument isn't that "everyone else is doing it so you should too" but "everyone else is doing it and is much better off for it so you should too". | ||
| ||
