Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[dmp]

The whole drug cost issue ignores what I think is the elephant in the room, namely how high US drug prices, subsidize the rest of the world, where foreign governments mandate lower drug prices for their citizens. If the US did that too, there would be a lot less funding for R&D to create new drugs and the world's pipeline of new drugs would be even worse than it is now.

A complex issue. What I think is often conveniently absent the free market argument that you seem to be making, is that the companies are ENABLED to make money on their technology investments because of the strong US justice system and the legislated protection of IP by the patent system. The regulation machine of the FDA seems to favor the big corporate IP developers over generics possibly, as well. This system should balance for the overall good of the country. A business that has this IP protection and increases the cost 500% of a patented drug for a quick $$$ gain is obviously not doing good, imo. 

Looking at the high cost of health care and the skyrocketing profits in the drug technology business, perhaps there is an imbalance (again, imo) - contrary to your argument. 

I really like the idea of using actual video clips

The late great Tim Russert made his mark using past statements. A great loss too early.

 

[JohnRoberts]

You mean accurate?

I'm not sure.
One would take the fifth in the most straightforward sense to avoid testifying towards there own guilt - a constitutional right in this country. I believe this was inspired by individuals treatment in Britain before the founding of the US where one would be forced to answer questions that would lead to one's own guilty verdict.
In a most recent sense, people have not taken the fifth and made statements in trial in defense of some crime for which they were later prosecuted for perjury (martha stewart, scooter libby). The prosecution was unable to win a guilty verdict for the original crime.  So now I think lawyers are advising (wisely) for defendants to take the fifth much more liberally.
I said the statement was interesting because, it is interesting - that one would take the fifth to simply avoid saying something that would make one look bad. Taking the fifth used to come with some negative connotation (tacit admission of guilt) - but now - perhaps as it is more prevalent - and can be commonly employed for PR.

Yes I understand the 5th amendment. He had bigger problems than pissing off a few congressmen, but he managed to thwart his expensive lawyer's strategy....  The teachable moment here, If you hire a successful defense lawyer "follow his advice" and don't tweet out insults to congress, from inside the capitol building, after taking the 5th.  :

Not testifying means radio silence. The lawyer was trying to reduce his public profile, now even we're talking about him. The guy deserves to get Martha Stewarts old cell. Maybe he can hook up with Madhoff inside and they can talk securities law from a shared perspective.  ;D  (kidding still innocent until proved guilty).

JR 

 

[JohnRoberts]

The whole drug cost issue ignores what I think is the elephant in the room, namely how high US drug prices, subsidize the rest of the world, where foreign governments mandate lower drug prices for their citizens. If the US did that too, there would be a lot less funding for R&D to create new drugs and the world's pipeline of new drugs would be even worse than it is now.

A complex issue. What I think is often conveniently absent the free market argument that you seem to be making, is that the companies are ENABLED to make money on their technology investments because of the strong US justice system and the legislated protection of IP by the patent system.

I guess the free market part is implied, because it was me...  8) 8)

Drug patents seem like the poster boy for the larger benefit of the patent system (not a free market) granting exclusivity to inventors to exploit the fruits of their creativity. 

The regulation machine of the FDA seems to favor the big corporate IP developers over generics possibly, as well.

I am not aware of any such bias. In fact I see some monkey business where drug companies get patents on minor variants of established drugs to reset the clock on patent protection. WRT generics, I also see the big drug industry paying generic makers to hold their generic versions off the market longer, so the old established drugs can continue making profit, and the generic maker gets something for almost nothing. A win-win-lose.... but we are the lose.  :'(

For the record this industry is highly regulated so far from a free market, not to mention the huge distortion from big insurance companies negotiating drug prices. We might see lower prices if customers were involved in the transaction... I know I buy generics whenever I can. 

This system should balance for the overall good of the country. A business that has this IP protection and increases the cost 500% of a patented drug for a quick $$$ gain is obviously not doing good, imo. 

These recent cost increases are not business a usual and I am not completely sure what is going on. The health care industry is pretty conflicted with several major insurers loosing big money from ACA. There is plenty of political push back coming against drug companies, and some if it may be deserved (like that idiot today). 

Looking at the high cost of health care and the skyrocketing profits in the drug technology business, perhaps there is an imbalance (again, imo) - contrary to your argument. 

The insurance companies are reporting significant losses from ACA. Apparently the government is not enforcing the mandatory participation, so the typical participants wait until they get sick, then sign up for ACA. This means the pool of insured is much sicker than a representative cross section of the population.  Costs are higher per member, profits non-existant.

I really like the idea of using actual video clips

The late great Tim Russert made his mark using past statements. A great loss too early.

Russert was good RIP, his kid has potential.

I figured with the WWW and everyone owning a smart phone with camera we'd see more candidates disagreeing with themselves.  A video clip is stronger than just saying. Trump is notorius for denying he said stuff. 8) 8)

JR

 

[Gold]

A complex issue.

Banning television advertisements for products you can't buy without a prescription would go a long way to curbing the greed. There would be a lot less reseasrch on toe fungus and more varieties of anti-depressant and more n medically significant treatments.

 

[Brian Roth]

Side topic....if we're going to ban TV advertising, how about all of the "ambulance chaser" lawyers?  Sheesh, I can't watch any TV show without seeing multiple  "Here's my wreck, and here's my check!"  "Joe Pitzstink got me this check for $750,000!"

Of course, those vermin also control the US and state congresses so it will never happen.

Bri

 

[Gold]

There are plenty of things that are banned from advertising on television. Tobacco, liquor, firearms. Prescription pharmaceutical advertising used to be banned. If a doctor has to prescribe it to why are they advertising to the end user?

 

[kambo]

Apparently the corn used for ethanol is genetically modified for that purpose, read: not edible.

if you think eatable corn sold in US is eatable... good luck to you....

 

[Brian Roth]

Apparently the corn used for ethanol is genetically modified for that purpose, read: not edible.

if you think eatable corn sold in US is eatable... good luck to you....

Some of my new friends here in my new city raise food in their backyards.  Perhaps something for me to ponder after the weather warms up!

 

[bruno2000]

Apparently the corn used for ethanol is genetically modified for that purpose, read: not edible.

if you think eatable corn sold in US is eatable... good luck to you....

Some of my new friends here in my new city raise food in their backyards.  Perhaps something for me to ponder after the weather warms up!

Nothing like eggs from chickens that run around in the yard.......
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[JohnRoberts]

While I am not rooting for any one candidate (yet), I was surprised first that Cruz openly declared he was against ethanol mandates while running in Iowa, land of corn... and second that he won the republican caucus there after dissing the corn. Trump took second and Rubio a close third. So Rubio is the highest placing establishment candidate.
.....
PS: I applaud both Cruz for taking a principled stand against ethanol, and the Iowa voters for not rejecting him over their perceived self-interest.

As I understand it, and had read somewhere more than a year ago, farmers in general are less than thrilled with the whole ethanol thing. Apparently the corn used for ethanol is genetically modified for that purpose, read: not edible. And due to the forces of nature and little mobile critters, the ethanol corn has been wildly cross pollinating with the food supply corn and ruining much of it, despite efforts to keep the crops very separate. I could see especially the corn farmers being up in arms about this. Not to overlook the general concerns that ethanol makes gas more expensive, burns up quicker, and is pretty much poison to an engine as far as I can tell.

I am not aware of genetically modified corn for ethanol... if anything agricultural research is focussed on cellulosic (non-food) alternatives to make ethanol from. I've long thought that sugar cane was better input medium, and then only for oxygenate, not for larger fuel supply use.

They do grow a different strain of corn for most ethanol. "Sweet" corn is the corn that humans eat. "Field" corn is less attractive as human food stock. The acreage used to grow ethanol (field) corn, is not growing sweet corn so it still affects supply. 

Corn ethanol remains a bad idea IMO, especially now that we have a surplus if real gasoline.

[edit] speaking of energy and politicians Pres Obama just announced that he want's to impose a $10 barrel tax on oil, to fund alternate transportation.. While oil companies are sucking fumes and under attack by Saudis pumping full bore. He wants to impose a 30% tax????  If serious a tax on refined gasoline at the pump now while the pump price is relatively cheap would be less disruptive, but he isn't serious. I won't hold my breath for public transportation in Hickory, MS.  A republican house and senate would never approve this, so this is just another political message as he injects himself into the campaign.  Like attending a mosque to criticize Trump and republicans. President Bush visited a mosque right after 9/11 to show support for american muslims and draw the distinction between all muslims and terrorists.  AFAIK this is Obama's first mosque visit so pretty transparently election year politics.

I hate politics, it can be so low brow.    [/edit]

[/edit2] putting on my (I'm not an) economist hat, it doesn't matter if you tax the barrel of oil or gas at the pump, the end user ultimately pays the tax in both cases. While the visuals for politics looks different. [/edit2]

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

There are plenty of things that are banned from advertising on television. Tobacco, liquor, firearms. Prescription pharmaceutical advertising used to be banned. If a doctor has to prescribe it to why are they advertising to the end user?

Tobacco... good riddance... My father who smoked Lucky Strike died much too young of throat cancer. My older brother and younger sister, both smokers died from cancer. My still living brother and I are both non-smokers. For my genome the anecdotal evidence is compelling.  That said my libertarian bent is not highly motivated to outlaw tobacco, more inclined to tax it enough to completely pay for the health problems it causes. As usual the tobacco industry is smarter than politicians and has co-opted them with huge cigarette tax revenue streams to the point that the legislators don't want to turn off that spigot.

Maybe it's a MS thing but I see booze and gun ads on my TV.   

Advertising prescription drugs arguably informs the public that these medicines exist. Back before my DVR I was forced to listen to way too many of these ads and it is less than altruistic how they encourage health consumers to second guess the medical advice they are receiving. I want health consumers to get more involved in purchase decisions, but not so much about what medicine to prescribe.

A secondary effect from all this advertising is consumers feel like they haven't been serviced by their doctor if they don't get a prescription for something after each visit.  Penicillin was a miracle drug, boner pills not so much. (in fact that is a side-effect not the original motivation for developing that medicine.)

Ambulance chasers... It is hard to find something good to say about them... I noticed one positive change recently in DE where the courts have stopped accepting the automatic class action lawsuits that accompany typical IPOs. These used to be a cost of going public, when enterprising lawyers would extract their pound of flesh, but the judges finally said enough is enough, and stopped accepting them..

JR

 

[DaveP]

A secondary effect from all this advertising is consumers feel like they haven't been serviced by their doctor if they don't get a prescription for something after each visit. 

Aahh, there it is again, the separation of the common language!

In the UK, if a woman was serviced by her doctor he would be struck off for professional misconduct! :

In that context it would mean she got f**ked.

DaveP

 

[lassoharp]

If a doctor has to prescribe it to why are they advertising to the end user?

And many of the ads explicitly say " . . . . so ask your doctor about XXX "

Which is another way of encouraging the public to ask their doctor to prescribe them something . . . . which is exactly what many people do . . . . and get it.  Until something major happens health wise doctors have effectively been reduced to a position not too far above the rung of the local pharmacist and I think the attitude of many patients is that a trip to see the doctor is useless unless they prescribe them something.  It seems like the public is going to have to do their part at some point.  We probably won't change the way big pharma rolls until we stop throwing gas in the fire by consuming so much product.

 

[DaveP]

This doesn't happen in the UK because the doctor is encouraged to use cheaper generic drugs rather than branded.  This is one advantage of a centralised National Health Service, because it costs the taxpayer less.  There are no drug adverts on TV in the UK,
except for over the counter drugs like Neurophen.

DaveP

 

[Gold]

Maybe it's a MS thing but I see booze and gun ads on my TV.   
/quote]

Cable, yes. Broadcast, no.

 

[JohnRoberts]

This doesn't happen in the UK because the doctor is encouraged to use cheaper generic drugs rather than branded.  This is one advantage of a centralised National Health Service, because it costs the taxpayer less.  There are no drug adverts on TV in the UK,
except for over the counter drugs like Neurophen.

DaveP

"Servicing" can mean that here too depending on the context.  Speaking about servicing, "shagging" here means catching fly balls for practice. 
======
The criticism of single payer is who and how decisions are made to manage scarce resources.  In the US the veterans administration health care is pretty much a single payer government run system and it is a cluster fs*k.  Hardly an endorsement of expanding government run healthcare.

France has danced around euthanasia and/or assisted suicide for terminally ill and recently passed legislation that allows them a form of passive euthanasia to keep terminal patients deeply sedated. Artificial nutrition and hydration can be suspended. They save the expense of pain killers, and throwing other resources at a lost cause. I'm sure there is a distinction in somebody's mind, but not much. Probably not a bad way to go. Dying from some chronic conditions can be painful.  When my one brother contracted cancer they spent around a half million dollars on 5 years of chemo treatments before ultimately failing. He confided to me he would have never spent his own money that way, and he was the one dying, RIP. 

This isn't easy and I don't really have any simple answers, there is never enough money to give everybody all the healthcare they want... I want a new knee, but I'm too cheap to buy one  (for now).  I can live with that freely made decision, I might be pissed off if some bureaucrat decided that I didn't deserve a knee replacement while others did.

JR

 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Maybe it's a MS thing but I see booze and gun ads on my TV.   

Cable, yes. Broadcast, no.

I don't have cable (satellite) , but I think I've seen ads for pawn shops hawking guns on local broadcast channels... Not sure but I think I've seen a few Budweiser ads on network TV.

I've seen hard liquor ads on TV but they may be on the satellite, not over air broadcast.

IIRC there are rules that you can't be shown drinking booze, or shooting somebody with a gun (if not a rule should be).

JR

 

[Gold]

I don't have cable (satellite) , but I think I've seen ads for pawn shops hawking guns on local broadcast channels...
[/quote]

That's a pawn shop ad. I don't think you'll see a Smith and Wesson ad.

Not sure but I think I've seen a few Budweiser ads on network TV.

Beer and wine are okay on broadcast but not liquor.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I don't have cable (satellite) , but I think I've seen ads for pawn shops hawking guns on local broadcast channels...

That's a pawn shop ad. I don't think you'll see a Smith and Wesson ad.

Not sure but I think I've seen a few Budweiser ads on network TV.

Beer and wine are okay on broadcast but not liquor.
[/quote]
Beer and wine are fine, but liquor is quicker.... 8)

JR

 

[DaveP]

Following our conversation on "low information" voters,  I see that Trump does not bother which such niceties and just goes for "poorly educated" without apparently causing offence ;D  In one interview I saw, a woman said "He has the guts to say what we all feel", maybe that's the key to his success?

Whether Cruz is genuine or not, it does look like he had poor judgement in recruiting his campaign director, it does not look good for a Bible Basher to use dirty tricks in his campaign and he looks fatally wounded from here.

DaveP