Am I Becoming a Paultard? [Amerikan Politics]

[GGT]

Chickendollar inflation has been rampant for the last few decades no doubt thanks to govt. intervention

Chickens eat corn. Corn has been subsidized as an oil-alternative fuel. Corn prices inflated once it entered the fuel market. Corn became more expensive as an energy commodity even though it's basically a cheap food commodity. No longer just chicken-feed, high fructose corn syrup, a starchy side-dish, or popcorn. Corn was poppin' hot! Corn tortillas and corn breads rose in price, hurting ethnic groups. Corn flake cereals made Tony the Tiger's grrrr turn into grumbles, and Kellogg's raised prices. Stale theater popcorn cost as much as the movie ticket. Corn-fed chicken parts cost as much as slop-fed pig parts. So many corn rows....it turned into post-season corn maze entertainment. Field trips for school kids.

And all the money made on corn was supposed to trickle down. Making fuel more affordable. Making doctor's visits more affordable. And no one would have to trade a corn-eating chicken just to get their Chicken Pox vaccination.

[Lewkowski]

Think about his ability to actually work with Congress to get any of his views implemented.

I'd love a government shutdown.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'd love a government shutdown.

I'm not quite sure you would. Unless I misjudged you and anarchy is your thing.

[Loki]

I'd love a government shutdown.

We had a de facto shutdown for the last 2 years.

[Lewkowski]

We had a de facto shutdown for the last 2 years.

Not really. A real government shut down. And a president willing to say "Yeah, you cut 1 trillion or no SS, no Medicare no anything is getting paid."

I think Ron Paul would be principled enough to do it and the other side will blink. Too bad it won't ever happen (plus he's a bit crazy when it comes to foreign policy so probably for the best.)

[wiggin]

I suspect he means a 'shutdown' in the Clinton sense - where government agencies no longer are open, gov't employees don't get paid, checks don't go out, etc. Essentially, a lack of funding authorization for the Treasury to disburse/raise funds. This would be a disaster (and I wonder why he'd support our million+ troops not getting paid, ignoring all of the other functions of government), but I can see Lewk supporting it on 'smaller government' grounds. It's also a huge waste of money.

[Lewkowski]

I suspect he means a 'shutdown' in the Clinton sense - where government agencies no longer are open, gov't employees don't get paid, checks don't go out, etc. Essentially, a lack of funding authorization for the Treasury to disburse/raise funds. This would be a disaster (and I wonder why he'd support our million+ troops not getting paid, ignoring all of the other functions of government), but I can see Lewk supporting it on 'smaller government' grounds. It's also a huge waste of money.

Lowers confidence in the government. I believe the other side would blink first. In the long run it would save a ton of money if we went to an actual small government instead of a government is involved in EVERYTHING.

[Dreadnaught]

I'm definitely uneasy when people call "health care" and "education" a market - as if those areas would work in any way when subjected to the "glorious free market".

A free market only works if you're able to actually walk away from an offer or find a valid alternative. If I'm ill I don't have a choice, I have to subject myself to treatment of some kind. And if I'm critically and acutely ill I also don't have the time to "shop around" to find a cheaper hospital. Not to mention that my own life is per definition invaluable to myself - thus putting me at a disadvantage whenever my health is concerned.
Same is true to a minimally lesser extent in the area of education.

Thus I'd ask the people here to stop treating those two areas as if they were something you could treat like the financial markets (not that those are doing so great, mind).

I'm definitely uneasy with how -- despite its merits -- the German education model perpetuates social engineering to the point of arguably being a large-scale human rights abuse.

Kidding. Sort of.

But it's entirely reasonable to look at education and health care/health insurance in a market-based context. People have varying demands for education and healthcare, and the choices are neither uniform nor binary. And the choices should not be uniform or binary. The German education system actually recognizes this more than the American sytem.

Nonetheless, everywhere that people make choices about education and healthcare implies a market. Everywhere that people's choices are influenced by incentives and disincentives implies a market.

My professed goal is to have the education and healthcare be better functioning markets by reducing the destructive monopolization and manipulation by our government.

[Aimless]

Is that even possible? Like, is it known that good outcomes result from treating/turning healthcare and education as/into a free market?

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm definitely uneasy with how -- despite its merits -- the German education model perpetuates social engineering to the point of arguably being a large-scale human rights abuse.

Kidding. Sort of.

But it's entirely reasonable to look at education and health care/health insurance in a market-based context. People have varying demands for education and healthcare, and the choices are neither uniform nor binary. And the choices should not be uniform or binary. The German education system actually recognizes this more than the American sytem.

Nonetheless, everywhere that people make choices about education and healthcare implies a market. Everywhere that people's choices are influenced by incentives and disincentives implies a market.

My professed goal is to have the education and healthcare be better functioning markets by reducing the destructive monopolization and manipulation by our government.

Pray tell me, which "choice" do I have when I have just broken my shinbone? Do I have the option of choosing the most effective or the cheapest provider when I'm carted to the hospital by the nearest ambulance? Do the paramedics present me with a choice of options?

Is that even possible? Like, is it known that good outcomes result from treating/turning healthcare and education as/into a free market?

Doesn't really work. See my shinbone example.

[Nessus]

WOODLAND PARK, Colo. – GOP contender Rick Santorum had a heated exchange with a mother and her sick young son Wednesday, arguing that drug companies were entitled to charge whatever the market demanded for life-saving therapies.
Santorum, himself the father of a child with a rare genetic disorder, compared buying drugs to buying an iPad, and said demand would determine the cost of medical therapies.
“People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad,” Santorum said, “but paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with — it keeps you alive. Why? Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”
The mother said the boy was on the drug Abilify, used to treat schizophrenia, and that, on paper, its costs would exceed $1 million each year.
Santorum said drugs take years to develop and cost millions of dollars to produce, and manufacturers need to turn a profit or they would stop developing new drugs.
“You have that drug, and maybe you’re alive today because people have a profit motive to make that drug,” Santorum said. “There are many people sick today who, 10 years from now, are going to be alive because of some drug invented in the next 10 years. If we say: ‘You drug companies are greedy and bad, you can’t make a return on your money,’ then we will freeze innovation.”
Santorum told a large Tea Party crowd here that he sympathized with the boy’s case, but he also believed in the marketplace.
“He’s alive today because drug companies provide care,” Santorum said. “And if they didn’t think they could make money providing that drug, that drug wouldn’t be here. I sympathize with these compassionate cases. … I want your son to stay alive on much-needed drugs. Fact is, we need companies to have incentives to make drugs. If they don’t have incentives, they won’t make those drugs. We either believe in markets or we don’t.”

[Loki]

Drug companies actually have programs in place to allow poor people to buy their drugs at cost.

[Nessus]

Soviet people are better off materially and richer spiritually?

[Veldan Rath]

Yes yes yes Ness, but in this case is the Social Suck Up really wrong in this case? Who would spend the millions to billions on drug research if there was no return?

[Aimless]

Yes yes yes Ness, but in this case is the Social Suck Up really wrong in this case? Who would spend the millions to billions on drug research if there was no return?

The alternatives aren't "$$$$" vs. "NO DOLLARS". In most areas it's "$$$$" vs. "$$$". Ie. not "no return", just "lower return than now". If Americans were tougher bargainers (and if some American doctors were more sensible/less money-hungry ) then you'd still have pretty much all the drugs you need but at lower cost. Just a conjecture mind you, although it's probably true.

[Aimless]

For the record, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I love it when that drug companies make good drugs that save lives. But to pretend that they're shenanigan-free--or that their shenanigans are all reasonable and necessary for the production of great drugs--is misguided. It doesn't hurt to be honest about what's going on.

Who contributes most to the basic research necessary for developing new drugs? The public sector. In one study from 2001 the public contribution was found to be ca. 84%:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8869611/contributions.pdf

Of course, taking that basic research and turning it into a drug takes more money, but that work represents a much smaller fraction of the total costs.

Will you be doomed if you try to lower prices?

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8869611/drug%20jeopardy.pdf

Are all other countries free-riders?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...8/?tool=pubmed

How much is the US doing anyway?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19706628

(can't access the full article alas)

EDIT: Disclaimer, the references in this particular post are heavily influenced by one author who may or may not be a dirty republican.



Previously on this forum we've looked at R&D costs and found them to be far lower than marketing costs, albeit with some qualifiers and some recent changes. Sometimes marketing is good, but in the case of drugs it often leads to over-prescription or inappropriate prescription of overly expensive drugs--which is useless at best and dangerous at worst.

Sometimes marketing is disguised as "scientific" articles that attract a great deal of attention and inspire a great deal of hope but are later found to be rubbish




And as for what companies will or will not do, what they will do is charge whatever the market will bear--"all the money I've got"--regardless of the actual costs of R&D. See 900% markups on old cancer drugs when they get a new indication.

[Ominous Gamer]

Yes yes yes Ness, but in this case is the Social Suck Up really wrong in this case? Who would spend the millions to billions on drug research if there was no return?

you mean like the HIV vaccine Canada now has in human testing?

or we going the other way, where the US came close to running out of coral snake anti-venom, because it wasn't profitable?

[Aimless]

I'm trying to figure out how much money it would take to balance the propaganda coming from drug companies.




Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeding_trial#In_medicine



Naturally the Truth may be expected to lie somewhere between the extremes highlighted by the industry on the one hand and the Minx on the other hand.

[Nessus]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19706628

(can't access the full article alas)

I can, do you want screenshots or smth?

[Aimless]

PDF!! PDF!!!!!

[Nessus]

You'll have to give me an e-mail address...

[GGT]

Yes yes yes Ness, but in this case is the Social Suck Up really wrong in this case? Who would spend the millions to billions on drug research if there was no return?

Is Santorum the suck-up? Yes, he's wrong (or at least hypocritical) about R & D incentivized by profits, and Freee Market principles for developing drugs. He should know that better than most---having a child with a rare genetic disorder---whose treatment/care is most likely provided at a loss. But he probably has great insurance, just like he did as a senator, and figures he's "paying" for her costs (when he's not).

[Lewkowski]

I actually thought the response was absolutely perfect.

Do you think drug companies should be rewarded for the money they have put into developing new drugs?

[Lewkowski]

Ultimately even beyond that, is new medicine owned by the collective or owned by the company? We still have private property rights... Well those are being eroded pretty fast thanks to the liberals on the Supreme Court.

[GGT]

I actually thought the response was absolutely perfect.

Do you think drug companies should be rewarded for the money they have put into developing new drugs?

Ultimately even beyond that, is new medicine owned by the collective or owned by the company? We still have private property rights... Well those are being eroded pretty fast thanks to the liberals on the Supreme Court.

The NIH and federal funds for R & D are responsible for many studies in diseases, especially the rare kind that only affect very small portions of the public. Pharmaceutical companies then create products based on that public research, and turn a profit by creating products to treat those things.

Cancer research hasn't been cheap, and resulted in new treatments that no one could afford on their own. Our federal government (and every tax payer) has helped at every level along the way, including funds to schools and students, labs and hospitals. That's the "collective" you're trying to hate?

The Insurance Industry also pools money from a collective of people and their premiums. The government helps there too, for insurance products like Medicaid and Medicare. That way, pharmaceutical companies can make their money on $50,000 single-dose chemo that add five weeks of life to a terminal patient....or pump longevity into a premature baby or pediatric cancer patient, so they can live a long life.

[Aimless]

I actually thought the response was absolutely perfect.

Do you think drug companies should be rewarded for the money they have put into developing new drugs?

The alternatives aren't "$$$$" vs. "NO DOLLARS". In most areas it's "$$$$" vs. "$$$". Ie. not "no return", just "lower return than now". If Americans were tougher bargainers (and if some American doctors were more sensible/less money-hungry ) then you'd still have pretty much all the drugs you need but at lower cost. Just a conjecture mind you, although it's probably true.

For the record, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I love it when that drug companies make good drugs that save lives. But to pretend that they're shenanigan-free--or that their shenanigans are all reasonable and necessary for the production of great drugs--is misguided. It doesn't hurt to be honest about what's going on.

Who contributes most to the basic research necessary for developing new drugs? The public sector. In one study from 2001 the public contribution was found to be ca. 84%:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8869611/contributions.pdf

Of course, taking that basic research and turning it into a drug takes more money, but that work represents a much smaller fraction of the total costs.

Will you be doomed if you try to lower prices?

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8869611/drug%20jeopardy.pdf

Are all other countries free-riders?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...8/?tool=pubmed

How much is the US doing anyway?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19706628

(can't access the full article alas)

EDIT: Disclaimer, the references in this particular post are heavily influenced by one author who may or may not be a dirty republican.



Previously on this forum we've looked at R&D costs and found them to be far lower than marketing costs, albeit with some qualifiers and some recent changes. Sometimes marketing is good, but in the case of drugs it often leads to over-prescription or inappropriate prescription of overly expensive drugs--which is useless at best and dangerous at worst.

Sometimes marketing is disguised as "scientific" articles that attract a great deal of attention and inspire a great deal of hope but are later found to be rubbish




And as for what companies will or will not do, what they will do is charge whatever the market will bear--"all the money I've got"--regardless of the actual costs of R&D. See 900% markups on old cancer drugs when they get a new indication.

So please stop trying to pretend that they're just trying to break even on their huge investment into amazing innovation.

[Dreadnaught]

Pray tell me, which "choice" do I have when I have just broken my shinbone? Do I have the option of choosing the most effective or the cheapest provider when I'm carted to the hospital by the nearest ambulance? Do the paramedics present me with a choice of options?

I'm sorry, but that is a pretty miserable example. Not all medical care is emergency care. And there's no such thing as emergency education.

Education and [most] medicine is certainly important, but not so time-constrained as to prevent people from making choices within a competitive market.

Meanwhile, I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that Romney is a great manager but a middling candidate. I would probably vote for Obama if Santorum was the nominee. And, while Ron Paul has major ideological flaws and isn't a viable leader, his success would propel the national discussion in some healthy ways when it comes to extracting the government from education and healthcare (to some extent). What the fuck is happening to me.

[Nessus]

What the fuck is happening to me.

You remember how upset you were when a bunch of us told you, ages ago, that you were becoming a mindless right-wing shrill?

[Ominous Gamer]

What the fuck is happening to me.

Several of us have been asking the same question for the past couple of years

god damnit, ness has a quicker clicker

[Dreadnaught]

You remember how upset you were when a bunch of us told you, ages ago, that you were becoming a mindless right-wing shrill?

Do you remember how you were once able to have a cogent discussion? Neither do I.