View Full Version : WSJ Poll: Sobering Numbers For Republicans
Bronco_Beerslug
08-02-2007, 03:07 PM
The cost of healtcare the number one issue for most Americans (along with Iraq).
From the article..
Democrats lead by 35 percentage points on handling gas prices, by 24 percentage points on energy policy and 10 points on dealing with immigration. Even more notably, Republicans lag by 16 percentage points on controlling government spending, 15 percentage points on dealing with the economy and nine percentage points on dealing with taxes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
America's Economic Mood: Gloomy (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118600572789185278.html)
Broad Public Pessimism
Spurs Democratic Candidates
To Target Business Interests
By JOHN HARWOOD
August 2, 2007; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- Americans are feeling decidedly sour about the economy and those in charge of it, fueling Democratic efforts to target business interests in the 2008 election campaign.
More than two-thirds of Americans believe the U.S. economy is either in recession now or will be in the next year, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows. That assessment comes despite the fact the economy has experienced sustained growth with low inflation and unemployment and generally rising stock values ever since the recession that ended early in President Bush's tenure.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/NA-AN586_POLL_20070801190040.gif
In addition, the poll shows a lack of confidence in economic leaders. That includes not just Mr. Bush and Congress, both of whom have the approval of fewer than one-third of all Americans, but the financial industry, large corporations in general and energy, drug and insurance companies in particular.
Some other measures of Americans' economic attitudes, such as the Conference Board's consumer-confidence measure, have risen lately, and the Journal/NBC poll reflected some mixed feelings about the economy. Yet growth in consumer spending has slowed, and concerns about health costs, job security and the gap between the rich and poor have left Americans downbeat about the road ahead.
"They're ambivalent about the current economy but pessimistic about the future," said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducts the Journal/NBC survey with Democratic counterpart Peter Hart. One consequence is anger at leading economic actors, who respondents believe are failing to protect ordinary Americans' interests.
"There's a combination of anxiety and loathing," Mr. Hart said. "There's a sense that every single one of these institutions is totally out for their own betterment, versus the public they serve."
Democratic politicians are reflecting those sentiments in the 2008 presidential campaign and in legislative proposals in Congress. Populist lawmakers in the House and Senate have targeted oil-industry tax breaks, and challenged pharmaceutical companies on issues from drug prices to generic substitutes to imports from foreign companies. The chairmen of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees, and all three leading Democratic presidential candidates, have endorsed higher taxes on hedge-fund and private-equity managers or firms.
Efforts by Republicans and the business community to raise fears about Democratic tax increases, spending excesses or economic mismanagement have proved unsuccessful. In what Mr. Newhouse called a "world turned upside down," Democrats enjoy an edge in public approval that extends beyond such party strengths as health care and education, where Republicans trail by more than 20 percentage points.
Democrats lead by 35 percentage points on handling gas prices, by 24 percentage points on energy policy and 10 points on dealing with immigration. Even more notably, Republicans lag by 16 percentage points on controlling government spending, 15 percentage points on dealing with the economy and nine percentage points on dealing with taxes.
Both top Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, lead Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani in a prospective November 2008 matchup by six and five percentage points, respectively. Mr. Giuliani has strengthened his position in the Republican nomination race; the former New York mayor leads with 33%, up from 29% in June, compared with former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson's 20%, which is unchanged.
Notwithstanding his struggles with campaign staff and fund raising, Sen. John McCain of Arizona ticked up to 17% from 14% in June, while former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts fell to 11% from 14%. The telephone survey of 1,005 adults, conducted July 27-30, carried a margin for error of 3.1 percentage points.
"These are sobering numbers for the Republican brand," Mr. Newhouse noted. With Republicans weighed down by Mr. Bush's 31% approval rating, he said, "These party comparisons aren't going to change anytime soon until we get a nominee."
The biggest drag on Republican fortunes remains the Iraq war, which has depressed the nation's mood across the board. Just 19% of Americans say things in the nation are headed in the right direction, while 67% say the country is off on the wrong track.
When those who expressed pessimism were asked to identify a reason, the Iraq war was cited by the highest proportion, 56%. For the first time since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a plurality of Americans say the U.S. is less safe than before the attacks.
Failures in the health-care system are next on the list at 31%, as Americans continue to struggle with rising costs and coverage gaps. Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey, in Washington yesterday to lobby for higher federal health-care spending, argues that the two concerns feed on each other since Americans "think the war is pre-empting our ability to deal with health care and other issues."
"The macroeconomy is reasonably healthy," said Mr. Corzine, former chief executive of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. "But the reality for the majority of America is they're lucky if they hold on....The numbers are different from what the feel is on Wall Street."
Poll respondents expressed limited anxiety about the effects of either the housing-market decline or stock-market turbulence on their personal circumstances. Just 20% said shifting stock values lately have had a negative impact on their finances, while 17% said the same about home price declines.
The poll shows Wall Street itself is a target of public ire. Just 16% expressed substantial confidence in the financial industry, slightly below those expressing confidence in the energy industry (18%) or the pharmaceutical industry (17%). Large corporations (11%) and health-insurance companies in particular (10%) fared even worse.
One bright spot for the world of commerce: 54% of Americans expressed high confidence in small businesses, which tied with law-enforcement agencies for the second ranking behind the U.S. military among institutions rated by respondents.
About 67% of Americans expressed high confidence in the military. By comparison, local governments drew expressions of high confidence from 34%, public schools 32%, religious leaders 27%, the national news media 18% and the federal government 16%.
Crushaholic
08-02-2007, 03:15 PM
I don't think Republicans should shy away from the health care debate. They'll win if they convice Americans that frivolous lawsuits are a big factor in the high cost of healthcare. Hillary already proved in the early 90s that Americans weren't ready for universal healthcare...at least her view of it. Maybe times have changed, but it's a debate the respective nominees should hold.
TailgateNut
08-02-2007, 03:48 PM
I don't think Republicans should shy away from the health care debate. They'll win if they convice Americans that frivolous lawsuits are a big factor in the high cost of healthcare. Hillary already proved in the early 90s that Americans weren't ready for universal healthcare...at least her view of it. Maybe times have changed, but it's a debate the respective nominees should hold.
Horse manure.
as if that were the only MAJOR factor.
Insurance fraud and overbilling to insurance companies.
Insurance company profits
Pharmaceutical profits
Covering un-insured
Covering illegals
etc.......etc.....
TheDave
08-02-2007, 04:07 PM
I don't think Republicans should shy away from the health care debate. They'll win if they convice Americans that frivolous lawsuits are a big factor in the high cost of healthcare. Hillary already proved in the early 90s that Americans weren't ready for universal healthcare...at least her view of it. Maybe times have changed, but it's a debate the respective nominees should hold.
Problem is they aren't... .4%-.5% is all that "frivolous" lawsuits cost. I doubt it will be too tough for people to figure this out.
Crushaholic
08-02-2007, 04:43 PM
Problem is they aren't... .4%-.5% is all that "frivolous" lawsuits cost. I doubt it will be too tough for people to figure this out.
I don't know where you are getting those figures. I think it's a figure too complicated to quantify. The frivolous lawsuits are leading to higher insurance premiums for doctors, often unnecessary tests and often unnecessary medicine. Doctors are on pins and needles because America has developed a "I'll sue you" mentality.
Tailgate Nut, you're right that there are other factors involved in the high cost of healthcare. However, turning over healthcare to the highly complex government bureaucracy is not the way to go.
Bronco Bob
08-02-2007, 04:47 PM
I don't think Republicans should shy away from the health care debate. They'll win if they convice Americans that frivolous lawsuits are a big factor in the high cost of healthcare.
Which would be more GOP lies. Insurance company and drug company
profits are the biggest costs in health care.
Hillary already proved in the early 90s that Americans weren't ready for universal healthcare...at least her view of it. Maybe times have changed, but it's a debate the respective nominees should hold.
Hillary's health care proposal had an 82% approval rating. Then the insurance
company lobbyists went to work with a massive dis-information campaign
that was wildly successful. It remains to be seen if the public is sucked
in by them again or if Hillary can get her message across this time around.
TheDave
08-02-2007, 05:00 PM
I don't know where you are getting those figures. I think it's a figure too complicated to quantify. The frivolous lawsuits are leading to higher insurance premiums for doctors, often unnecessary tests and often unnecessary medicine. Doctors are on pins and needles because America has developed a "I'll sue you" mentality.
Tailgate Nut, you're right that there are other factors involved in the high cost of healthcare. However, turning over healthcare to the highly complex government bureaucracy is not the way to go.
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/02/23/prsa0223.htm
Tort reform wouldn't dent health spending -- CBO report
Changes should focus on fairness to both patients and physicians, the study concludes.
By Tanya Albert, AMNews staff. Feb. 23, 2004.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical liability reforms proposed in Congress likely wouldn't have a big impact on overall health care spending in the United States, according to the latest in a series of Congressional Budget Office reports on the subject.
The estimated $24 billion in malpractice costs in 2002 accounted for less than 2% of health care spending. "Thus, even a reduction of 25% to 30% in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4% to 0.5%, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparatively small," the CBO stated in its report, "Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice."
Which would be more GOP lies. Insurance company and drug company profits are the biggest costs in health care.
Evidence?
It's the consumption of health care resources by the elderly and those with chronic health problems (including lifestyle-related diseases like heart disease, lung cancer, and diabetes) that are driving health care costs skyward.
The whole system is perverse, with the incentives all wrong.
I realize it's easiest to take the populist stance and bash profits, but that's not the primary reason.
De-fang big Pharm., that is the biggest problem with health care today. Too much power too much profit.
The root problem though is the Standard American Diet (SAD). The nation will never be healthy until citizens start to eat more whole foods.
De-fang big Pharm., that is the biggest problem with health care today. Too much power too much profit.
What is "too much" profit? Besides, do you want to eliminate their ability to do good R&D as well?
The root problem though is the Standard American Diet (SAD). The nation will never be healthy until citizens start to eat more whole foods.
True - too many simple carbohydrates (white flour, sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc) and too much bad fat. Lack of exercise is a problem too. 15 Minute Jerks anyone?
Drug Companies Maintain "Astounding" Profits
4 May 2002 by Scott Gottlieb, New York, BMJ 2002
Pharmaceuticals again ranked as the most profitable sector in the United States, topping the annual Fortune 500 ranking of America's top industries, released this month.
The pharmaceutical industry topped all three of Fortune magazine's measures of profitability for 2001, making this decade the third in which the industry has been at or near the top in all the magazine's measures of profitability.
The occasion was seized by critics of the industry as reflecting corporate greed. Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch, said: "During a year in which there was much talk of sacrifice in the national interest, drug companies increased their astounding profits by hiking prescription prices, advertising some medicines more than Nike shoes, and successfully lobbying for lucrative monopoly patent extensions. Sometimes what's best for shareholders and chief executive officers isn't what's best for all Americans, particularly senior citizens who lack insurance cover for prescription drugs."
Overall profits of Fortune 500 companies declined by 53% in 2001, while the top 10 US drug makers increased profits by 32% from $28bn (20bn; 31bn) to $37bn, according to Public Citizen's analysis of the Fortune 500 data. Together the 10 drug companies in the list had the greatest return on revenues, reporting a profit of 18.5 cents for every dollar of sales, eight times higher than the median for all Fortune 500 industries, which was 2.2 cents.
The drugs industry says it needs extraordinary profits to fund risky research and development of new drugs and to absorb the high cost of drug failures in clinical trials. The industry's output of new drugs has risen only modestly in the past two decades, despite a more than sixfold increase, after adjustment for inflation, in spending on research and developmentto more than $30bn a year. In the past few years output has actually declined. Many industry supporters blame tougher scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration.
The time spent to develop a drug, not counting the months consumed by government review, has lengthened from about nine years in the 1980s to more than 11 years, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, and the cost has more than doubled, after adjustment for inflation, to $800m. Public Citizen notes that the Tufts Center gets money from drug companies and maintains that the centre's figures are inflated to justify high drug costs.
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve5/1090pharm.html
Pharmaceutical profits make us sick
In a year that saw a drop in employment rates, a plunge in the stock
market and symbols of America's economy literally come crashing down, the
pharmaceutical industry continued its reign as the most profitable industry
in the annual Fortune 500 list.
While the overall profits of Fortune 500 companies declined by 53
percent — the second steepest dive in profits the Fortune 500 has
listed in its 47 years — the top ten US drug makers increased profits by
33 percent.
Collectively, the 10 drug companies topped all three of the magazine's
measures of profitability in 2001.
These companies had the greatest return on revenues, reporting a profit of
18.5 cents for every $1 of sales, which was eight times higher than the
average for all other listed industries. Commercial banking, for example,
only returned 13.5 percent on revenue.
The drug industry also dominated others by realising a return on assets of
16.5 percent — almost six times the average of 2.5 percent for all other
industries.
Pharmaceutical companies completed the sweep with a return on shareholders'
equity of 33.2 percent which was more than three times the average for
other industries (9.8 percent).
Drug companies attained this triple crown, in part, by hiking pill prices,
advertising some medicines more than Nike shoes and spending much less on
R&D.
Through its huge lobbying presence in Washington the drug industry staved
off congressional efforts to moderate rising drug prices. In fact, the
industry went on the offensive last year in Congress, fighting for
lucrative extensions of monopoly patents on drugs like Cipro, the antibiotic used to treat anthrax.
Congress was all too willing to help, as it approved a patent extension
program for pediatric drugs that will give drug companies $592 million a
year in added profits, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA).
The FDA acknowledges that this is a conservative estimate based on a
limited sample of drugs. Public Citizen has identified 15 drugs that alone
could net an additional $2 billion in profits from the six-month patent
extensions.
No wonder Fortune says that the pharmaceutical industry "showed some
impressive gains."
The latest figures reflect a trend that has been continuing for three
decades. In the 1970s and '80 the profitability of the medicine merchants
was two times greater than the average for other industries.
In the 1990s, when the intellectual property protections of the landmark
Hatch-Waxman Act kicked in, the drug industry's profitability grew to
almost four times that for all industries in the Fortune 500.
The industry begins the 21st century with even better prospects — an
ageing population and annual increases in national spending on
pharmaceuticals makes the future for top drug companies look healthier than
ever.
Pharmaceuticals crusade for the "Holy Grail"
Together the ten drug companies listed by Fortune earned $37.2
billion in profits in 2001, up from the $28.0 billion they reported in
2000.
Americans spent $154 billion on prescription drugs last year, an increase
of more than 17 percent, according to a study by the National Institute for
Health Care Management (NIHCM).
More prescriptions were written, prescriptions were shifted to newer, more
costly drugs and prescription prices jumped by an average of 10 percent.
That 10 percent hike in the average prescription price was six times
greater than the inflation rate of 1.6 percent reported by the federal
government.
Stephen Schondelmeyer, a professor of pharmaceutical economics at the
University of Minnesota, said drug companies sought to raise prices before
the government imposed some form of price controls and before their
blockbuster drugs lost patent protection.
Take Bristol-Myers Squibb and its diabetes drug Glucophage. Last year,
Glucophage had sales of $1.7 billion, which ranked 14th among all
pharmaceuticals. In 2001 the average price of a Glucophage prescription
rose 14.4 percent from $63.00 to $72.06, which contributed to an additional
$105 million in sales for the drug.
But Bristol-Myers Squibb didn't stop there. By agreeing to test the safety
and efficacy of Glucophage in children, the company gained a six-month
monopoly patent extension from the federal government worth an estimated
$136.8 million in additional profits.
The company also employed elite lawyers to argue that its Glucophage tests
in children should result in three additional years of monopoly patent
protection. So far those efforts have not succeeded.
"The Holy Grail of this industry is intellectual property protection," said
Nancy Chockley, president of NIHCM, pointing out that many pharmaceutical
companies raise drug prices so they can squeeze more profits out of
blockbusters facing patent expiration.
Recent examples of this trend are companies like Schering-Plough, which
raised the price of its oral antihistamine Claritin by 12 percent in 2001,
while it was anticipating releasing the similar drug Clarinex.
Blockbuster drugs — bumper profits
Pfizer led U.S. pharmaceutical companies with $7.8 billion in profits in
2001, which is more than the profits of all the Fortune 500
companies in the homebuilding, apparel, railroad and publishing industries
combined.
Pfizer earned 24 cents on each dollar of sales and owned the highest-
selling drug, a cholesterol reducer called Lipitor, which had sales of $4.5
billion last year.
The company also produced other blockbuster drugs such as Zoloft ($2.1
billion in sales), Norvasc ($1.7 billion) and Neurontin ($1.4 billion).
That means Pfizer derived almost one-third of its revenue — and profits —
from these four drugs.
Pfizer raised its prices on these four drugs by an average of 4.9 percent
last year — three times the rate of inflation.
Merck was the second most profitable pharmaceutical, netting $7.3 billion,
which is more than the profits of all the Fortune listed companies
in the semiconductor, pipeline, food production, crude oil production, and
hotel, casino and resort industries combined.
Merck netted 15 cents on the sales dollar and had the second highest
selling drug, also a cholesterol reducer called Zocor that grossed $2.7
billion.
It manufactured three other blockbusters: Vioxx ($2.0 billion in sales),
Fosamax ($1.0 billion) and Singulair ($1.0 billion). Merck raised the
prices on these four drugs by an average of 6.5 percent last year — or
four times the rate of inflation.
But Pfizer and Merck weren't the only companies with blockbusters. In fact,
last year there were more companies with more blockbusters than ever
before. In 2001, 29 drugs broke the billion-dollar barrier — nearly double
the 1999 tally of 15.
These 29 drugs garnered more than $52 billion in retail sales last year —
or 34 percent of the total US pharmaceutical market. These 29 drugs were
far more expensive than most drugs. They had an average prescription price
of $97.71 last year — almost double the national average of $49.84 per
prescription.
The price hikes for these 29 drugs alone — out of 9,400 drugs on the
market — accounted for 15 percent of the entire $22.6 billion increase in
national drug spending last year.
But while blockbuster drugs have flourished in recent years, some analysts
say that 2002 and 2003 may be even more successful. During these years the
FDA is scheduled to finish testing 15 drugs that have great potential to
become blockbusters.
These drugs, if approved, could allow patients to treat illnesses like
schizophrenia, multiple-sclerosis and even cancers like prostate, breast
and colorectal cancer.
One reason for the popularity of blockbuster drugs is that they are among
the most heavily advertised drugs. The five drugs that were most advertised
via mass media in 2000 were all blockbusters in 2001. (The five drugs were
Vioxx, Prilosec, Claritin, Paxil and Zocor.)
Merck spent more to advertise Vioxx ($160 million) than PepsiCo spent
pitching Pepsi ($125 million).
Each of the top seven most heavily advertised drugs topped Nike's ad budget
for its shoes ($78 million).
Some critics are questioning the marketing practices behind these billion-
dollar drugs. During 2001, the FDA either reprimanded or warned three
companies for marketing their blockbuster drugs with "misleading"
advertisements, brochures or other materials.
The FDA sited Pfizer, Inc. for two separate violations of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act in just a two-week period in 2001. In a July letter,
the FDA stated Pfizer misled the public by making false claims in an eight-
page advertisement for Lipitor.
The FDA said the "ad creates an overwhelming impression that Lipitor is
indicated to reduce the risk of developing coronary heart disease," when
there is nothing to substantiate the "effect of Lipitor on cardiovascular
morbidity."
In a separate case, the FDA claimed Pfizer used a marketing brochure for
Neurontin that was misleading. In June of 2001, the FDA wrote a letter to
the company telling them to stop using the brochure, which used a series of
false claims to advertise the $1.4 billion drug.
The FDA wrote similar letters in 2001 to Merck about misleading materials
marketing Vioxx and Pharmacia for false or misleading statements made
during promotional audio conferences about Celebrex.
Marketing not R&D
The annual reports of the drug companies reveal where their revenues go —
and what their priorities really are. The drug industry has long maintained
that it needs extraordinary profits to fuel risky R&D into new medicines.
But the reports show that the companies plow far more into profits and
marketing and administration than into R&D.
Drug companies channeled 18.5 percent of revenue into profits last year
says the Fortune 500 report. Yet they spent just 12.5 percent of
revenues on R&D.
Does that answer your question Wags?
Those articles are from 2002 or earlier. How 'bout something more recent?
Bronco_Beerslug
08-03-2007, 09:23 AM
Those articles are from 2002 or earlier. How 'bout something more recent?
Big pharma has only one goal and that is obscene profits at any expense.
----------------------------------------------------------
Big Pharma’s Profit Pursuit Means Fewer New Drugs, Report Says (http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/4009)
by Shreema Mehta
Dec. 22, 2006 – Although drug makers typically justify the high cost of medicines by citing research expenses, a new government report says their research investments are mostly funding highly profitable modifications of existing drug designs, not new treatments.
Spending on research and development has increased over the past ten years, but a combination of factors has led the pharmaceutical industry to submit fewer drugs to the FDA for review, according to an investigation by the Government Accountability Office, which handles such inquiries for Congress.
The report blames the slowdown on a shortage of research scientists, the slow adaptation of expensive new technologies, and an industry-wide focus on profit. Out of the "new" medicines that companies have submitted for review, 68 percent are so-called "me-too drugs" – modified versions of existing drugs, which generate generous profits while carrying little risk of rejection.
"This strategy has led pharmaceutical companies to pursue development of blockbuster drugs, which are usually for large patient populations and have the potential to reach $1 billion in annual sales," wrote the report’s authors.
SNIP:
A report released by the National Institute of Healthcare Management, a US government-funded nonprofit that researches healthcare issues, concluded that legislation passed in the past two decades has given drug companies enormous patent protections that have offered them tremendous market advantages.
That report’s authors wrote that the intellectual-property protections have created an "oligopolistic market" that has increased the cost of drugs to consumers and limited innovation by encouraging companies to create and market me-too drugs instead.
CONT.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical Industry Profits Increase by Over $8 Billion After Medicare Drug Plan Goes Into Effect (http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20060919115623-70677.pdf)
This analysis examines the profit reports of the ten largest pharmaceutical manufacturers for the six-month period following the start of the new Medicare drug program. It finds that in the six months after January 1, 2006, when the Medicare drug program went into effect, pharmaceutical industry profits increased by over $8 billion. The Medicare drug program contributed to this surge in drug industry profits through a combination of increased utilization, higher prices, andswitching “dual-eligible” beneficiaries from Medicaid to Medicare.
Background
The new Medicare drug plan was passed by the Republican Congress and signed into law by President Bush in December 2003. Since its inception, the program has been seen as a potential boon for the pharmaceutical industry. Analysts predicted that because of the privatized structure of the program and the ban on federal negotiations with drug manufacturers for price discounts,
taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries would be forced to pay high prices for prescription drugs.
Several investigations have confirmed these predictions. Reports released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman have showed that the private Medicare drug plans have been unable to negotiate low prices for brand-name drugs,and that drug manufacturers have raised prices rapidly after the commencement of the new program. Some analysts have estimated the high prices paid by the Medicare drug plans would mean tens of billions of dollars in additional profits for drug manufacturers.
The release of second quarter profit reports by large pharmaceutical companies represents one ofthe first opportunities to gauge the impact of the new Medicare drug program on drug industry
Big pharma has only one goal and that is obscene profits at any expense.
Define "obscene profits".
Bronco_Beerslug
08-03-2007, 11:02 AM
Define "obscene profits".I did (articles posted).
I did (articles posted).
Ahhh, no.
"Obscene" is a subjective judgement. Your populist streak is showing.
What's a "reasonable" profit for pharmaceutical companies to make?
Bronco_Beerslug
08-03-2007, 11:14 AM
Ahhh, no.
"Obscene" is a subjective judgement. Well of course it is. When pharma sh*tcans research on new drugs just to be able profit more on "metoo" drugs, that is obscene (repulsive, disgusting) to me.
When pharma dictates policy (Bush Medicare Fraud Program) knowing they are going to make billions and billions off of it, that is obscene.
Clear enough for you?
Well of course it is. When pharma sh*tcans research on new drugs just to be able profit more on "metoo" drugs, that is obscene (repulsive, disgusting) to me.
When pharma dictates policy (Bush Medicare Fraud Program) knowing they are going to make billions and billions off of it, that is obscene.
Clear enough for you?
Quite.
Now explain what a "reasonable" profit is. And how, if you ran a pharmaceutical company, how you would do it so that populists couldn't smear you with the same "obscene profit" label...
alkemical
08-03-2007, 12:59 PM
Question:
Did Newscorp's buyout include the WSJ?
Bronco_Beerslug
08-03-2007, 01:05 PM
Quite.
Now explain what a "reasonable" profit is. I defined obscene for you, you can define "reasonable" for me.
Question:
Did Newscorp's buyout include the WSJ?Absolutely! Though Murdoch claims he won't "meddle" in it.
I defined obscene for you, you can define "reasonable" for me.
"Obscene" in populism-speak meaning "how come I can't have that kind of cash?" In short, jealousy and envy.
I don't think any level of profit is "obscene", indeed, all profit of any amount is "reasonable". The only exception would be if it was obtained via fraudulent or coercive means. If "Beerslug Inc." makes $100 billion profit, so be it.
alkemical
08-03-2007, 02:08 PM
I defined obscene for you, you can define "reasonable" for me.
Absolutely! Though Murdoch claims he won't "meddle" in it.
So then.... all the stuff based on Republicans and Hillary's poll #'s from the WSJ should be taken with a grain of salt. He'd be protecting his investment IMO.
Those articles are from 2002 or earlier. How 'bout something more recent?
My bad Wags for posting an article from 2002 explaining decades long practices that cause health care in the USA to be greatly compromised.
I should have considered they have some how reversed their decades long practices and become a great asset to American's health care.
maybe you could tell me what you think has happened since 2002 to exonerate big Pharm.
Wags you clearly have no ability or no desire to engage in legitimate discussion.
Bronco_Beerslug
08-03-2007, 04:11 PM
So then.... all the stuff based on Republicans and Hillary's poll #'s from the WSJ should be taken with a grain of salt. He'd be protecting his investment IMO.This statement makes absolutely no sense.
"Obscene" in populism-speak meaning "how come I can't have that kind of cash?" In short, jealousy and envy.
I don't think any level of profit is "obscene", indeed, all profit of any amount is "reasonableYou said you "clearly" understood my definition and now you're sputtering out some kind of attempt at demeaning tripe (AKA your definition). Go back and read it again. It really is clear and not difficult to understand.
alkemical
08-03-2007, 04:19 PM
This statement makes absolutely no sense.
Sure it does. Rupert Murdoch is going to shape the news to protect his investment. Hillary is his investment. Anything coming out of Newscorp is going to be more pro-hillary/democrat slant, due to his financial investment on getting "his" person in the WH.
I guess i don't understand what's so hard to understand about that.
Bronco_Beerslug
08-03-2007, 04:22 PM
Sure it does. Rupert Murdoch is going to shape the news to protect his investment. Hillary is his investment. Anything coming out of Newscorp is going to be more pro-hillary/democrat slant, due to his financial investment on getting "his" person in the WH.
I guess i don't understand what's so hard to understand about that.What does any of that speculation have to do with previous polls from the WSJ?
alkemical
08-03-2007, 04:30 PM
What does any of that speculation have to do with previous polls from the WSJ?
Heh, it's not so much speculation when the polls were coming out at the time of the sale/buy-out. Read up on Murdoch's & Ted's view of using the media to make people think how they want to them to think.
"Obscene" in populism-speak meaning "how come I can't have that kind of cash?" In short, jealousy and envy.
I don't think any level of profit is "obscene", indeed, all profit of any amount is "reasonable". The only exception would be if it was obtained via fraudulent or coercive means. If "Beerslug Inc." makes $100 billion profit, so be it.
Wags you are full of shiit plain and simple.
Bronco_Beerslug
08-03-2007, 04:39 PM
Heh, it's not so much speculation when the polls were coming out at the time of the sale/buy-out. Read up on Murdoch's & Ted's view of using the media to make people think how they want to them to think.Uh, the polls were done in July, probably at the same time that the majority of the family voted not to sell to him. What is this some kind of another conspiracy you uncovered?
alkemical
08-03-2007, 04:54 PM
Uh, the polls were done in July, probably at the same time that the majority of the family voted not to sell to him. What is this some kind of another conspiracy you uncovered?
Conspiracy is just another name for coalition.
Wags you are full of shiit plain and simple.
What's a not-"obscene" profit for a pharmaceutical company, then? Why not just nationalize them all and be done with all the "obscenity", eh?
Bronco Bob
08-03-2007, 11:58 PM
What's a not-"obscene" profit for a pharmaceutical company, then?
10%. Anything more should be considered windfall profits and taxed accordingly.
10%. Anything more should be considered windfall profits and taxed accordingly.
10% of what?
Spider
08-04-2007, 01:07 AM
I read this thread , I was pulling for W*GS to win an argument or put up a compelling point of view ........ all these years of my tutoring and helping have been for nothing .........
If you think I haven't won an argument yet, you've not been paying attention.
Spider
08-04-2007, 01:19 AM
If you think I haven't won an argument yet, you've not been paying attention.
denial .......... I think this is where I am supposed to offer encouragement to my student ........ ok here it goes , you did good W*GS , I dont know how yet but you did good .....
I thought it was "done good".
Spider
08-04-2007, 01:41 AM
I thought it was "done good".
rebelling ....... can we just skip all the mood steps and get to remorse ?
Bronco_Beerslug
08-04-2007, 11:18 PM
Conspiracy is just another name for coalition.Of course it is, otherwise you would have nothing to talk about.
"Obscene" in populism-speak meaning "how come I can't have that kind of cash?" In short, jealousy and envy.
I don't think any level of profit is "obscene", indeed, all profit of any amount is "reasonable". The only exception would be if it was obtained via fraudulent or coercive means. If "Beerslug Inc." makes $100 billion profit, so be it.This quote needs to be addressed again. It's already been shown in this thread that pharma is making billions by disregarding research on new drugs but instead making more duplicate drugs to cash in on them and by lobbying Congress to pass Bush's Medicare Fraud Program too make billions more on that.
So according to W*GS this is perfectly acceptable behavior by the corporate and political world.
This quote needs to be addressed again. It's already been shown in this thread that pharma is making billions by disregarding research on new drugs but instead making more duplicate draugs to cash in on them
That's a short-term view. You do realize that pharmaceuticals are losing patents to their drugs and are under a lot of pressure from various nations to make their drugs available much cheaper and/or be undercut by "generic" versions made in other countries, aren't you?
and by lobbying Congress to pass Bush's Medicare Fraud Program too make billions more on that.
You forgot to bold this part of my statement:
"The only exception would be if [profit] was obtained via fraudulent or coercive means." Medicare is a coercive program.
So according to W*GS this is perfectly acceptable behavior by the corporate and political world.
The first thing you mentioned is acceptable, although unwise IMNSHO, the second is not acceptable.
But, when you have the State as powerful as it is, you get Bush's Medicare "Fraud" Program. Don't try to tag my views with the flaws from yours.
Bronco_Beerslug
08-04-2007, 11:49 PM
But, when you have the State as powerful as it is, you get Bush's Medicare "Fraud" Program. Don't try to tag my views with the flaws from yours.Don't try and weasel out of your original statements when addressing mine as they were crystal clear in describing "obscene" profits.
What's your "solution" to make pharmaceuticals' profits not "obscene"? Regulations requiring them to spend a certain amount of revenue on R&D? Make them forfeit revenue from older drugs, and force them to discover new drugs at a certain rate? Prevent them from lobbying the State?
Tell me how you'd "fix" things...
What's your "solution" to make pharmaceuticals' profits not "obscene"? Regulations requiring them to spend a certain amount of revenue on R&D? Make them forfeit revenue from older drugs, and force them to discover new drugs at a certain rate?<b> Prevent them from lobbying the State?</b>
Tell me how you'd "fix" things...
That would be a enough for me.
That would be a enough for me.
To be fair, lobbying the State to provide health care should also be banned.
Suppose you owned a company (heh) and the State was considering passing legislation that would eviscerate your business and turn you into a pauper.
Would you try to sway them or just enjoy it?
<b>To be fair, lobbying the State to provide health care should also be banned.</b>
Suppose you owned a company (heh) and the State was considering passing legislation that would eviscerate your business and turn you into a pauper.
Would you try to sway them or just enjoy it?
Call me old-fashioned but I believe the vote, if used, would still mysteriously work as it did in the somewhat distant past.
Oh ya, just because the issue is personal or 'right' that would be no excuse for supporting the current system in place in the capitol.
Are you arguing in favor of the current lobby system or you fishing?
Call me old-fashioned but I believe the vote, if used, would still mysteriously work as it did in the somewhat distant past.
Oh ya, just because the issue is personal or 'right' that would be no excuse for supporting the current system in place in the capitol.
Are you arguing in favor of the current lobby system or you fishing?
The problem is that the State has extended its filthy paws into so many things that lobbying is the only way to get relief. You're addressing the symptom - I want to get rid of the underlying disease.
Oh, and BTW - not everything is subject to a vote.
The problem is that the State has extended its filthy paws into so many things that lobbying is the only way to get relief. You're addressing the symptom - <b>I want to get rid of the underlying disease.</b>
Oh, and BTW - not everything is subject to a vote.
Me too! Want to know what that root malaise is? Arrogance.
If anything ever in the long history of one person one vote were worthy of a vote it would be health care.
Spider
08-05-2007, 10:35 AM
To be fair, lobbying the State to provide health care should also be banned.
Suppose you owned a company (heh) and the State was considering passing legislation that would eviscerate your business and turn you into a pauper.
Would you try to sway them or just enjoy it?
LOL apparently you havent had to deal with workmans comp ...
Me too! Want to know what that root malaise is? Arrogance.
Indeed - the arrogance of the folks who think State bureaucrats are far better at making decisions about our lives than we ourselves are.
Thanks for walking into that one...
If anything ever in the long history of one person one vote were worthy of a vote it would be health care.
You want to put health care in the same hands as are now educating our children? Why do you have such contempt for us?
Spider
08-05-2007, 11:00 AM
Indeed - the arrogance of the folks who think State bureaucrats are far better at making decisions about our lives than we ourselves are.
Thanks for walking into that one...
You want to put health care in the same hands as are now educating our children? Why do you have such contempt for us?
pretty obvious you hate the way things are done here in America , just trying to figure out why you are still here .......Mexico would be your paradise
pretty obvious you hate the way things are done here in America , just trying to figure out why you are still here .......Mexico would be your paradise
I don't "hate" this country - of all the places on the planet in which I could live, this is the best. I've visited a few, and read about pretty much all of them, and the US still comes out on top, IMHO.
However, what does bother me are those folks who think that some faceless, nameless bureaucrat is better at judging how we should live our lives than we ourselves are. I don't understand that fear of responsibility and maturity - it's shameful when adults willingly want to be treated as children. That kind of mindset will make the American experiment in democracy, liberty, and freedom fail, assuredly.
Bronco Bob
08-05-2007, 11:18 AM
You want to put health care in the same hands as are now educating our children? Why do you have such contempt for us?
The problems with public education are directly a result of you
"we hate the government" types. Reagan probably pulled of the
biggest con in history. Teachers are underpaid, schools don't
have new books for the kids, facilities are falling apart. But
NO, don't raise my taxes to make things better, I need that
latte from Starbucks instead.
Spider
08-05-2007, 11:19 AM
I don't "hate" this country - of all the places on the planet in which I could live, this is the best. I've visited a few, and read about pretty much all of them, and the US still comes out on top, IMHO.
However, what does bother me are those folks who think that some faceless, nameless bureaucrat is better at judging how we should live our lives than we ourselves are. I don't understand that fear of responsibility and maturity - it's shameful when adults willingly want to be treated as children. That kind of mindset will make the American experiment in democracy, liberty, and freedom fail, assuredly.
um Ididnt say you hated this country , I said you hate the way things are done here ..... with your stance on profits , government interference , Mexico is the place for you ...... Granted working people dont have much there , no unions , no collective bargaining , companies making billions , no handouts , no social programs ........
Bronco Bob
08-05-2007, 11:22 AM
I don't "hate" this country - of all the places on the planet in which I could live, this is the best. I've visited a few, and read about pretty much all of them, and the US still comes out on top, IMHO.
However, what does bother me are those folks who think that some faceless, nameless bureaucrat is better at judging how we should live our lives than we ourselves are. I don't understand that fear of responsibility and maturity - it's shameful when adults willingly want to be treated as children. That kind of mindset will make the American experiment in democracy, liberty, and freedom fail, assuredly.
And how exactly is some faced, named corporation that has some
faceless, nameless lackey making medical decisions from some cubicle better?
Indeed - the arrogance of the folks who think State bureaucrats are far better at making decisions about our lives than we ourselves are.
Thanks for walking into that one...
You want to put health care in the same hands as are now educating our children? Why do you have such contempt for us?
You should make an effort to use words correctly. Arrogance is used incorrectly in your 'got ya' point. An arrogant individual would not look to the government to solve this.
Education should be the states responsibility. The only purpose for the federal government should be for defense, foreign policy and health care. Health care in the US currently ranks 37th behind nations such as Canada, GB, France and others all of which have a national health program. We could do it but we don't because of the lobbying from big Pharma. But that's OK because according to you wags there is no case to be made for making too much profit.
The problems with public education are directly a result of you "we hate the government" types. Reagan probably pulled of the biggest con in history.
The federal government provides for only a very small part of education funding, so Reagan's impact was small.
Teachers are underpaid, schools don't have new books for the kids, facilities are falling apart.
Do you work for an educrat union? That's their standard litany - we need MORE money! There's no correlation between per-student funding and student performance.
If you want the schools to do better, get rid of the many layers of bureaucracy and the failed philosophies around education that have held sway for far too long.
But NO, don't raise my taxes to make things better, I need that latte from Starbucks instead.
I don't go to Starbucks, really. And no, schools don't need more tax funding. They have plenty, and much of it is wasted.
And how exactly is some faced, named corporation that has some faceless, nameless lackey making medical decisions from some cubicle better?
If you don't like the way your health care provider is treating you, use a different one. That option is not available with State-controlled health care.
Bronco Bob
08-05-2007, 11:45 AM
There's no correlation between per-student funding and student performance.
That's ludicrous. Are you trying to claim a kid packed into some 40 kid classroom with old, worn out books, poor lighting, no heat in the winter
and no air in the summer does better than some kid in a 20 kid classroom with new books and a comfortable room.
Bronco Bob
08-05-2007, 11:51 AM
If you don't like the way your health care provider is treating you, use a different one. That option is not available with State-controlled health care.
Some people can't afford to change providers. Some people aren't even
aware their claim will be rejected until they do need the procedure.
And other providers often don't take people with pre-existing conditions.
So by then it's a little late to change providers. With a nationwide
government run health plan the middle man is cut out of the
picture and the doctor goes back to making the medical decisions.
You should make an effort to use words correctly. Arrogance is used incorrectly in your 'got ya' point. An arrogant individual would not look to the government to solve this.
Mere semantics - it's the arrogance of those who think they know better about how my life should be than I do.
Education should be the states responsibility. The only purpose for the federal government should be for defense, foreign policy and health care. Health care in the US currently ranks 37th behind nations such as Canada, GB, France and others all of which have a national health program. We could do it but we don't because of the lobbying from big Pharma.
I've said, many times, that the health care system in this country is totally screwed up. We spend more and get less than anywhere else. However, putting health care entirely in the State's hands will not fix it - it will make it worse, IMNSHO. Folks who advocate for nationalized health care always prattle on about how doing so will make it "free". That's a disingenuous load of crap, and they know it.
And no, it's not all the fault of "big Pharma".
But that's OK because according to you wags there is no case to be made for making too much profit.
Because "too much" is inherently subjective and has a tone of immorality in it that just isn't there.
What makes people believe that wealth above some arbitrary number is "too much"? Mere envy and jealousy, in my view.
That's ludicrous. Are you trying to claim a kid packed into some 40 kid classroom with old, worn out books, poor lighting, no heat in the winter and no air in the summer does better than some kid in a 20 kid classroom with new books and a comfortable room.
There's no relationship in per-student cost and performance between your two instances. There are many studies out there that show this - spending more on a per-student basis doesn't necessarily turn out better-educated kids.
Some people can't afford to change providers. Some people aren't even aware their claim will be rejected until they do need the procedure. And other providers often don't take people with pre-existing conditions. So by then it's a little late to change providers. With a nationwide government run health plan the middle man is cut out of the picture and the doctor goes back to making the medical decisions.
The corporate middle man is replaced with the State middle man. Is that really an improvement?
um Ididnt say you hated this country , I said you hate the way things are done here ..... with your stance on profits , government interference , Mexico is the place for you ...... Granted working people dont have much there , no unions , no collective bargaining , companies making billions , no handouts , no social programs ........
Mexico is hardly a libertarian paradise, for many reasons. And no, libertarians aren't against unions and that sort of thing.
Perhaps you should try Germany - their unions are very strong. Germany even has better beer - which alone should make you skedaddle right on over there...
Spider
08-05-2007, 02:32 PM
Mexico is hardly a libertarian paradise, for many reasons. And no, libertarians aren't against unions and that sort of thing.
Perhaps you should try Germany - their unions are very strong. Germany even has better beer - which alone should make you skedaddle right on over there...
LOL trying to turn the tables I see ....... Ok W*GS , I understand you wont move to Mexico cause you fear starving to death .. you are safer here in America to cry about taxes , government , you know you will be taken care of no matter what ...... it would take alot of balls to live in the garden of Eden you want , and it is just south of the boarder , and you find excuses not to go ......so while you cry about a maw state , you are more Dependant on it then most here ......... thats gotta be rough
LOL trying to turn the tables I see ....... Ok W*GS , I understand you wont move to Mexico cause you fear starving to death
Well, no. There's lots of things wrong with Mexico.
.. you are safer here in America to cry about taxes , government , you know you will be taken care of no matter what ......
Everything is just perfect in the US from your point of view, then. You've never had a single issue with anything here, have you? If you do, I understand North Korea will let you in... That's your "garden of Eden"...
it would take alot of balls to live in the garden of Eden you want , and it is just south of the boarder , and you find excuses not to go ......so while you cry about a maw state , you are more Dependant on it then most here ......... thats gotta be rough
Wrong-o. As usual.
Mexico is hardly the libertarian ideal, and no, I'm not "dependant [sic]" any more than you are.
It's a sad day when even the lefties, even of the hard-drinking truck-driving sort that Spider represents, think that "America, love it or leave it" is some kind of argument. Pathetic, really.
Oh, and I'm sure you, with your home-schooled kids (IIRC), don't have any problems with the public school system.
Spider
08-05-2007, 02:49 PM
Well, no. There's lots of things wrong with Mexico. well according to you there is alot wrong in America , you constantly cry and moan about it here .........
Everything is just perfect in the US from your point of view, then. You've never had a single issue with anything here, have you? If you do, I understand North Korea will let you in... That's your "garden of Eden"...
LOL , no everything isnt perfect , but I take the bad with the good , lots of room for improvement , but our system works , we just need to change the people running it .......... you do nothing but cry about our government in every post .......
Wrong-o. As usual.
Mexico is hardly the libertarian ideal, and no, I'm not "dependant [sic]" any more than you are. Yes you are .........
It's a sad day when even the lefties, even of the hard-drinking truck-driving sort that Spider represents, think that "America, love it or leave it" is some kind of argument. Pathetic, really. Not telling you to leave it , just wondering why you are still here since you hate our form of government so much ...... they must have not covered reading comprehension in college you went to or you was absent that day
Oh, and I'm sure you, with your home-schooled kids (IIRC), don't have any problems with the public school system.
Just Wyoming Schools .......
well according to you there is alot wrong in America , you constantly cry and moan about it here .........
There is a lot wrong with America - mostly because of the abandonment of the principles of individual rights, freedom, and liberty.
LOL , no everything isnt perfect , but I take the bad with the good , lots of room for improvement , but our system works , we just need to change the people running it .......... you do nothing but cry about our government in every post .......
Replacing Bush with Hillary Clinton will not magically make things better. There are problems with the system, regardless of who is in it. Do you disagree?
Yes you are .........
Do tell.
Not telling you to leave it , just wondering why you are still here since you hate our form of government so much ...... they must have not covered reading comprehension in college you went to or you was absent that day
I don't "hate our form of government" - I do detest that is has been manipulated and deformed to the point where it's the biggest threat to our rights, freedoms and liberties.
I'm glad you think things are almost hunky-dory...
Just Wyoming Schools .......
What's wrong with WY schools? They don't spend enough time teaching how the real heroes of America are truckers?
Spider
08-05-2007, 03:01 PM
There is a lot wrong with America - mostly because of the abandonment of the principles of individual rights, freedom, and liberty.
full of **** , you sound like Ghaff .......
Replacing Bush with Hillary Clinton will not magically make things better. There are problems with the system, regardless of who is in it. Do you disagree?
who said anything about Hillary ?
Do tell.
I don't "hate our form of government" - I do detest that is has been manipulated and deformed to the point where it's the biggest threat to our rights, freedoms and liberties.
I'm glad you think things are almost hunky-dory...More ghaff stuff ... perhaps you are starting to buy in Ghaffs conspiracy's
What's wrong with WY schools? They don't spend enough time teaching how the real heroes of America are truckers?
something like that ....... but they had a big story on the trib this morning that they are starting to pay wy teachers more , to get better teachers .. Most of them are much like you WS*GS , cant follow conversation( see the love it or leave it comment , or brining Hillary ) or they jump to conclusions and assumptions ( like you just did about Wy Schools ) I refuse to raise stupid people ..... We got enough of them .......
Bronco Bob
08-05-2007, 03:04 PM
The corporate middle man is replaced with the State middle man. Is that really an improvement?
The goal is to get rid of the middle man altogether and go back to letting
the doctors make the decisions.
Bronco Bob
08-05-2007, 03:07 PM
There's no relationship in per-student cost and performance between your two instances. There are many studies out there that show this - spending more on a per-student basis doesn't necessarily turn out better-educated kids.
I find this hard to believe. You are going to have to show me these studies
and who were the people that conducted these studies.
full of **** , you sound like Ghaff .......
Re-read your Constitution. Please.
who said anything about Hillary ?
It's not my problem that you think swapping scumbags make the State work better...
More ghaff stuff ... perhaps you are starting to buy in Ghaffs conspiracy's
Uhhh, no. Are you moonlighting as a bureaucrat, because you sure do excuse the government a lot.
something like that ....... but they had a big story on the trib this morning that they are starting to pay wy teachers more , to get better teachers .. Most of them are much like you WS*GS , cant follow conversation( see the love it or leave it comment , or brining Hillary ) or they jump to conclusions and assumptions ( like you just did about Wy Schools ) I refuse to raise stupid people ..... We got enough of them .......
So long as you stay far away from the education of your kids, they'll be OK.
As for "love it or leave it", that's exactly what you've asked me to do. "Quitcher bitching, or become a Mexican".
You been breathing fumes waaaaay too much.
I find this hard to believe. You are going to have to show me these studies and who were the people that conducted these studies.
See
http://www.ipi.org/ipi%5CIPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupFullText/3B145649A137E54786256A8000684267
and its references.
For an inter-state comparison, see
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Mar-16-Sun-2003/photos/spending.jpg
The goal is to get rid of the middle man altogether and go back to letting the doctors make the decisions.
As long as the costs of health care are not paid in full by the consumer, that will never happen.
Spider
08-05-2007, 03:21 PM
Re-read your Constitution. Please.
anything in there about mini nukes ghaff ?
It's not my problem that you think swapping scumbags make the State work better... Still trying to figure out where Hillary came from ....keep dancing
Uhhh, no. Are you moonlighting as a bureaucrat, because you sure do excuse the government a lot. America has been very good to me ..... I like that ......
So long as you stay far away from the education of your kids, they'll be OK.
As for "love it or leave it", that's exactly what you've asked me to do. "Quitcher b****ing, or become a Mexican".
You been breathing fumes waaaaay too much.
LOL I still didnt tell you to leave ..........work on that comprehension problem W*GS