[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:You can call my argument sophomoric or conspiracy theory all you want, but if you really think about it…
Medicine is one thing that probably should be socialized.
[/quote]
gasp! Don’t you realize that health is a COMMODITY just like everything else?! Invisible hand! Free market!
[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
I have a question. Can someone name one government run agency outside the military that is run effectively?
The Military is run effectively? I think that’d be the one that is least effective.
Drugs would be markedly cheaper. But incentives to innovate would also decrease dramatically without the opporutnity to reap substantial profit.
READ THIS AND FOREVER HOLD IT AGAINST ME
I don’t really think so. Commercial innovation is geared towards profit, thus drugs making fatal illnesses sustainable are what these company’s Overlords desire, and they put their toadies to task to see that through.
Because of this, extremely rare illnesses get no play, because the amount of money to be made from profit is not substantial…thus, there is no capitalist interest in making drugs for Lou Gehrig’s disease.
This is where the gov’t has already stepped in, the government sponsors and subsidizes much of the drug development for these rare diseases, in addition to this, it also has research done on its behalf.
In the mean time, pharma company lobbyists sit up in DC pushing all sorts of legislation that let them push their ‘feel-good’ drugs, on kids as young as kindergarten, because as you know, 78.7 percent of people are ADHD and/or bipolar, so…“as you already know Senator, we need to really boost awareness of this, and remove the stigma of ‘mental illness,’ all the way down to grade school level, that’s why this bill taking tax payer money to educate the youth and families of America about…”
And my response would be…Which is pretty incredible, because somehow all our societal and technological advancement that built this country happened with all these barely functioning unfocused hyper/hypo manics blundering around our country in their nutty mixed state for the past 3 hundred years. Obviously, if these people go unmedicated, terrible things will happen…
Get my drift?
This mad dash to kick out bullshit anti-depressants and, illness sustainers, is more of a cramp on medical innovation, than our supposed socialist system would be.
Why? I mean if you get down to the dirty of it, the pharma companies have exactly ZERO incentive to create a drug that cures ANY disease. Their goal is to make drugs that are consistently used for the duration of someone’s life or at least a long period. For them to create a drug that is a one shot or cycle shot to cure an illness , would cut to the business model of the drug that could otherwise be sustained for a life long profit. Thus creating cures is not in their interest.
You can call my argument sophomoric or conspiracy theory all you want, but if you really think about it…
We know the anti-depressant, hyper/hypo, kiddy-dope drug culture IS going on. So how far fetched is the self-serving cure-no-illness argument really from the truth? And if not, how long till it does become the truth? We’ve already seen the Enrons, and Blackwaters, and further that a lack of ethics has become so systemic that it nearly brought our nation to its knees.
So why would the capitalists of the pharma companies be any different?
“Because we’re Americans, which means all capitalists are good guys!” Right…
For this reasone, I’m telling you.
Medicine is one thing that probably should be socialized.
Also when I was in High School, there was a kid in my grade who would take a private jet to fucking Japan on the weekends, just to go shopping. He was a Macedonian-American whose family came here to flee political turoil there int he 50s and apparently were some sort of nobility, his family owned a labeling company entirely, and I believe were plurality share holder in a Pharma company…they are BILLIONAIRES, so please don’t tell me that all the money that goes into a pill is spent on research, because if that’s true, where the fuck did this kid’s family get their billions?
I don’t know if it’s the pefect answer, but I think pharma production needs to be socialized in some way, or at least decommercialized. Change definetely needs to happen.[/quote]
I was going to respond but then…no.The dumb hurts too much. I think whatever business you are running needs to be socialized.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
jsbrook wrote:Drugs would be markedly cheaper. But incentives to innovate would also decrease dramatically without the opporutnity to reap substantial profit.
Bullshit. When was the last time an investor or executive designed a drug? The innovators by and large don’t receive the profits.
[/quote]
Really?
Creating an effective system to market and distribute drugs does not count as innovation?
Interesting, because I thought that surly someone would have tried to make the best out of telephones, computers, stuff like that.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
In 2003, federal agencies studied 17,595 federal jobs and found civil servants to be superior to contractors 89 percent of the time."
[/quote]
Really?
Just read that again and find the two major flaws for yourself.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:You can call my argument sophomoric or conspiracy theory all you want, but if you really think about it…
Medicine is one thing that probably should be socialized.
gasp! Don’t you realize that health is a COMMODITY just like everything else?! Invisible hand! Free market!
[/quote]
Finally!
Like I thought, you’ve got nothing to say.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
In 2003, federal agencies studied 17,595 federal jobs and found civil servants to be superior to contractors 89 percent of the time."
Really?
Just read that again and find the two major flaws for yourself.
[/quote]
Um,
I don’t know. One is all I’ve got.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
In 2003, federal agencies studied 17,595 federal jobs and found civil servants to be superior to contractors 89 percent of the time."
Really?
Just read that again and find the two major flaws for yourself.
Um,
I don’t know. One is all I’ve got.[/quote]
No conflict of interest there I guess.
So a heavily biased study concluded that one kind of government involvement is superior to another and that counts as critique off the free market system?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Like I thought, you’ve got nothing to say.[/quote]
To what you posted?
No, not really.
You have a form of drive by posting that really contains little or no substance at times, so you cab hardly blame other people if they do not react to what is not there.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Unaware wrote:
No they don’t. A drug made in mexico is not a Mexican drug if it was designed in the US or Europe. The overwhelming majority of drugs come from the US.
Fixed that for you.
New drugs come from America almost exclusively. Seriously, we are BY FAR the leader in pharma.[/quote]
Not true. New drugs come from multinational companies that have collaborating departments working accross the US and Europe. Whether the parent company is US or European, the brains are a mix of the two. (for the record, I used to work at Glaxo and my mother still works there.)
This thread was all civil and stuff and then McCarter showed up spewing his bullshit. I much prefer to talk to someone who’s at least polite, like spetsnaz.
[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m sorry. but you’ve obviously never even heard of economic theory. Please shut up.
This is one of the stupidest statements I’ve seen on these forums, EVER. And that is SAYING something,
I wish I could disagree. I cannot.
Perhaps I’m ignorant on this subject then, hence why I said, think and unsure, rather know and for sure.
I guess, I’d like to know in a nut shell what those individuals add to the equation.
In all honesty, I’d suggest taking some serious business classes, or at least doing a lot of reading on business operation. There’s a LOT to it, even though they’re the people that get the brunt of all political rhetoric. There’s really not a good way to give a detailed overview in the space of a post IMHO.
Operations management–and business finance management–of large national and international business, which is exactly what the pharma company is, is extremely complicated. As bad a rap as your typical collegiate “business” major gets, the top notch business schools are almost as hard and competitive as law school or med school (yes, I just said that. But look at Wharton before you crucify me, along with a few other programs 
).
Believe it or not, I actually run a small business. I want to get a degree in business and finance, and eventually maybe go to Navarra for Grad School, this is after I finish off my comp sci degree by the way.
I think your answer is kind of a cop out, what I’m saying about the pharm companies, is the pharmacists and the researchers make the product, the demand is always gonna be there, so perhaps so much business aspect in this sector is unnecessary.
Turning this into a quasi governmental endeavor would benefit it, you’d probably put an end to all the fake psychiactric treatment our fucked up system profits off of as well.[/quote]
IF there are not the people there at the top to ensure the investments are working correctly and that the working environment is condusive to innovation then the company flounders. Also, the SMT role is to attract the right talent and nurture and guide it into profitable directions.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
I agree to a level, however, I think the efficiency of big business versus government organization or non-profit organization, is grossly overexaggeratted.
Maybe, I’m a communist, but I honestly do not believe individuals who work for private business and individuals who work in non-business organizations, and governments have any great difference in productivity.
It really comes down to the individuals in the organization, and the motivation they have within themselves. For the most part, people who just ‘want a job,’ be it degree’d or fastfood…suck. The world is driven by creators, be they artisans, creative finance people, web developers, devoted construction workers, whatever.
A simple test of your theory. Go down to any local DMV (Dept of Motor Vehicles). Next go to your nearest grocery store (Krogers, SuperWalkart, Wholefoods, Costo, Safeway) Give an honest appraisal of the efficiency and service, attitude and respect you received from each and get back to us.[/quote]
LOL!
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Unaware wrote:
No they don’t. A drug made in mexico is not a Mexican drug if it was designed in the US or Europe. The overwhelming majority of drugs come from the US.
Fixed that for you.
New drugs come from America almost exclusively. Seriously, we are BY FAR the leader in pharma.
Not true. New drugs come from multinational companies that have collaborating departments working accross the US and Europe. Whether the parent company is US or European, the brains are a mix of the two. (for the record, I used to work at Glaxo and my mother still works there.)[/quote]
And those companies are based…?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Unaware wrote:
No they don’t. A drug made in mexico is not a Mexican drug if it was designed in the US or Europe. The overwhelming majority of drugs come from the US.
Fixed that for you.
New drugs come from America almost exclusively. Seriously, we are BY FAR the leader in pharma.
Not true. New drugs come from multinational companies that have collaborating departments working accross the US and Europe. Whether the parent company is US or European, the brains are a mix of the two. (for the record, I used to work at Glaxo and my mother still works there.)
And those companies are based…?
[/quote]
Well GSK and astrazeneca are British.
Novartis and Roche are Swiss
Sanofi is French
Bayer is German
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Unaware wrote:
No they don’t. A drug made in mexico is not a Mexican drug if it was designed in the US or Europe. The overwhelming majority of drugs come from the US.
Fixed that for you.
New drugs come from America almost exclusively. Seriously, we are BY FAR the leader in pharma.
Not true. New drugs come from multinational companies that have collaborating departments working accross the US and Europe. Whether the parent company is US or European, the brains are a mix of the two. (for the record, I used to work at Glaxo and my mother still works there.)
And those companies are based…?
[/quote]
Lets look at the top 10 shall we?
1 Novartis - Switzerland
2 Pfizer - USA
3 Bayer - Germany
4 GlaxoSmithKline - UK
5 Johnson and Johnson - USA
6 Sanofi-Aventis - France
7 Hoffmannâ??La Roche - Switzerland
8 AstraZeneca - UK / Sweden
9 Merck & Co. - US
10 Abbott Laboratories - US
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Unaware wrote:
No they don’t. A drug made in mexico is not a Mexican drug if it was designed in the US or Europe. The overwhelming majority of drugs come from the US.
Fixed that for you.
New drugs come from America almost exclusively. Seriously, we are BY FAR the leader in pharma.
Not true. New drugs come from multinational companies that have collaborating departments working accross the US and Europe. Whether the parent company is US or European, the brains are a mix of the two. (for the record, I used to work at Glaxo and my mother still works there.)
And those companies are based…?
Lets look at the top 10 shall we?
1 Novartis - Switzerland
2 Pfizer - USA
3 Bayer - Germany
4 GlaxoSmithKline - UK
5 Johnson and Johnson - USA
6 Sanofi-Aventis - France
7 Hoffmannâ??La Roche - Switzerland
8 AstraZeneca - UK / Sweden
9 Merck & Co. - US
10 Abbott Laboratories - US[/quote]
40% US
10% Germany
15% UK
20% Die Schweiz
5% Sweden
10% France
What was your point? The country the majority owners are from does not really matter – only where the technologies are produced. Most of these companies have labs in the US. In fact, all of them do.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Unaware wrote:
No they don’t. A drug made in mexico is not a Mexican drug if it was designed in the US or Europe. The overwhelming majority of drugs come from the US.
Fixed that for you.
New drugs come from America almost exclusively. Seriously, we are BY FAR the leader in pharma.
Not true. New drugs come from multinational companies that have collaborating departments working accross the US and Europe. Whether the parent company is US or European, the brains are a mix of the two. (for the record, I used to work at Glaxo and my mother still works there.)
And those companies are based…?
Lets look at the top 10 shall we?
1 Novartis - Switzerland
2 Pfizer - USA
3 Bayer - Germany
4 GlaxoSmithKline - UK
5 Johnson and Johnson - USA
6 Sanofi-Aventis - France
7 Hoffmann�¢??La Roche - Switzerland
8 AstraZeneca - UK / Sweden
9 Merck & Co. - US
10 Abbott Laboratories - US
40% US
10% Germany
15% UK
20% Die Schweiz
5% Sweden
10% France
What was your point? The country the majority owners are from does not really matter – only where the technologies are produced. Most of these companies have labs in the US. In fact, all of them do.[/quote]
If you want to talk about where stuff is produced then you are talking 3rd world.
Research Labs tend to be in Europe and US though expect to see more move to 3rd world countries (particularly things like computational chemistry that are repetitive and robotic) as confidence grows there.
Obviously there are sales and marketing offices everywhere and the head office is based either historically or where the tax incentives are best.
All of the companies listed are truly international, they recruit talent from all over the world and are the result of international mergers.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
All of the companies listed are truly international, they recruit talent from all over the world and are the result of international mergers.[/quote]
So then again I ask, what is your point in posting that? It is a global economy that produces stuff. They would not be produced if there was no profit to be made. Take that ways and these companies and the drugs they produce go bye-bye…and then people suffer as a result.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Unaware wrote:
No they don’t. A drug made in mexico is not a Mexican drug if it was designed in the US or Europe. The overwhelming majority of drugs come from the US.
Fixed that for you.
New drugs come from America almost exclusively. Seriously, we are BY FAR the leader in pharma.
Not true. New drugs come from multinational companies that have collaborating departments working accross the US and Europe. Whether the parent company is US or European, the brains are a mix of the two. (for the record, I used to work at Glaxo and my mother still works there.)
And those companies are based…?
Lets look at the top 10 shall we?
1 Novartis - Switzerland
2 Pfizer - USA
3 Bayer - Germany
4 GlaxoSmithKline - UK
5 Johnson and Johnson - USA
6 Sanofi-Aventis - France
7 Hoffmannâ??La Roche - Switzerland
8 AstraZeneca - UK / Sweden
9 Merck & Co. - US
10 Abbott Laboratories - US[/quote]
Your info checks out. My bad.