How many powerful Lobbies WOULDN'T Barkey piss off as President?

^

The last one is killing our budget, and the second to last one goes hand in hand with that, I see it firsthand through my chosen profession.

The got rid of shop class sand auto tech?!? Tell me you're joking.

We still have auto mechanics, but we dropped shop yoinks ago. Cutting architecture too. Probably for the best, with our ugly building , nobody would be inspired to do anything of much worth in that field.

Wow.

Then again it's not so bad, my dad taught all of us how to do all of that; helps when your neighbor is a hot 20-something.

why you lucky son of a bitch.

All those years of manual labor, tool memorization, and engine disassembly finally paid off.

"@Barkey One thing you might want to consider (at least I find it interesting) is the idea that certain medical services (such as expensive tests) are overused due to doctors having a financial stake in the companies doing said tests."

It isn't so much that, as the fact that Medicare, Medicaid, and most health insurance companies pay doctors for every test they perform, without rigorously documenting how the test contributes to the patients' overall health.

That's because it's a pay first, then check policy.

Which is because Doctors protested not getting paid in time so...

I say just give the doctors an hourly rate and tell them to stuff their greed and remember their oath. Or perhaps a base salary, but not paying them per procedure.

Than they'd all go into exclusively private practices. Or at least a lot of them. Yes, they're in it to help people, but they include themselves in that number.

Then there has to be some sort of incentive or benefits package to make up for that if you work public...

The problem I see with patent reform for Phramaceuticals, is that a company will dump serious money into developing a working drug. If they have sole-production rights to the drug for a few years, they can recoup the costs of development and by the time the patent expires, they've broke even or made themselves a profit when all is said and done. By getting rid of that exclusion time, there's no incentive for Pharma Company A to do research - they'll just grab the patent info, foigure out how to do it now that all the hard work is done and bam, they're cranking out product without having to bump up the price to cover the R&D costs that Pharma Company B sill has to pay for - and remember, not every drug that is tested goes to market. If A sells it for a discount, then B is driven out of business from the product that they created. This sets up a precedence in which no one is willing to research new products, as they realize that they can't turn a profit with it. No profit, they lose money, so on and so forth, no more company.

So, can you clarify yoru views on that bit? I have a feeling I misunderstood, but I just had to toss that out there.

edited 9th May '11 2:09:36 PM by pvtnum11

^^As is, that's how many doctors pay off their student loans. They take government money, and essentially do a tour in a region in need of medical care.

A guaranteed wage for all doctors? Thats socialized medicine! (Note- it actually is socialized medicine, for real). You dont have to go that far. You would have to encourage doctors to form networks of specialists who share reimbursement for the services they collectively provide to a patient, based in part on whether the patient got any better. That's revolution enough.

Define this please.

^

The specific intention of building your product to have a shorter shelf life than it would otherwise have for the express purpose of the consumer having to replace it continuously.

You know, like the major difference between cars a few decades ago and now.

Prove that. Seriously, prove how long cars stay on the road, on average, without major repairs.

There's a specific way things are designed, namely how long you expect something to last, and you can build for that.

Give him(or anybody) subpoena powers for the company's executive boards and compel them to tell the truth.

^^

How about I put you in a science Bureau dedicated to creating things that will function for a really long fucking time, and we can send those products with people to space?

Lasting long isn't the most cost effective way to make something. If I can make ten toasters that last ten years for the cost of making one toaster that will last fifty years, which is more effective?

Or a car analogy since that's popular: I can make a car that won't break down, need maintenance, or refueling and has incredibly high safety ratings to the point where you're safer inside of it than outside of it. But it costs fifty million dollars to make. Is it worth it?

Coming up with totally made up hypothetical examples does not make for a convincing case.

Imagine I can make a toaster that lasts 30 years, but only costs twice as much as one of your 10-year ones!

edited 9th May '11 10:27:26 PM by blueharp

I'm just trying to show that simply saying "it lasts longer, therefore it's better" is foolish. You expect a certain amount of utility from a device and have to compare that to the level of resources you are willing to put into it.

There's also the cost change thing.

You really can't get far by creating strawmen.

It's all too easy to make things sound good or bad that way.

If you just wanted to explore the tension between the costs of making things last and the benefits by replacing them early, you should have said so directly rather than trying to come up with examples of only one side.

edited 9th May '11 11:51:11 PM by blueharp

@Barkey: So yeah....I need some funding to make power armor.

Planned obsolescence is a real thing. For example, pantyhose could be made to not tear easily without significantly increasing the cost, but no manufacturer so far seems interested even though the materials exists.