Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
That still suggests that perhaps pharmaceutical development and production should not be left to the market.
Not to mention that your previous proposal of making programs to encourage healthier habits would need its own vast dedications of resources and changes to a number different industries and systems Americans take for granted to have any decent effect. And even if these programs were successful, the availability of affordable and pharmaceuticals for all sorts of conditions would still be a necessity, so we are back to square one.
I'm the conservative here, and even I think the government should be used to, at the very least, assist R&D with medical technology. It benefits everyone and isn't necessarily something specific companies should be asked to do entirely on their own.
Leviticus 19:34![]()
Again, the government directly running things in house has historically come with the unintended consequence of funneling efforts towards a handful of low hanging fruits. A large number of competing approaches is very much a good thing in this field; a handful of giant companies or one or two government agencies tends to result in fewer approaches being pursued, so this is in part a problem of oligopoly power.
Considering many of them aren't even American, outright dismantling the multinational pharmaceuticals isn't something US policymakers can do. I think the best solution would be policies to make the sector less inhospitable for small and medium sized companies; right now most of the successful startups end up getting bought out by one of the giants who are increasingly "outsourcing" their own in-house R&D to biotech companies by just buying the tall poppies. The handful that aren't absorbed into one of the multinationals are just one failed clinical trial away from buckling. Conditional government funding to support clinical research and offset the risk of failure for small/medium sized companies in the sector would go a long way to making the sector less prone to oligopolies, which is another major cause of high drug prices.
I agree.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 21st 2020 at 11:00:14 AM
Internal USPS memo appears to contradict postmaster general's testimony
The memo, which was provided by a manager to rank-and-file employees, appears to confirm reports that under DeJoy the agency is implementing policies aimed at dramatically curtailing the opportunity for worker overtime, to the point that the memo says flatly on its first page: "Overtime will be eliminated."
Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., asked DeJoy whether he had taken steps to "eliminate" or "curtail" overtime. DeJoy said no.
"We never eliminated overtime," DeJoy said. When Peters asked whether it had been curtailed, Dejoy replied, "It's not been curtailed by me or the leadership team."
The content of the internal USPS document obtained by Salon, titled "PMGs expectations and plan," appears to match a memo that was reported by the Washington Post last month.
Salon has not yet confirmed whether this is the same document.
Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 21st 2020 at 11:01:46 AM
It's Tennessee. From an electoral perspective this is pure Dick Dastardly Stops to Cheat.
There are apparently idiots who think that if Biden wins the Senate will by default flip as well
. That's not the case.
Cut into pharmaceuticals profits and what gets slashed isn't marketing budgets its R&D., ie me.
Which is absurd on its face, because the US and New Zealand are the only countries in the entire world that allow prescription drug ads to air. Unless you're referring more to the lobbying wing that's active in hospitals and courts doctors to prescribe their drug more, which also carries some decidedly negative consequences (see: the current opioid addiction epidemic).
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"In politics, there is no such thing as a perfect solution. Unsurprisingly government management of research is no exception. But the drawback of our current market-driven approach seems to be that little to no new drugs because R&D is rarely a profitable endeavor. I cannot imagine a theoretical drop in efficiency being worse then that.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
There are times I really, really hate capitalism, especially the brand practiced by the US, in which short-term profits are routinely valued more highly than long-term gains and sustainability, to the point that posting record profits can cause a stock's value to drop if the projected profits were even higher. I genuinely wonder if simply doing away with the stock market would mitigate that type of idiocy, but I'm sure some new type of idiocy would crop up in its place.
Edited by ironballs16 on Aug 22nd 2020 at 11:44:27 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
I would say halt all stocks for X amount of time while regulations come into place and after the first year so the stock market cannot crash from losses, and then pull it back up after all the regulations and heavy taxes are in place so estimated profits are far lower than before across the board. This of course does not take into account all the intricacies of how the stock market works both nationally and globally.
It should be noted of course that R&D budgets only form a tiny amount of the expenditures of pharmaseutical costs. Also, a huge chunk of the R&D budgets are spent on figuring out how to make more profitable rather than more effective drugs.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
Including ways to extend the patent on the drug (through finding a new use for it or adding a new ingredient) to keep it proprietary - and thus, profitable.
In more immediate political news, apparently the RNC (or more specifically, Trump) are still insistent on having an in-person convention
, so it'll be interesting to see the news two weeks later and learn how many got infected with COVID-19.
And, naturally... Events in the capitol will be centered on the Andrew W Mellon Auditorium, which will have a reduced capacity due to social distancing concerns. The venue is close to Trump’s Washington hotel, which is expected to act as a social hub, netting income for the family business. Because of course Trump wants to make a profit from it.
Except economics can be pretty closely tied with politics, as both present knock-on effects to the other.
Edited by ironballs16 on Aug 22nd 2020 at 1:54:03 PM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
et. al - while it'd be immensely satisfying to see Trump fall ill from the same virus he's continually downplayed, we should also be wary of the possibility of falling afoul of Don't Create a Martyr, as you know the QAnon bullshit would go into overdrive about how the Deep State assassinated him, likely pointing at the Putin political opponent who just got poisoned.
Edited by ironballs16 on Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:04:33 PM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

Anyway, my point is that many of the proposed approaches for addressing high drug costs are likely to cause pharmaceuticals companies to double down on the things that people hate about the pharmaceuticals industries. My preference would be policies making it easier for smaller companies (where most of the innovation happens) to survive instead of everything getting bought out by the top 5 largest companies in the field.
* Another contributor is that mice aren't tiny humans.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 21st 2020 at 10:37:16 AM