Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I heard a lot of concerns from pharma lawyers this week about this stuff. How did we get to the point where our companies are selling stuff overseas at a lower profit than they sell it here? Was this negotiated by our administration and, if so, did our allies threaten to otherwise copy the drugs if we didn't sell it on the cheap? I'm serious, as I don't know the answer. To restate the question, what was Canada and Europe's negotiating position in this?

If they took the position that they would copy and/or ignore intellectual property, than along with defense spending, I think we've been given more than enough reason to start fighting back against the socialists and other freeloaders. But I may be wrong insofar as I don't know how we got to this point...

Hello

Driving reasons for lower prices overseas:

(1) centralized purchasing: in most foreign countries there are one to a handful of centralized purchasers, each of whom has significant bargaining power. In a number of cases, information on the outcome of pricing negotiations is published, making the market more efficient.

(2) regulation: there are foreign countries where regulators simply won't permit a drug to be priced very high, and you get a choice of going into the jurisdiction with a low price or not going in at all. In Canada, for example, the price of drugs that are still under patent is heavily regulated.

(3) culture: here, there is often a premium for the latest thing. In other countries, premium pricing more often goes to proven drugs with a high clinical efficacy. Note that the US often prices generics below what those in other countries will pay.

(4) costs: US liability costs are usually higher, as are US marketing costs (we can talk about how pharmas market drugs another time), and often a lot of the distribution costs as well.

(5) demand: drugs get priced like airplane seats - you charge what you can for them, even if people sitting next to each other end up paying radically different prices. Countries that are less well-off tend to pay less. Since the biggest costs relating to pharmaceuticals are R&D and marketing, it's pretty easy to offer different prices in different markets as long as you have a market like the US where you can price them high enough to pay the R&D nut.


Bottom line: if we do find some ways to reduce pricing here, we'll probably drive prices up elsewhere since then other countries will have to help cover the R&D nut. Right now, I'm told pharmas often budget drug development based almost exclusively on the US market and their ability to recover the R&D from our market.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I haven't gone looking for prominent names, but I'm more interested in logic than names anyway.

A friend of mine who describes himself as conservative and who was a staunch Romney backer in the last gubernatorial election here phrased it pretty succinctly recently when he said that he would rather elect someone he disagrees with who is competant than someone he agrees with who is incompetant. His view was that when someone fails a 4 year job interview, you take your chance on the next acceptable candidate even if they graduated from the wrong school. He's one of the people who has convinced me that George Bush is no conservative.

Take it for what it is worth.

A. I completely agree that Bush fails as a conservative, and that on many fronts;

B. I sorta agree with your friend, which is one of the reasons I would be willing to take my conservative lumps and vote for Dean if he were running. I think he would have stayed true to a cause which, while harmful to me in my pocketbook, would likely lead to a peace at the expense of oppressed people everywhere. Ty, while being not_nice, pretty succintly sums up my opposition to Kerry. I simply do not believe he has the intestinal fortitude to either prosecute a war aggressively or to basically withdraw and leave the world to the dogs.

The world has changed for me, and we cannot go back to the passive responses of Carter, Reagan, Bush I or Clinton. Either we need to pull back from the world in a way that pacifies our enemies (Dean) or we need to aggressively prosecute the war competently, and without regard to whether allies who are increasingly self-absorbed each year for the past 20-50, until we win the war by palatable means and with palatable results. My military quibble with Bush is the "competently" part, but I simply cannot stomach the idea of waiting to respond to further attacks (except, in the case of North Korea, where our only realistic option is to hit back hard --e.g., perhaps nuclear-- the first time they so much as lob a shell at Seoul).

Due to mine (and numerous other people on the Right) here's economic quibbles with Bush, I'd be willing to suffer a Dean... even for the long term so long as we lowered our international profile and let the rest of the world take care of itself (I have to wonder if he'd really let it come to that). But I simply cannot stomach even a significant chance of going back to a reactive policy (and that's not a singular attack on Carter or Clinton... they and Reagan and Bush I lived under a different set of parameters pre-9/11... even though in retrospect it looks like we dropped the ball as a nation). ETA: Which is why I am choosing Bush over Kerry, and not just voting against one or the other without regard to the characteristics and attributes of the other or the one.

Hello

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
As far I understand it, the opposition to Kerry is based largely on the idea that Kerry and the Democrats are not serious about the war on terrorism.

1) They aren't
2) See 1 above

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

...
(2) regulation: there are foreign countries where regulators simply won't permit a drug to be priced very high, and you get a choice of going into the jurisdiction with a low price or not going in at all. In Canada, for example, the price of drugs that are still under patent is heavily regulated.

(3) culture: here, there is often a premium for the latest thing. In other countries, premium pricing more often goes to proven drugs with a high clinical efficacy. Note that the US often prices generics below what those in other countries will pay.
...
Bottom line: if we do find some ways to reduce pricing here, we'll probably drive prices up elsewhere since then other countries will have to help cover the R&D nut. Right now, I'm told pharmas often budget drug development based almost exclusively on the US market and their ability to recover the R&D from our market.

Re: 2. Did the regulators take the position that the drugs won't be allowed at all in their jurisdictions, or just that the drugs will be provided in an extra-legal manner? This is really my fundamental question here... did someone threaten to violate patents of the U.S. pharamaceutical industry as a nation?

Re: 3. Interesting (your comment on generics). Hadn't heard that before.

Re: Bottom line. Exactly. I'm told the same thing, and it offends me to no end that the risk/reward tends to overwhelmingly favor Amermican risk-taking companies, but at the expense of American consumers. Some of these countries have per-capita incomes almost equal to ours. It sounds entirely like a free-rider/strong-arm theft problem.

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As far I understand it, the opposition to Kerry is based largely on the idea that Kerry and the Democrats are not serious about the war on terrorism. This is more on the order of a Happy Bed Time Tale for Young Republicans than it is based on anything, but, whatever.

Anyone with an ability to be fair recognizes that Kerry won't go against what the CIA/FBI/military advises and thus day to day he'll be close to Bush. But only an idiot can claim that Kerry would not bend to pressure from Europe or the voters if he had to make an unpopular decision.

iran completes its program. Israel wants to blow up the building. Phone call to the Prez to tell him. Who do you want answering the phone?

That's why anyone who listens to frenchy going on about what a stud he is, is as dumb as these women who continue to get into passenger vehicles with kennedy men.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
1.) Who?
2.) That last sentence should say that's why I'm voting against Bush. Its one thing to point to principles of conservatism that are allegedly being violated by Bush (I say allegedly because conservatives are not opposed to bringing Democracy anywhere feasible where it serves our interests... see his magnet-for-terrorists comment), and it would be something entirely different if he could point to even a single redeeming quality of Kerry. You guys got a Republican equivalent of Zell Miller (i.e., someone relevant) who supports Kerry, or are we going to hear from the son of Reagan's milkman in the '30s as the election gets closer.

Have a good day my good man.

Hello

edkochsezwhha?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Careful readers of this board will stop reading at the above quote. Why do people who are supposedly educated try and use this word? ty, why wouldn't you realize it labels the man poorly read, at best?

Props, brother. Homage to Patagonia?

He(er, Catalina?)llo

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
edkochsezwhha?

So that's the problem! No speakee Chicagoscrivenese?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Props, brother. Homage to Patagonia?

He(er, Catalina?)llo

point of clarification.
I edited my post that this quotes due to seeing GGG had addressed the issue, and in his way made clear that he thinks the guy Ty quoted is an idiot, and implicedly that GGG believes Ty is an idiot. I was responding to a Taxwonk-like misuse of Orwellian.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Anyone with an ability to be fair recognizes that Kerry won't go against what the CIA/FBI/military advises and thus day to day he'l be close to Bush. But only an idiot can claim that Kerry would not bend to pressure from Europe or the voters if he had to make an unpopular decision.

This conceit that a Democrat is going to make the country's interests take a back seat to what Europeans want is another fairy tale. The dispute is about whether our long-term interests are better served when we work with allies, giving up something in the short term to get something in the long term. Even Bush is willing to do this -- witness his decision to go back to the UN just before invading Iraq, which he did largely to protect Tony Blair from domestic opposition.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This conceit that a Democrat is going to make the country's interests take a back seat to what Europeans want is another fairy tale. The dispute is about whether our long-term interests are better served when we work with allies, giving up something in the short term to get something in the long term. Even Bush is willing to do this -- witness his decision to go back to the UN just before invading Iraq, which he did largely to protect Tony Blair from domestic opposition.

But with North korea, we shouldn't bring allies? I'm starting to think I'm just not smart enough to have an opinion.

edit: any new polls that show what the people think?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But with North korea, we shouldn't bring allies? I'm starting to think I'm just not smart enough to have an opinion.

If North Korea insists on bilateral talks, is there any point in trying to proceed multilaterally?

[bilmore]

Here's my new mantra:

"Did Kerry crudely mention that Dick Cheney’s daughter was a lesbian for purely political reasons? Yes, of course, but I don’t care.

Is Dick Cheney’s daughter a lesbian? Sure, but what difference does it make?

Did GW let Osama Bin Laden escape at Toro Bora? OBL is dead, probably at Tora Bora, but if he isn’t, does it make much difference? Not really.

Does John Kerry change his positions on issues a lot? Yeah, so what?

Did George Bush get preferential treatment to get into the National Guard, and then not show up sometimes? Undoubtedly, but I don’t care.

Did John Kerry exaggerate and lie about his military record? Yeah, looks that way, but it was a long time ago, and I don’t care.

Is the doomed Federal Marriage Amendment a stupid, bigoted, paranoid idea? Yup, it sure is, but it ain’t gonna happen, so I don’t care.

Did the Bush tax cut save the economy? No, it probably had only a marginal effect.

Has the Bush tax cut and big spending doomed us by letting the deficit get out of control? No, it probably had only a marginal effect.

Has there been a net job loss during the Bush administration? Yeah, but it wasn’t really his fault and things have been steadily improving the last 2 or 3 years.

Is there a social security crisis? No, but it could use some improvement.

Is there a health care crisis? No, but it could use some improvement.

Is it a mistake for Bush to have cut off federal funding for certain kinds of stem cell research? Yeah, maybe, but it’s not a big deal.

Is the flu vaccine debacle a big mess? Yes, it’s kinda dumb, but the only time I got a flu shot, I got the flu two days later, so I don’t care.

Are the Republicans destroying the environment? No, the environment has been steadily improving for decades no matter which party was in power.

Are George Bush and John Ashcroft taking away our civil liberties? No, we have more civil liberties than we know what to do with. I have yet to meet or even hear of anyone who has been impacted by the Patriot Act.

Is John Kerry a glib, phony liberal? Well yeah, but what’s your point? How do you think you get elected to the Senate in Massachusetts?

Is George Bush a dyslexic, inarticulate, simpleton? Well, he’s obviously dyslexic and inarticulate, but doesn’t look like that much of a simpleton to me. I wish he could speak like Winston Churchill or Tony Blair, but I don’t care that much.

Did John Kerry give aid and comfort to the enemy during the Vietnam war? Yes, clearly, but we all did stupid things back then. I just don’t care.

Will George Bush fight the war against the jihadists with everything he’s got, without wavering, without backing down, no matter what? Yes, I’m sure he will.

Will Kerry? It’s conceivable, but very doubtful."

http://www.pubblog.com/v-web/b2/index.php?m=200410#46

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This conceit that a Democrat is going to make the country's interests take a back seat to what Europeans want is another fairy tale. The dispute is about whether our long-term interests are better served when we work with allies, giving up something in the short term to get something in the long term. Even Bush is willing to do this -- witness his decision to go back to the UN just before invading Iraq, which he did largely to protect Tony Blair from domestic opposition.

Bottom line question. Is he willing to preempt and, if so, under what circumstances.

I'm going to give you the closest analogy I can to what happened here domestically. In the '60s, in response to numerous corruption scandals, police officers were put in cars and told to respond to whatever someone told them to respond to. Great percentages of large police departments were made reactive, whereas before they were perfect community policemen walking beats and knowing residents. Moreover, the number of policement in most major cities increased per-capita (of residents). Nevertheless, RT's homicide chart (the other day) shows what happened, even as medical technology and the increasing availability of ambulances and quick surgery made many shooting victims live where before they'd die.

Of course, this was coupled with huge social shifts in the country and numerous other contributing factors. But, the reactive policeman theory simply did not work. By the '90s, Clinton was embracing community policing, where the police know the community and do their damndest to prevent crime. Coupled with better use of intelligence (based on pure technology) and deployment of manpower (preventitively), crime has dropped everywhere. In short, there is a lot less to react to. Pure-reaction does not work.

We did the same thing (if anything) during the Cold War with terrorists. Slowly the violence built. We responded lightly. Then 9/11. Then knowledge of the A.Q. Khan network of rogue WMD networks. Bush has responded by getting Saudi Arabia (slowly) to crack down; by getting Libya to renounce terrorism; by getting Pakistan (slowly, and really only after attempts on their President's life) to crack down; by renouncing Yasser Arafat and the politics of terror; by greatly increasing our nation's intelligence capabilities; and by invading Iraq. He is confronting and isolating Syria, N. Korea and Iran. In fact, Syrian and Iran are basically surrounded by our allied states now. Bush has put troops and/or equipment in other parts of the mid-East and Africa, in the Phillipines, and anywhere else our enemy exists and can be confronted directly without incurring undue costs.

Except for follow-up support in Afghanistan, and British, Polish, Italian, Spanish and Australian support in Iraq, our allies have done little to condone or contribute to our efforts. We simply cannot count on their support. Now you tell me, which of these actions and initiatives would Kerry have led? We have a 30 year history to go on. What can we expect in the future from him. What will he do to apply pressure? Who will he confront? Who will he ignore. And who will he simply react to?

His record in the old days is not exactly a shining star, and those days are over. He certainly has not advocated withdrawing from the world, so what exactly is his plan? Because, at best, it sounds like he's on-board to making things the way they were when we were reacting with Officer Dibble. And with his base, you know he will never say that he will order an invasion alone if the threat warrants such action. So what's conceited about this belief? Its based on his record and his silence for the last 30 years and during this campaign. You might hope he's only pandering to the far left in the party, but if he doesn't affirm the policy of preemption, he has given you no reason to believe that his plan to return to the old days of reaction and containment with allies is only our conceit.

Hello

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As far I understand it, the opposition to Kerry is based largely on the idea that Kerry and the Democrats are not serious about the war on terrorism. This is more on the order of a Happy Bed Time Tale for Young Republicans than it is based on anything, but, whatever.

The left of the party is NOT serious about fighting terrorism. The moderate wing of the party is certainly serious about fighting terrorism, I just don't agree with the way they plan on doing it. The conservative wing of the party is alligned with the Bush doctrine.

I put Kerry in the moderate wing on this issue.