Found this to make you good'n mad about and find some more counter arguements to shoot it down.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~scotch/gerth.htm
Maurice Strong was the first boss at PetroCan, a government run oil company as part of Trudeau's national energy program, despised by Albertans in paticular and Western Canadians in general.
Healthcare & rationing
Well, not quite free per se; obviously you're paying something, just not a fair market price. The average difference is about 33% by most studies. It's enough that the European market is an afterthought, which should be troubling to you guys. But I guess your pols figure late is better than full price.Yes, but it said nowhere that these price controls result in a price that is so much lower that Austria becomes a "free rider".
I don't know what your basis for this is, or why it would matter if the U.S. was in a different copyright regime since that would go both ways and we've been more productive than Europe in terms of IP for a very long time. What economic harm is alleged here? And are you saying you would rather write all your own software?Well you first denied foreign authors copyrights in the US and now you are forcing everybody else to eat yours.
Anyways, I doubt any of this is a drop in the bucket compared to the Marshall Plan and all that went with it.
TallDave, that's not really fair. America (government) decided to spent tax payer money on the Marshall Plan with whatever terms and conditions set at that time, that is in the late 1940's/early 1950's. Enforcing copyright laws in the 21-st century is a totally different thing. Copyrights (meaning the "right to copy") benefit the entrepreneur (the writer or his company), and the government only indirectly through income taxes, which we have agreed are in large part gotten around by multinational companies.TallDave wrote:... Anyways, I doubt any of this is a drop in the bucket compared to the Marshall Plan and all that went with it.
I think there should be copyrights, but frankly, I don't know what I think about how long a copyright should last. With software, it probably doesn't make much difference because a new version, carrying a new copyright will be published before the old copyright expires, anyway. With books and other products of a single author, I guess the copyright should last until the author's death, because the author wrote and so earned the income, but his estate didn't earn any of it.
Aero
choff wrote:Found this to make you good'n mad about and find some more counter arguements to shoot it down.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~scotch/gerth.htm
Hahaha! What a wonderful find.
We should definitely put a stop to that right away. Let the market fund these products on its own. It'll help with the budget deficit too!
Right TallDave/MSimon?
Seems like the real free rider in this case was the Pharma company.
Aero,
Skip is (I think) talking about the fact the U.S. was not a signatory to the copyright convention governing European texts for a long time (we had our own copyright convention covering the Americas). This is roughly the period 1886 to 1989. He is alleging we were enjoying some financial benefit as a result, but this is both dubious and in any case vanishes in the largesse of the Marshall Plan and etc, which occured over the same time period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
Basic research is done by government. This is all fine and well; we can agree this is a public good. But basic research is not the same as productization. The Soviet bloc did lots of very good basic research. You may have noticed their productization was not so good.
And once again, yes, the Europeans are free riders:
The argument that we can save money by avoiding "inefficient" competition was made by Communists for a long time. It just doesn't work that way, and the evidence on that score is very very clear.
From a purely selfish perspective, it's almost a shame the Soviet Union has fallen. The insidious repackaging of failed Communist ideas is a lot easier without the smell of the rotting colossus assaulting us every day.
Skip is (I think) talking about the fact the U.S. was not a signatory to the copyright convention governing European texts for a long time (we had our own copyright convention covering the Americas). This is roughly the period 1886 to 1989. He is alleging we were enjoying some financial benefit as a result, but this is both dubious and in any case vanishes in the largesse of the Marshall Plan and etc, which occured over the same time period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
This is deeply stupid. It's the equivalent of finding someone who happened to buy a winning lottery ticket and saying "See, it only takes $1 to win millions in the lottery!" and concluding we could all easily be millionaires.
Basic research is done by government. This is all fine and well; we can agree this is a public good. But basic research is not the same as productization. The Soviet bloc did lots of very good basic research. You may have noticed their productization was not so good.
And once again, yes, the Europeans are free riders:
... which the pharmas are more than happy to tell you:In the United States, the company sells the drug for about $36 a bottle wholesale
...
In Dr. Bito's home country, Hungary, where the government pays for approved medications, Pharmacia receives a negotiated price of $17.50 a bottle for Xalatan.
The most laughable complaint in the health care debate is that Pharma spends too much on advertising. This is called competition. They don't spend that money because they love advertisers, but to spread information about their drug to consumers and gain an advantage over competitors.To counter such numbers, industry officials argue that Xalatan and other new medicines may be saving money as well, by reducing the need for doctors' visits and also for surgery. At the same time, they say the American free market provides the companies with the profits they need to plow back into research, so that patients can benefit from the next generation of drugs like Xalatan.
''I'm worried about low prices in Europe,'' Dr. Harfstrand said. ''It discourages innovation.''
And because more prescription drugs are made and sold in the United States than any other country, the thought of regulation is especially troubling to the companies. In the case of Xalatan, for instance, more than half the drug's sales are in the United States.
''The U.S. has been the only major free market for pharmaceuticals,'' Fred Hassan, Pharmacia's chief executive, said in a company newsletter last fall, ''and that has benefited patients as well as our industry.''
The argument that we can save money by avoiding "inefficient" competition was made by Communists for a long time. It just doesn't work that way, and the evidence on that score is very very clear.
From a purely selfish perspective, it's almost a shame the Soviet Union has fallen. The insidious repackaging of failed Communist ideas is a lot easier without the smell of the rotting colossus assaulting us every day.
A few nitpits:
1. Here they dont have to spend any money on advertising. That should reduce their cost quite a bit, because people will buy it, advertising or not.
2. Everyone here actually gets the medication if the illness requires it. In the US they might sometimes not buy it, because of money reasons, or because the insurance company does not cover it. That is an advantage for the pharmaceutical companies. They might (!) not make as much money as they do in the US, but it is a save, low- risk bet.
3. Oh and Dr Bitos homecountry is Hungary, not Austria.
Also, again you are quoting the opinion of a biased person. That is hearsay, nothing else. I can bring you just as many opinions that say the oposite. Of course anyone working for a pharma company will always complain about them making to little money.
In regards to copyrights:
So the US was being a parasite by not granting our authors copyrights. Leeching of our knowledge and our developments for free, hu? That way giving your authors an unfair andvantage and now that you are so strong, you are coming back and forcing your laws on us. That is worse than being a parasite, if you ask me.
70 years after the death of the author? Hello? How does that benefit anyone other than big corporations that have publishing rights, or simply bought the copyrights? Noone benefits of copyrights 70 years later. It is just a way for a few to squeeze even more money out of the work of people that are long dead and wont benefit of anything.
On the software patents: I own one myself, though for a complex process and not a single algorithm. The problem is that in Europe until recently it was not possible to patent software. In the US where anything is patented way to easily (even if it was already invented by someone else previously, but noone cares to check) all sorts of even very simple algorithms have been copyrighted. Things that make it sometimes a real pain in the arse to program anything. And this is counter productive as it actually slows down innovation. Since it makes the system static and impossible to keep up with for individuals. Only big companies can afford patent research departments. This reduces competition and adds staticness to the system. Again I am not saying that software patents are bad, just be a little more discriminating on what is patentable and what not.
As an example, imagine someone patenting the phrase "he is a man" and you are therefore not allowed anymore to use it in a book, or newspaper article. Then imagine thousands doing that for thousand simillar phrases. What would happen?
Now my problem is that the US has been pressing their software patent laws, which are IMHO silly on us. The result is now, that we have their ridiculous patents also in Europe (because they had them first anyway).
Msimon: That is where we are talking past each other. I am for covering preexisting conditions that are not self inflicted (say a heart attack caused by an infection, or what will hit you americans soon, genetic risks that will not be covered by private insurance companies), but not for covering self inflicted preexisting conditions (drug abuse, nikotine abuse, obesity, HIV aquired through prostitution, etc).
You are for covering preexisting conditions that are self inflicted and not covering preexisting conditions that are not self inflicted.
So if you take a step back and think about it, do you really think that your view is more fair than mine?
BTW, my original point was, that I would not cover ALL preexisting conditions like what your government wants to, but make some exempts.
I thought that there would be a consensus on that, but for some reason we are just not getting past butting heads with each other.
Choff and vankirkc, thanks for the backup. It is kinda hard to be all allone on that
1. Here they dont have to spend any money on advertising. That should reduce their cost quite a bit, because people will buy it, advertising or not.
2. Everyone here actually gets the medication if the illness requires it. In the US they might sometimes not buy it, because of money reasons, or because the insurance company does not cover it. That is an advantage for the pharmaceutical companies. They might (!) not make as much money as they do in the US, but it is a save, low- risk bet.
3. Oh and Dr Bitos homecountry is Hungary, not Austria.
Also, again you are quoting the opinion of a biased person. That is hearsay, nothing else. I can bring you just as many opinions that say the oposite. Of course anyone working for a pharma company will always complain about them making to little money.
In regards to copyrights:
So the US was being a parasite by not granting our authors copyrights. Leeching of our knowledge and our developments for free, hu? That way giving your authors an unfair andvantage and now that you are so strong, you are coming back and forcing your laws on us. That is worse than being a parasite, if you ask me.
70 years after the death of the author? Hello? How does that benefit anyone other than big corporations that have publishing rights, or simply bought the copyrights? Noone benefits of copyrights 70 years later. It is just a way for a few to squeeze even more money out of the work of people that are long dead and wont benefit of anything.
On the software patents: I own one myself, though for a complex process and not a single algorithm. The problem is that in Europe until recently it was not possible to patent software. In the US where anything is patented way to easily (even if it was already invented by someone else previously, but noone cares to check) all sorts of even very simple algorithms have been copyrighted. Things that make it sometimes a real pain in the arse to program anything. And this is counter productive as it actually slows down innovation. Since it makes the system static and impossible to keep up with for individuals. Only big companies can afford patent research departments. This reduces competition and adds staticness to the system. Again I am not saying that software patents are bad, just be a little more discriminating on what is patentable and what not.
As an example, imagine someone patenting the phrase "he is a man" and you are therefore not allowed anymore to use it in a book, or newspaper article. Then imagine thousands doing that for thousand simillar phrases. What would happen?
Now my problem is that the US has been pressing their software patent laws, which are IMHO silly on us. The result is now, that we have their ridiculous patents also in Europe (because they had them first anyway).
Msimon: That is where we are talking past each other. I am for covering preexisting conditions that are not self inflicted (say a heart attack caused by an infection, or what will hit you americans soon, genetic risks that will not be covered by private insurance companies), but not for covering self inflicted preexisting conditions (drug abuse, nikotine abuse, obesity, HIV aquired through prostitution, etc).
You are for covering preexisting conditions that are self inflicted and not covering preexisting conditions that are not self inflicted.
So if you take a step back and think about it, do you really think that your view is more fair than mine?
BTW, my original point was, that I would not cover ALL preexisting conditions like what your government wants to, but make some exempts.
I thought that there would be a consensus on that, but for some reason we are just not getting past butting heads with each other.
Choff and vankirkc, thanks for the backup. It is kinda hard to be all allone on that
I don't see how you can reconcile this position with your free market rhetoric.TallDave wrote:Basic research is done by government. This is all fine and well; we can agree this is a public good. But basic research is not the same as productization. The Soviet bloc did lots of very good basic research. You may have noticed their productization was not so good.
I think they're referring to the recent practice of advertising prescription drugs directly to consumers on television. I don't see any legitimate reason for the pharma companies to be doing that. The average consumer is in no position to judge the efficacy of a pharmacological solution to whatever ails them, so why market directly to them?The most laughable complaint in the health care debate is that Pharma spends too much on advertising. This is called competition. They don't spend that money because they love advertisers, but to spread information about their drug to consumers and gain an advantage over competitors.
I agree with that too. This should be solely the decision of the doctor.I think they're referring to the recent practice of advertising prescription drugs directly to consumers on television. I don't see any legitimate reason for the pharma companies to be doing that. The average consumer is in no position to judge the efficacy of a pharmacological solution to whatever ails them, so why market directly to them?
The average consumer is semi informed at best and totally ignorant usually when it comes to anything medical related (heck alternative medicine is still booming, do I have to say more?).
I agree that I dislike the pharma company advertisements, they are not very informative, always more or less disgusting, and usually at dinner time. And I have never seen one that targets my condition so they advertise other people's medicine. It seems a waste of money, to me.Skipjack wrote:I agree with that too. This should be solely the decision of the doctor.I think they're referring to the recent practice of advertising prescription drugs directly to consumers on television. I don't see any legitimate reason for the pharma companies to be doing that. The average consumer is in no position to judge the efficacy of a pharmacological solution to whatever ails them, so why market directly to them?
The average consumer is semi informed at best and totally ignorant usually when it comes to anything medical related (heck alternative medicine is still booming, do I have to say more?).
That said, I strongly disagree that the average person is in no position to judge ... Perhaps that is true at the onset, that is, at the time of the first onset of symptoms, but if it is a continuing condition then most people will read the handout information, search the Internet, maybe the library and learn as much as they can about their particular condition. By the time they return to the doctor for follow-up they are very well informed regarding their own particular condition. Yes, still ignorant of 99% of medicine, but very well informed about their own particular condition and treatment options for it. And their own particular condition and treatment is the only reason they are a medical drug and service consumer anyway. So considering that the on-set happens only once per patient, and follow-up treatment frequently requires multiple visits and prescriptions, often even lasting for the rest of the patient's life, the average patient/person using medical drugs and services is very well informed in the specific medical area where he/she needs to know.
I would add that if you have an ongoing medical condition, and you have failed to educate yourself w.r.t your own condition, then you are failing yourself and your family (wife and children for whom you are responsible). You have a responsibility to yourself and your family to inform yourself of your own options and alternatively, the options available for your family member, if your wife or child has the condition. This includes learning which doctors/hospitals are best in that particular field of medicine. How else can you make an informed decision whether or not to seek a second medical opinion, and from whom to seek it?
To those who are young and not yet sick, you can best help yourself medically by learning of the possible inherited conditions that run in your family. What conditions do your brothers and sisters exhibit, your parents and grandparents? Write it down. Then, maybe, just maybe you won't be totally in the dark when those symptoms arise in yourself. And your doctor will ask you about them, anyway. Family medical history is important information helping your doctor to diagnose your condition. For example, if one of your sisters or other female in your extended family has a history of miscarriages, that can guide your doctor in selecting blood tests to perform on you, be you male or female. Many diagnostics tests are very expensive and won't be considered unless their is a glimmer of evidence indicating the possible need. It is your responsibility to provide that glimmer of evidence. Know your family medical history as best you can.
Aero
Again, you guys are free riders here. It does no good to produce a product if no one knows about it. You don't have to pay advertising because drugs become well-known here long before they are submitted for approval in you price-controlled markets.1. Here they dont have to spend any money on advertising. That should reduce their cost quite a bit, because people will buy it, advertising or not
Doctors often seem pretty ignorant as well; they generally just add a heaping helping of arrogance to the mix. Anyone can read a study.The average consumer is semi informed at best and totally ignorant usually when it comes to anything medical related
Again, this is a Communist "expert planner" principle dressed up as something else. Doctors are no different than experts in any other industry and just as prone to the limited information problem. You can get wildly different recommendations from different doctors for the same symptoms. Doctors often ignore new, better treatments -- they have very little incentive as compared to patients.
Then you don't understand the difference between productization and basic research.I don't see how you can reconcile this position with your free market rhetoric.
For example, much of the basic semiconductor research underlying today's chips was done by the government. Who would argue the government would do a better job of making and marketing chips than Intel, AMD, etc, or that price controls would have no impact on their R&D? Yet this is exactly the argument made re pharma.
Skipjack,
Do you have some source for your copyright claims? On software, the EPC came into effect in the 1970s, about the same time as U.S. software patent law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_p ... Convention
Not much software was written before then.
Also, you make it sounds like the U.S. was stealing European patents or copyrights, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. And why wouldn't it go both ways?
I agree all copyrights should expire at some point and become public domain.
Do you have some source for your copyright claims? On software, the EPC came into effect in the 1970s, about the same time as U.S. software patent law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_p ... Convention
Not much software was written before then.
Also, you make it sounds like the U.S. was stealing European patents or copyrights, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. And why wouldn't it go both ways?
I agree all copyrights should expire at some point and become public domain.
As Megan puts it:The average consumer is semi informed at best and totally ignorant usually when it comes to anything medical related
Likewise, the argument that consumers find it hard to make informed decisions on healthcare is true of many services, particularly professional services. Do you know whether your lawyer is doing a good job? If so, how? Unless he's actually dozing through the trial or forgetting your name and the pertinent details of your case, you don't have any very good way of evaluating his work. Is the house you're buying going to be snug or drafty? Did your auto mechanic do a good job on your car? In most cases, the answer is . . . shrug.
Yet most lawyers could readily explain why trying to pay every lawyer in the country on a flat-fee basis based on what some bureaucrat thinks it should cost to take a case would probably not result in optimal outcomes. Indeed, most every professional, from engineers to journalists, would reject such a scheme for their own profession in short order. So why do these things sound so sensible when the target is wearing a white coat?
It is actually worse than that. Marijuana which can do the same thing for a tenth of a cent a dose and can be home grown is illegal. Even in the EU.choff wrote:Found this to make you good'n mad about and find some more counter arguements to shoot it down.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~scotch/gerth.htm
Maurice Strong was the first boss at PetroCan, a government run oil company as part of Trudeau's national energy program, despised by Albertans in paticular and Western Canadians in general.
The alternative to funding drug development is that it is done purely as a science project and the public never gets the benefit. That is where Americans excel. Turing research into products. This is just one element of that. No different than what Polywell is doing.
When the high cost of development is mentioned it is forgotten that the failures have to be amortized by the successes. So yes. On an individual drug basis - drugs do not cost a billion dollars to develop. Until you realize that the successes have to pay for the failures.
Now take the fact that the optimum failure rate for any research program is 50%. That Maximizes learning. Say there are 4 steps in a development program from animal studies on through mass human studies - each with a 50% chance of failure and each following step up to production costing higher dollar amounts. And finally the biggest human study of all - mass market use. A failure there can cost billions. You need a lot of profit to keep such a system going.
It all hearkens back to the tragedy of the commons. If there is no ownership the incentive to produce a product is reduced. So I'd say that on the whole this type of arrangement has benefits for the taxpayer as well as the company. The taxpayers get their money back from taxes paid on the profits as well as by having fewer blind people. And 20 years from the patent date the drug goes generic.
This is one of the reasons America is a drug development power house.
It is also one of the reasons we are a Polywell power house.
Now also consider this: such an incentive program makes researchers go as fast as they can to reach that pot of gold. Nice incentive to keep studies from being academic exercises.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
And most car companies are not advertising a car you are interested in buying. Such a waste.And I have never seen one that targets my condition so they advertise other people's medicine. It seems a waste of money, to me.
In fact why not get the EU to outlaw all advertising as waste? Everything would be cheaper. No?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.