- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Messages
- 13,182
stevomiller said:
Most drug research is done at gov't funded universities.
FDA regulation needs to be greater. Look at Vioxx
:thumbup:
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
oil companies$$$$
- Thread starter rosconey2
- Start date
Most drug research is done at gov't funded universities.
FDA regulation needs to be greater. Look at Vioxx
:thumbup:
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,166
in my local paper today-
since 1999 refinery charges have increased by 85%-they increased 20% the previous 7 years-
20% of our gas price is this charge-
it also says they manipulate shortage's-thats from a 2002 congressional study
federal trade investagators said in 2001-said they crimp output and hoard supply to maximise proffits -
but with a oil man in the white house -
sounds alot like the crap the guy from nasa has been getting from the white house about global warming this past sunday on 60 minutes-
-all his work was edited by a white house lawyer who was a lobbyist for big oil-
since 1999 refinery charges have increased by 85%-they increased 20% the previous 7 years-
20% of our gas price is this charge-
it also says they manipulate shortage's-thats from a 2002 congressional study
federal trade investagators said in 2001-said they crimp output and hoard supply to maximise proffits -
but with a oil man in the white house -
sounds alot like the crap the guy from nasa has been getting from the white house about global warming this past sunday on 60 minutes-
-all his work was edited by a white house lawyer who was a lobbyist for big oil-
US drug companies spend 11% of their revenue on R&D and 27% on marketing. (http://www.amsa.org/hp/RandD.cfm#notes)
27 percent on marketing and administration
Also, though the artical seems to complain only 11% of sales profits goes back to r and d, and that the number of jobs in that sector remains constant, it still represents a sizable investment on the part of the industry.
Thank you for the link, tinmaddog
The article is for the benefit of medical students, who would examine this situation for furture job possibilities.
munk
Also, though the artical seems to complain only 11% of sales profits goes back to r and d, and that the number of jobs in that sector remains constant, it still represents a sizable investment on the part of the industry.
Thank you for the link, tinmaddog
The article is for the benefit of medical students, who would examine this situation for furture job possibilities.
munk
munk said:
Good point on the administration - I missed that. However, I have to disagree with you as to the point of the article. The way it's worded it seems to clearly be about the priorities of the pharmaceutical industry rather than job placement. "These statistics alone provide more than enough incentive to take a closer look at the business ethics and priorities of the pharmaceutical industry...Join doctors, hospital, medical school administrators and students across the country in protecting physician-prescribing practices based on evidence rather than on marketing."
Also: "A startling statistic: in 2002 the combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses together (33.7 billion). In a industry which such exorbitant profits, surely the cost of drugs could be lowered drastically without even coming close to cutting a R&D budget." (emphasis mine) - I think that gets at the point of what some of us are trying to say about both the drug and oil companies. The compaines could, without any real pain on their part, pass a few billion in savings to the consumers and still maintain literally billions of dollars in profits.
*Edited to clarify.
How noble and naive oif those students. Without marketing- you have no industry.
Yes, let's end crass commericalism....I remember an add for Clariton...it took me a year to figure out it was for an allergy medicine; the people were wandering around a wonderland high on some LSD type euphoric. Yes, Lord, please give us Clariton!!!!
Can't have research without sales. 11% of an increasingly large profit is still a good thing.
munk
Yes, let's end crass commericalism....I remember an add for Clariton...it took me a year to figure out it was for an allergy medicine; the people were wandering around a wonderland high on some LSD type euphoric. Yes, Lord, please give us Clariton!!!!
Can't have research without sales. 11% of an increasingly large profit is still a good thing.
munk
A friend works in an area of Health Policy where she regularly gets visited by pharmaceutical reps, looking to fund "research." Funny how their corporate interests align with medical interests ... patient health and the health of the corporate bottom line each benefit with "patient compliance" when it comes to taking prescribed drugs.
IMHO, there's less distinction between some R&D enterprises and marketing than one would imagine.
IMHO, there's less distinction between some R&D enterprises and marketing than one would imagine.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2006
- Messages
- 657
MUNK says:"Regardless if many of you think the oil companies profit too 'large'; the idea of a windfall tax is an entirely different matter. One that will not work, IMHO."
This is truly amazing; MUNK and I agree on something!!!!!!
First I agree with Andy on this thread and now Munk??
Is this the mystical thread upon which all opposing views find their ultimate reconciliation?
OMMMMMmmmmmmmmm...........
This is truly amazing; MUNK and I agree on something!!!!!!
First I agree with Andy on this thread and now Munk??
Is this the mystical thread upon which all opposing views find their ultimate reconciliation?
OMMMMMmmmmmmmmm...........
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 19,793
Munk and I, we're not suprised. Eventually you'll want to be right on an issue. LOL. (Just a joke.)
If anyone can think of a way to extract more money for the government without hindering productivity from private industry please let me know. That's assuming you want the government to have those funds. It might be better if they simply cut each of us a check. We'd spend it better.
The only way to extract money from private industry is to allow them to become successful. They spend money, their employees spend money.
Certain restrainsts and safeguards are thought to be neccesary to protect the public interest. Some of these are obsolete, and should be thrown away, and others are neccesary.
I'll always point out 12 year old boys working 16 hour days as an example of 'free capitalism'.
munk
The only way to extract money from private industry is to allow them to become successful. They spend money, their employees spend money.
Certain restrainsts and safeguards are thought to be neccesary to protect the public interest. Some of these are obsolete, and should be thrown away, and others are neccesary.
I'll always point out 12 year old boys working 16 hour days as an example of 'free capitalism'.
munk
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2006
- Messages
- 657
munk, again I agree with you. History shows us that if the government leaves something alone, what ever it is, the results will be better.
During the Industrial revolution, when labor rights were unheard of and a few folks were making tons of money, there was no income tax. As a result, many of the big charities that exist to this day were started by the rich capitalist pigs who didn't care about anybody but themselves so much that they funded chains of libraries, started the Red Cross, scholarship funds, etc. etc.
People will care about people unless the government steals the money. Then people will be greedy and selfish with what they have since there is a legalized theft of capital that they must endure. Even with that, Americans give away a lot of money. But it was better when the government was out of it.
During the Industrial revolution, when labor rights were unheard of and a few folks were making tons of money, there was no income tax. As a result, many of the big charities that exist to this day were started by the rich capitalist pigs who didn't care about anybody but themselves so much that they funded chains of libraries, started the Red Cross, scholarship funds, etc. etc.
People will care about people unless the government steals the money. Then people will be greedy and selfish with what they have since there is a legalized theft of capital that they must endure. Even with that, Americans give away a lot of money. But it was better when the government was out of it.
Munk wrote -
"If anyone can think of a way to extract more money for the government without hindering productivity from private industry please let me know. That's assuming you want the government to have those funds. It might be better if they simply cut each of us a check. We'd spend it better."
This is the old argument against government funding. Unfortunately, it assumes that we don't need education, soldiers, biomedical research, science, or any of the things that we can not handle as individuals.
I'd buy lots of Khukuris if I didn't pay taxes, but who would pay the soldiers?
Surely, none of think that we can do without technology, science, education, and a military.
If we cut taxes enough, and we have already overdone that, then we will soon wind up looking at India and China as our leaders. We will have to look at Asia for technology and new cars.
Guess what - the future is NOW.
We have cut taxes for the rich so that the poor can suffer and taken money away from education.
We have become noncompetitive in the world. We need to support education and research, or we will wind up as a third world country with low paying jobs in the service sector. The writing is on the wall!
I personally think that we should pay higher taxes. I would rather pay taxes directly to the federal government than pay them to the state. This would let us pay our soldiers more and aid military recruitment. We are going to need the help of our soldiers and they deserve more than they are getting right now.
"If anyone can think of a way to extract more money for the government without hindering productivity from private industry please let me know. That's assuming you want the government to have those funds. It might be better if they simply cut each of us a check. We'd spend it better."
This is the old argument against government funding. Unfortunately, it assumes that we don't need education, soldiers, biomedical research, science, or any of the things that we can not handle as individuals.
I'd buy lots of Khukuris if I didn't pay taxes, but who would pay the soldiers?
Surely, none of think that we can do without technology, science, education, and a military.
If we cut taxes enough, and we have already overdone that, then we will soon wind up looking at India and China as our leaders. We will have to look at Asia for technology and new cars.
Guess what - the future is NOW.
We have cut taxes for the rich so that the poor can suffer and taken money away from education.
We have become noncompetitive in the world. We need to support education and research, or we will wind up as a third world country with low paying jobs in the service sector. The writing is on the wall!
I personally think that we should pay higher taxes. I would rather pay taxes directly to the federal government than pay them to the state. This would let us pay our soldiers more and aid military recruitment. We are going to need the help of our soldiers and they deserve more than they are getting right now.
Arty, there is no assumption in my writing, nor protest against neccesary public services.
There is however, an awareness that throwing money into a sink hole does not fix the busted levy. We spend more on education, relative to inflation, than we did in the 1960's and 70's when our school test scores were higher.
('higher' gets into problems- they dummied some tests, and since the measurements of IQ and intelligence often typically go up over a span of years in a society; what I'm trying to say is we may test technically higher today in some areas when the reality is we are behind.)
If paying the government more money could insure all of us happy lives, or even better ones, I'd be all for it. But it doesn't work that way.
munk
There is however, an awareness that throwing money into a sink hole does not fix the busted levy. We spend more on education, relative to inflation, than we did in the 1960's and 70's when our school test scores were higher.
('higher' gets into problems- they dummied some tests, and since the measurements of IQ and intelligence often typically go up over a span of years in a society; what I'm trying to say is we may test technically higher today in some areas when the reality is we are behind.)
If paying the government more money could insure all of us happy lives, or even better ones, I'd be all for it. But it doesn't work that way.
munk
You have a lot more control over what goes on at the local and state level than in Washington. My biggest problem is the US government overstepping it's authority given by the Constitution. I have no problem paying taxes for legitimate government functions, I do have a problem paying taxes to give the government more power and control over my life. The problem is not how much money the government collects in taxes, it is what they do with it that is the problem.
Terry
Terry
Our present government spends far more than any earlier government, with less coming in.
I often do consulting for the federal government and have seen s shift toward "privatization." What this basically means is that everyone who consults for the U.S. is treated as a corporation. The underlying assumption is that the government exists to increase the profits of private companies.
I get more in expense money than I actually spend, because the government has gove to "flat rate reimbursement." If you spend less on your travel, you still get the larger amount. If you spend more, then you provide receipts and get even more. The government used to ask for receipts and then reimbursed for actual expenses. Not any longer...
It seems like a huge waste of money. The problem is that the logic that "private is better" forgets that corporations exist to make profit. This is more costly. It takes the form of hiring contractors to defend trucks in Iraq and paying the guards 6 figure salaries, but our soldiers get paid peanuts. I would rather pay our soldiers more, and not give companies a chance to make money off of war. A student of mine recently got back from Bagdad - and he was not very happy seeing the huge bucks that went to private guards, while he had a much more important and dangerous job.
People are not always cost effective. While our government talks about saving money and not throwing it out, it is dumping it faster than you can imagine....the money is going out like an American "dumps" who has just had some bad water in South America. Paying private companies more to do things that should be done byour lower paid government employees is not the way to save money.
It is all doublespeak out of 1984 - but that is getting old right now.
I often do consulting for the federal government and have seen s shift toward "privatization." What this basically means is that everyone who consults for the U.S. is treated as a corporation. The underlying assumption is that the government exists to increase the profits of private companies.
I get more in expense money than I actually spend, because the government has gove to "flat rate reimbursement." If you spend less on your travel, you still get the larger amount. If you spend more, then you provide receipts and get even more. The government used to ask for receipts and then reimbursed for actual expenses. Not any longer...
It seems like a huge waste of money. The problem is that the logic that "private is better" forgets that corporations exist to make profit. This is more costly. It takes the form of hiring contractors to defend trucks in Iraq and paying the guards 6 figure salaries, but our soldiers get paid peanuts. I would rather pay our soldiers more, and not give companies a chance to make money off of war. A student of mine recently got back from Bagdad - and he was not very happy seeing the huge bucks that went to private guards, while he had a much more important and dangerous job.
People are not always cost effective. While our government talks about saving money and not throwing it out, it is dumping it faster than you can imagine....the money is going out like an American "dumps" who has just had some bad water in South America. Paying private companies more to do things that should be done byour lower paid government employees is not the way to save money.
It is all doublespeak out of 1984 - but that is getting old right now.
The sad truth- or grand:
just as society cannot afford to protect the individual, so too the armed forces will never be paid what they are worth. Service to country will always be born by youth. They have the hope, strength and ideals to do things, are not bogged down, and gain an education. It may not be 'fair'. We may not approve of all wars our politicians start, we may not like the outcome, but it is reality.
Everyone wants to know the most efficient, beneficial method of living here on earth. Ever think some jobs don't have a right answer, they are to be endured rather than solved?
This is one of those posts where I remember 19th Century philosophy; because I sound like I came from there.
munk
just as society cannot afford to protect the individual, so too the armed forces will never be paid what they are worth. Service to country will always be born by youth. They have the hope, strength and ideals to do things, are not bogged down, and gain an education. It may not be 'fair'. We may not approve of all wars our politicians start, we may not like the outcome, but it is reality.
Everyone wants to know the most efficient, beneficial method of living here on earth. Ever think some jobs don't have a right answer, they are to be endured rather than solved?
This is one of those posts where I remember 19th Century philosophy; because I sound like I came from there.
munk
It's only in our current society that we've been able to delude ourselves (partially) into thinking we can avoid suffering. Just like medical science seems to delude itself into thinking it can cure death.munk said:
Neither's true. You quote 19th Century philosophy because they still understood that - and recognized that now outmoded ideas like duty and endurance were crucial to becoming and living like an adult.
Which makes me even more certain that the blueprint our founding fathers tried to give us was inspired. Limited government to provide a framework which would allow the people to pursue happiness and live their lives as they choose. Not to have all their problems solved by their government, but to stay out of their way and allow us to do what we have always done best. Flounder, fight, screw up and eventually find the best in ourselves and make things better. I know that America still exists in the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans, we have just allowed country to be hijacked by a small vocal minority who only seek power.
Tery
Tery