Jump to content

chainsaw

Full Members
  • Posts

    8341
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by chainsaw

  1. I'm not against every patent all of the time, I'm only against abuses of the monopoly that go beyond anticompetitive (something which is inherent in any monopoly, by design) and become harmful to public health (something that only happens when greed overpowers decency). The true culprit(s) is/are likely these non-patent market distortions, so we're in full agreement on that.
  2. Do you think it needs to be? This is where I become less sympathetic to the pharma industry. Like, we can't just quantify "the upfront risk" as some huge number as a pretext for hiking prices beyond what ordinary people can pay. We probably know more or less what percentage of drugs that enter Phase 1 Clinical Trials are going to ultimately get FDA approved, and I don't exactly think the odds are so much worse than any other business. Just pull the rip cord before jumping in to Phase 2 and save some money, or whichever phase, if you can't pass the phase you just paid for. Most of those sunk costs are probably tax advantaged. Exclusivity, fine, but with some strings attached to ensure the monopoly isn't being abused to the public's detriment.
  3. Here's where I stand: True I doubt it. My sense of things is that there are dozens of companies we've never heard of, who don't innovate shit, and have perfectly healthy balance sheets and don't want anything to change so they lobby the fuck out of politicians to make sure nothing changes, and if anything does change, it's only to make their business even more cushy. I wouldn't accuse you of saying something like that. But yes, R&D certainly wouldn't justify their prices. If by "they" you mean the companies themselves, I don't think the answer is quite that black and white. A lot of public grants go to researchers at universities, and some grant money gets mixed up with private investments that are linked to pharma companies, and while there are some strings attached it's usually a stretch to say "they" (the pharma companies) are "engaged" in that research. I'm not saying these companies don't have research departments, but I've not heard of anything worthwhile happening in those labs. I could be wrong, but I get a distinct impression that private researchers are MLS whereas the minds in academia are Champions League caliber. It's not black and white though, as I said, so I'm sure there are some rockstars in private research and some flameouts in academia, and of course due to all the public-private partnerships and the way research gets funded, the line between "them" and not-"them" is blurry. I can agree with you that innovation DOES happen. I don't think I can agree that the innovation is rightfully "theirs" when it's more often the innovation of some grad students. I agree. Patents incentivize investment in invention, but not necessarily the invention itself. I still find it immoral for someone to be able to monopolize life-saving or livelihood-saving treatment. I'm not against the patent system, I'm against capitalistic mechanisms that deprive people of the care they need. In this particular case, I think monopolies on drugs (whether it's a patent or whatever the fuck orphan thing Shkreli was exploiting) are immoral. There has to be a better way to reward innovation, and a better way to reward people who are willing to pay for research even when the research itself doesn't pay off. Those are losses I'm fine with socializing, and I don't believe these losses are so great that the only way to offset them is by depriving people of the care they need.
  4. If you went to BYU it would be a soak bank
  5. Any eczema girl sightings yet?
  6. They want you as a new recruit
  7. Yup. One call to Kash Patel and it will be Edith Jones affirming a 200 year sentence for conspiracy to possess controlled substances.
  8. He doesn't want to be alone. He wouldn't be such an attention seeker otherwise. What happens with him is that people get close to him, then they realize he's exhausting to be around, and they either maintain a distance from him or totally abandon him. The people he wants to be around, don't want to be around him. The people who want to be around him, he thinks they are beneath him and not deserving of the opportunity.
  9. It's not difficult for a halfway competent publicist to selectively lift facts from Elon Musk's CV and get you to believe he's the most interesting man in the world. But he's impossible to spend any amount of time with because he's that much of a blowhard (and his on-paper "accomplishments" are not rightfully his accomplishments). As we learned hundreds of pages ago, he's a fraud. But he's also a piece of shit. So the only way anyone would spend time with him is if they're getting paid, or if they think it will pay off somehow.
  10. They're already full Madonnas
  11. I hear this tossed around a bunch, but this talking point usually unravels if you ask for facts, evidence, and details. I agree though that there's more to blame than just patents, as you correctly point out they have patents in other countries and their prices aren't extortionate as they are here.
  12. Arky Lite appears to be the better team.
  13. I could go for a frito pie
  14. Well we were hoodwinked, bamboozled
  15. Great arm on that punter
  16. Cunanan with no regard for human life
  17. Who built these rockets, Elon Musk?
  18. Drug patents should be illegal
  19. Wingo beat Michigan. Smith did not. Wingo had 55 yards against Michigan. Smith did not.
  20. He came pre-installed with the defense.
  21. there should be plenty of room in the stands thankfully
  22. If he wins a natty, I'll fill this out.
×
×
  • Create New...