Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

this election really seems to have a theme of saying to the voters 'We'll TELL you what you want'.

And meanwhile Bernie Sanders fanboys will claim a popular mandate from the fact that their candidate consistantly loses the polls by 12 percent.  There sure are people telling voters what they want this cycle.

[Shadowlord]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senator-on-gop-backing-trump-party-has-gone-bats-crazy/ar-BBq3iMi

Oh my gods yes, Lindsey Graham has lost it.

[Zangi]

That's... not actually how it works, sorry. A prodigy would get to the level of an average doctor faster, and/or be able to deal with less-understood conditions more effectively, and/or fail with well-understood conditions less often. In any of those cases, a sample size of 1 fuckup doesn't actually rule out anything.

Like, I'm not actually claiming that he's a particularly great doctor, I'm just saying your criteria are bad.

That's actually exactly how it works. You lose any right to portray yourself in that way when you explicitly fuck up another person, yes, even once.

Maybe that is why Surgeons are narcissists.  They can continue to do the job with confidence despite fucking up another person.  We would probably have a lot less surgeons available if a single fuckup is all it takes to get em to quit / to make em seriously depressed / to fire em / to ban em from the surgery room.

[mainiac]

\
Then why not just let the voters decide it?

You were claiming a popular mandate.  Now when I point out that, y'know, there was a little reality problem with your statement you are acting like I'm the one jumping the gun.

[Rolan7]

Then why not just let the voters decide it? I just don't particularly see the benefits of having unpledged delegates. I think both parties should be bound by the mandate of their voters. GOP putting up someone against Trump, if he wins, would be BS, and so would (the unlikely event of) superdelegates deciding the nomination in favour of Clinton.

Theoretically, "if you don't like it, just run independent or form your own party".
Which is an absurd non-choice, of course.  Though hopefully it might raise awareness of the inherent flaw of our election system, which inevitably creates two parties.

And it's funny - among my friends, I ought to be the most likely to vote for Trump:
I'm sympathetic to big business as a profit-seeking algorithm.  I try to defend big pharma and intellectual property. (though it needs controls to avoid destroying the common resources, I'm an environmentalist)
I think citizenship means something, and that people who came here illegally have skipped in line.  (Though as a matter of practicality, I'm open to one-time full amnesty)
Having a roman emperor as president would be hot as hell (except that he, at best, flip flops on LGBT rights) (also this is not something to vote based on) (still though)

Yet my friends say:
1) It would be funny lol
2) CLINTON IS LITERALLY SATAN
3) *patiently waits for election discussion to end* (this guy has the right idea, he's pretty far left too)

[PTTG??]

Honestly I'm not 100% certain that Hillary can win against Trump.

[Sheb]

How can you defend Big Pharma? I'm not anti-business in general, but they are one of the few industries where I think putting head on spikes might really improve things. The kind of shit they're able to get away with (submitting only trials that shows their drugs to have benefits for exemple) is outrageous, especially when you realize they are playing with people health. Plus, if the goal is to provide private money for drug development, they do a really crappy job of it (Advertising outspend R&D several times. Advertising which also causes health issues, meanwhile, even in the US about half of drug R&D is already funded by public money).

I mean, I can totally get behind the idea that pharma company  could be a force for good, but they need some serious regulations to make sure the best way to generate profit is actually to come up with better drugs.

[Rolan7]

The position I find myself defending big pharma from is generally pretty extreme.  IE, "It doesn't cost much to manufacture the drugs, they should lower the prices and patents are always evil".

Basically what I'm arguing against is a total disregard for the cost of development, and the value of intellectual property.  The prices do get out of hand at times, which is why a single payer system is necessary to get the appropriate bargaining strength.  But if we pretend that drug formulas are just magic windfalls which the drug companies unfairly hoard, we destroy future development.

So yeah there's a much more reasonable position that drug companies make too much profit, and patents are often granted despite prior art or for absurdly vague concepts.

[mainiac]

I was? Where? I said there's a theme throughout the election. You don't see it? You haven't seen the possibility of super-delegates blocking a Sanders win brought up?

You play coy to claiming a popular mandate and then you repeat the damn claim!



In order for super delegates to "block" Sanders he would to be winning.  He is not winning.  Stop making statements predicated on the untrue assumption that he enjoys majority popular support.

So yes I have seen a theme.  I have seen a theme of people claiming that a process that favors the majority over their own minority ascendancy is unfair.  You have a fundamental problem with democracy.  You do not favor majority rule when you dont like the results.  I mean it's harsh to say but it's the exact fucking accusation you've been throwing around yourself.  So yeah, I have a problem.  I have a problem because you dont believe in democracy.

The reason that the democratic party isn't supporting Sanders is because THEY'RE A GODDAMN POLITICAL PARTY and he doesn't represent their views very well.  They're in the business of enacting policy.  It's not a beauty pageant; it's a job audition.  They dont owe him anything.  The man wasn't even a democrat until it was very recently advantageous for him.  If he wants them to support him then he should do things like release serious policy proposals or demonstrate that he will help them win elections.

Honestly I'm not 100% certain that Hillary can win against Trump.

Well nothing is certain under the sun but Trump would be an exceptionally weak candidate and Hillary's electibility fundamentals aren't particularly weak (nor strong).  Trump's life is practically written to fit into a 30 second attack ad.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

They don't get out of hand "at times", they're out of hand all the time. There is no meaningful connection between the value of drug IPs and the reality we've had to deal with.

If you want to incentivize development, hard and fast IP expiration is the way to go. Any system that allows pharma to sit on their laurels and rake in the dividends is one that strongly disincentivizes innovation.

For that matter, I don't think pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to be in the privately-owned publicly-traded sector any more than cigarette companies should be allowed to run ads in high schools, for essentially the same reason.

[Rolan7]

They don't get out of hand "at times", they're out of hand all the time. There is no meaningful connection between the value of drug IPs and the reality we've had to deal with.

Well no, that's exactly the sort of partisan exaggeration that I'm tired of dealing with.
I admit that the profits get out of hand sometimes, you come back with "no they're *always* overcharging"?  Nice absolute, good luck defending it.

If you want to incentivize development, hard and fast IP expiration is the way to go. Any system that allows pharma to sit on their laurels and rake in the dividends is one that strongly disincentivizes innovation.

I'm actually curious how that makes sense.  I'm definitely no expert.  But you're suggesting we incentivize development by further reducing the amount of time they own what they made.  That seems like, literally and financially, the opposite of incentive.

For that matter, I don't think pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to be in the privately-owned publicly-traded sector any more than cigarette companies should be allowed to run ads in high schools, for essentially the same reason.

A utopia where all pharmaceutical development was done under government funding might be pretty good, I'd go for that.  That's pretty close to what a single-payer plan would be, I think.
Maybe one day we'll actually be able to get single-payer through congress...

[Helgoland]

They don't get out of hand "at times", they're out of hand all the time. There is no meaningful connection between the value of drug IPs and the reality we've had to deal with.

Well no, that's exactly the sort of partisan exaggeration that I'm tired of dealing with.
I admit that the profits get out of hand sometimes, you come back with "no they're *always* overcharging"?  Nice absolute, good luck defending it.

This. My (quite literally life-saving) medication costs me thirty euros a month. A buck per day is a small price to pay for sanity, no? And this isn't off-brand stuff either.
Or look at Aspirin: Do you really think they're overcharging on Aspirin? Or on the myriad OTC painkillers? Yeah, what you said is not just an exaggeration, it's a fucking lie - an untruth stated in bad faith from lower motivations.

Huh, that makes me think: I do the same thing as Rolan when it comes to GMOs. Sure, they need regulation, careful evaluation of side-effects, political and economic mechanisms to make sure they don't exacerbate flaws within the current system... But I have little to no patience for 'Monsanto is Literally Satan, And GMOs Are His Temptation' type doomsayers. Unfortunately that type is rather common in my country.

[Frumple]

Most of the OTC stuff isn't particularly IP locked -- a lot of that shit and stuff for which generics exist are in relatively good positions, so far as price and whatnot goes. There's competition there, et al.  Also your 30E/month is in europe -- chances are pretty good if you were in the states that number would be significantly higher. It's not guaranteed, but it's really damn likely.

Stateside, it's not exactly a big fucking lie, it's at most a mild exaggeration that missed a few caveats. It's hard to quite grok just how badly pharma is fucking people if you're not in one of the ground zero areas. They're not alone in that -- the position of insurance and such plays into it, as does other factors -- but they're a big damn portion of it.

[Helgoland]

Stateside

Okay, that's a plausible reason for the disconnect. Still, despite rumors to the contrary there is indeed life outside the states - and 'big pharma is evil' is a huge step away from 'big pharma does evil stuff in the US', especially when talking about companies from outside the US.

Rereading the original post, I notice that MSH was talking about drug IPs, not drugs in general - I'm afraid I misread D: Sorry for overreacting...

[Frumple]

*pokes helgo with the thread title* You can generally assume most of the conversation is re: the US

Also from what I'm aware of most of the stuff outside the US isn't so much big pharma not being evil out there as it is y'all's governments going, "No, fuck you, sit down and stop screwing people." The US... mostly doesn't do that.