|
Soulex posted:Honestly, this is why I photograph them at college games. We all just gonna ignore this?
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 19:58 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 02:10 |
|
Considering that last I checked his job duties included "photograph athletes, fans, and other staff at college games," yeah? It'd be different if he was posting upskirts on the forums and making lecherous comments.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:00 |
|
That's a long winded way of saying "I'm a pervert"
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:00 |
mlmp08 posted:Speaking of criminally underpaid people: Cheerleaders. They get paid far less than minimum wage in most cases. Sometimes something less than a dollar an hour after the cost of mandatory hairstyling, makeup, nails, etc at cheerleader expense. As a Saints fan, I see no difference. Doc Hawkins posted:You're discounting government funding in medical research. Did we stop doing that? It's a lot worse than it used to be / could be. Recently when we have had big dumps of funding it's in much more tightly focused areas instead of the general pool. So, great if you work on specific cancers or Alzheimers, not great for most other things. Pharma rides the wave of federally funded research training and primary research and then gets out of paying most of their taxes to help fund said primary research. All the while making profits on it which the public funded research never sees. When times get tough for that company they can just move things overseas.
|
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:02 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:Government funding in medical research does not bring it to production; its up to a company to do that. And the get to charge whatever they want despite not inventing it and just licensing it from a university. Proud Christian Mom posted:if i can't mark up the price of this drug(which the government funded the heavy lifting on) approximately 6000% how am I ever going to pay $10 million a day to run ads for it, or all the physicians I bribe That's not how government funding into Pharmaceutical research works at all, which mostly goes to the basic science and target research, the R&D to develop the drugs themselves is done overwhelmingly by the drug companies. https://www.statnews.com/2018/02/12/nih-funding-drug-development/ mlmp08 posted:An idiot: What if we cured all the diseases? That'd be cool, right? What the smart person actually said: "If we're going to developing more cures and less treatments we need to put more money into R&D to keep developing new cures because they're not indefinite revenue streams" This is just basic stewardship of an organization.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:03 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:Government funding in medical research does not bring it to production; its up to a company to do that. And the get to charge whatever they want despite not inventing it and just licensing it from a university. That was my understanding, I just wasn't sure what Jarmak's was. Vasudus posted:hot take: government should fund essential medicine research and provide those medicines to the citizenry I'd like the factories in such a system be publicly owned too, but if production was done by private contractors, it would at least be work-for-hire, not "make as much as you want and sell it for whatever to whoever."
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:05 |
|
mlmp08 posted:Considering that last I checked his job duties included "photograph athletes, fans, and other staff at college games," yeah? I didn't I know he was a sports photographer. To me that sounded like a random dude saying "I go to sports games and photograph cheerleaders." My apologies if that wasn't the case.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:06 |
|
There is no thinking emoji big enough for this galaxy brain move. https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1097578574943604743
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:32 |
Jarmak posted:That's not how government funding into Pharmaceutical research works at all, which mostly goes to the basic science and target research, the R&D to develop the drugs themselves is done overwhelmingly by the drug companies. 1. The private side takes primary research (almost always publicly funded) and hires trainees from academic labs (almost always publicly funded) and then develops that primary research into applied research. Sometimes this is a huge amount of steps, sometimes it's not much more than finishing up the plan spelled out by the initial primary academic research. 2. Companies put money into R&D only for things that are profitable vs necessary. Just take a look at the last 30 years of antibiotics research for a great example. Over those 30 years while all major private pharma companies just stopped R&D on new antibiotics, they shifted into constant-use drug discovery and marketing for things like statins, SSRIs, Viagra, etc. In the grim dark future we'll have amazing opiates, boner pills and happy drugs but die from sepsis due to a paper cut infected with a superbug.
|
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:32 |
|
Doc Hawkins posted:I'd like the factories in such a system be publicly owned too, but if production was done by private contractors, it would at least be work-for-hire, not "make as much as you want and sell it for whatever to whoever." Yeah, if we're going down this road anything that's deemed to be essential medical research/products is produced at either a government-owned production center and/or some sort of incredibly air-tight FFP contract. One with just enough profit to make it worthwhile for the private market.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:36 |
|
Jarmak posted:That's not how government funding into Pharmaceutical research works at all, which mostly goes to the basic science and target research, the R&D to develop the drugs themselves is done overwhelmingly by the drug companies. No. Most R&D is still funded by government grants, even when done internally at a for-profit. And most of those government grants require the research to be made public, but more often than not its kept secret. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/ NIH and DARPA frequently fund drug and treatment research that is patented and sold at a hefty cost. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Feb 18, 2019 |
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:38 |
The last big antibiotic-resistant diseases conference I went to (immediately after the NIH funded one that was having its final meeting and getting closed down for good) had a rep from USDA there. Given that the audience was about 80% academic researchers, 15% government agents and 5% private corporations (0 from any major pharma companies), much of the conversation sessions revolved around "how can we get private industry to return to investing into antibiotics research?". USDA's answer was to try to lure companies into doing so by granting deliverable-based extensions to patents for other drugs that company made, ie if Pfizer brought a new antibiotic to market then they get to keep the Viagra patent 5-10 more years etc. Like, it's a viable solution, but the whole meeting I was just thinking 'guillotine, guillotine" in my head most of the time.
|
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:41 |
|
That Works posted:1. The private side takes primary research (almost always publicly funded) and hires trainees from academic labs (almost always publicly funded) and then develops that primary research into applied research. Sometimes this is a huge amount of steps, sometimes it's not much more than finishing up the plan spelled out by the initial primary academic research. There's plenty of lovely things with the pharma industry and healthcare that we don't have to get faux-scandalized about basic and completely ethical corporate planning. CommieGIR posted:No. Most R&D is still funded by government grants, even when done internally at a for-profit. That's wicked out of date. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:44 |
|
Jarmak's source: quote:The NIH chipped in billions in research funding Wrap it up, bow down to industry.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:47 |
Jarmak posted:There's plenty of lovely things with the pharma industry and healthcare that we don't have to get faux-scandalized about basic and completely ethical corporate planning. I retort that corporate planning, in regards to human health and to profit from it without constraint, is unethical. Again, acting like corporations are acting in good faith in the pharma industry is ludicrous. We're in an age where biotech / pharma are a bigger sector of the economy than they have ever been before and there's been no major effort at antibiotics programs in decades for the major players. Had those major labs continued as they had before, this crisis would not likely exist. However it's more profitable to close antibiotics R&D for other things and here we are.
|
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:50 |
|
Jarmak posted:That's wicked out of date. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50 Even in that source, Government funding far outstrips Private. And that's JUST the NIH. So, no, I'll contend that Government funding still makes up a large portion. And I'm still willing to bet that NIH spending cuts are Republican driven. gently caress private pharmaceutical companies. Especially in the day and age where people are getting so desperate due to skyrocketing medical and drug costs, that they are rationing insulin.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:52 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Even in that source, Government funding far outstrips Private. And that's JUST the NIH. In what hosed up math world does less than half "far outstrip" more than half? edit: quote:Those private sector efforts are now the dominant form of research activity in the United States, with business spending $3 on research for every $1 invested by the U.S. government. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Feb 18, 2019 |
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:56 |
|
Jarmak posted:In what hosed up math world does less than half "far outstrip" more than half? I meant funding as in dollars. What are you trying to prove here Jarmak?
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:59 |
|
CommieGIR posted:I meant funding as in dollars. Did you also mean "way more than" as in "way less than"?
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:01 |
|
Jarmak posted:Did you also mean "way more than" as in "way less than"? What are you trying to prove with this? C'mon now. That the same fuckers that increased the price of insulin from $200 to nearly $500 a month deserve our praise? Or epipens: Man, I hope they fund some life saving treatments with that blood money. "Don't worry, you can trust me, folks." Or an $89k price tag for a treatment for a rare disease: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/13/outrage-over-a-drug-price-controversy-is-building-in-congress-again/ CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Feb 18, 2019 |
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:02 |
|
That Works posted:I retort that corporate planning, in regards to human health and to profit from it without constraint, is unethical. Yup "we should put more money into developing more cures for diseases" <-- unethical bad faith corporate planning CommieGIR posted:What are you trying to prove with this? C'mon now. That the same fuckers that increased the price of insulin from $200 to nearly $500 a month deserve our praise? Facts matter, the truth matters, this is a transparent deflection.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:09 |
|
Jarmak posted:Yup "we should put more money into developing more cures for diseases" <-- unethical bad faith corporate planning "So we can jack up the prices over 5,000%" If you are going to drag others for 'Truth', maybe you need to be honest too? Jarmak posted:Facts matter, the truth matters, this is a transparent deflection. Yes they do, so start telling us some facts and explain the price gouging on life saving and critical medications like insulin, or stop pretending you are arguing in good faith. People are DYING over the inability to pay into a for-profit medical system, so start explaining why this is acceptable. https://twitter.com/jonswaine/status/1097574608692264961 Stone is still under a gag order....and is now posting on his instagram images of the Judge in his case with crosshairs over her. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:10 |
|
CommieGIR posted:"So we can jack up the prices over 5,000%" "I can make up things and lie because they're the bad guys, I won't question people saying wrong things because they're on my team" This is how the chuds operate. You even got the projection part down with your bad faith arguments. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:18 |
|
Jarmak posted:"I can make up things and lie because they're the bad guys, I won't question people saying wrong things because they're on my team" I fully admit I was mistaken in how much funding is Governmental, and I'll stand by your correction. But YOU need to explain how price gouging by private pharmaceutical companies is going to make up for their increased R&D spending, and why people have to die for this. You need to explain how Insulin, a publicly researched and developed medicine, which you can buy for $25 over the counter for your pet, costs patients nearly $500 a month.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:19 |
|
CommieGIR posted:But YOU need to explain how price gouging by private pharmaceutical companies is going to make up for their increased R&D spending, and why people have to die for this. You need to explain how Insulin, a publicly researched and developed medicine, which you can buy for $25 over the counter for your pet, costs patients nearly $500 a month. Why the hell would I have to explain poo poo I never said and don't believe?
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:22 |
|
hey Jarmak how much stock do you own in pharma and insurance companies anyways (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:23 |
|
stop fighting and post sources or current events
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:24 |
Nz considering using Huawei gear after GCSB says gently caress no https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/110688957/ardern-no-final-huawei-5g-decision China threw a huffy at us and we are gonna bow to them Let me be the first to welcome you all to Southern Sea China
|
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:40 |
|
EBB posted:stop fighting and post sources or current events Associated Press posted:Trump the pundit handicaps 2020 Democratic contenders
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:42 |
|
EBB posted:stop fighting and post sources or current events This is a really lovely way to go. quote:BALTIMORE —
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:43 |
|
yo if someone could whip up a cure for kidney stones that'd be pretty fuckin great
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:45 |
|
Never light up in a portajohn.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:46 |
|
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:46 |
|
Godholio posted:yo if someone could whip up a cure for kidney stones that'd be pretty fuckin great I hear cranberry juice is good.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:48 |
|
Vasudus posted:Yeah, if we're going down this road anything that's deemed to be essential medical research/products is produced at either a government-owned production center and/or some sort of incredibly air-tight FFP contract. One with just enough profit to make it worthwhile for the private market. I think my one major question would be who gets to decide what's considered essential medical research. Because I can definitely envision a conservative dominated congress banning research on otherwise essential stuff like birth control or really anything involving women's health.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 22:14 |
|
https://twitter.com/PeteButtigifs/status/1097330653434007552 Mike in the replies with the real talk
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 22:16 |
I'm the Buttigifs
|
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 22:37 |
|
psydude posted:I think my one major question would be who gets to decide what's considered essential medical research. Because I can definitely envision a conservative dominated congress banning research on otherwise essential stuff like birth control or really anything involving women's health. Antibiotics, retrovirals, chemo, etc. should be in a protected class with harsh price controls that never allow private market price manipulation tomfoolery. I suppose to continue this thought experiment, an independent commission similar to the federal reserve might do the trick and isn't too outrageous to realistically create. Though much like the CFPB, there's nothing stopping a unified legislative/executive branch from crippling it.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 22:50 |
|
Vasudus posted:Antibiotics, retrovirals, chemo, etc. should be in a protected class with harsh price controls that never allow private market price manipulation tomfoolery. Could the same thing be achieved by regulation of prices (plus subsidies or production contracts like you mentioned when necessary)? That way the government can leverage existing manufacturing infrastructure while keeping prices in check. As I understand it, the problem isn't the lack of widely available drugs, but the insane costs of new drugs (like that hep-C drug) that aren't out of patent yet, as well as poo poo like the epipen fiasco where a company buys rights to a drug and then attempts to jack up the price. psydude fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Feb 18, 2019 |
# ? Feb 18, 2019 23:09 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 02:10 |
|
We also pay double (at the low end) what everyone else does. Plus there's the orphan drugs that no one makes because there's not enough of a market for them, which means the relatively small number of people who do need them are hosed.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2019 23:24 |