February Current Events: a momentary lapse of treason

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > February Current Events: a momentary lapse of treason

«‹›108 »

Chichevache: Feb 17, 2010; One of the funniest posters in GIP.

Just not intentionally.

Soulex posted:

Honestly, this is why I photograph them at college games.

We all just gonna ignore this?

# ? Feb 18, 2019 19:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 00:58

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

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

Casimir Radon: Aug 2, 2008

That's a long winded way of saying "I'm a pervert"

# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:00

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

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.

I also like how when refs struck at first there was a lot of fan angst about how they got paid well, and then there were so many blown calls by the semi-pros they brought in as scabs, and oh boy, the tune changed quick about the worth of a pro-level ref.

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

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

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

this isn't even considering the real victims, the shareholders

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?

A smart person: But think about how the billionaire who pulled that off would be out of a job.

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

Doc Hawkins: Jun 15, 2010; Dashing? But I'm not even moving!

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

Chichevache: Feb 17, 2010; One of the funniest posters in GIP.

Just not intentionally.

mlmp08 posted:

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.

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

facialimpediment: Feb 11, 2005; as the world turns

There is no thinking emoji big enough for this galaxy brain move.

https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1097578574943604743

# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:32

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

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.

https://www.statnews.com/2018/02/12/nih-funding-drug-development/

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.

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

Vasudus: May 30, 2003

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

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

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

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

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

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Jarmak's source:

quote:

The NIH chipped in billions in research funding
More than $100 billion in NIH funding went toward research that contributed, either directly or indirectly, to the 210 drugs approved between 2010 and 2016. That�s roughly 20 percent of NIH spending since 2000.

And of those 210 drugs, 84 were first-in-class drugs, meaning they treat disease through novel mechanisms or molecular targets. More than $64 billion in NIH funding was poured into research that ultimately contributed to the development of those drugs.

�First-in-class drugs are of particular importance, since they represent significant innovations arising from basic research to identify new drug targets,� Ledley said.

The study also measured NIH contributions by funding years, which is calculated by multiplying the number of projects times the number of years they�re funded.

Wrap it up, bow down to industry.

# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:47

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

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.

That's wicked out of date. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50

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

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

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

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

CommieGIR posted:

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.

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

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Jarmak posted:

In what hosed up math world does less than half "far outstrip" more than half?

edit:

I meant funding as in dollars.

What are you trying to prove here Jarmak?

# ? Feb 18, 2019 20:59

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

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

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

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

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

That Works posted:

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.

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

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

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

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

CommieGIR posted:

"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?

Yes they do, so start telling us some 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.

"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

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

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

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

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

Proud Christian Mom: Dec 20, 2006; READING COMPREHENSION IS HARD

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

EBB: Feb 15, 2005

stop fighting and post sources or current events

# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:24

Comrade Blyatlov: Aug 4, 2007; should have picked four fingers

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

BigDave: Jul 14, 2009; Taste the High Country

EBB posted:

stop fighting and post sources or current events

Associated Press posted:

Trump the pundit handicaps 2020 Democratic contenders

By ZEKE MILLER

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — Kamala Harris had the best campaign roll-out. Amy Klobuchar's snowy debut showed grit. Elizabeth Warren's opening campaign video was a bit odd. Take it from an unlikely armchair pundit sizing up the 2020 Democratic field: President Donald Trump.

In tweets, public remarks and private conversations, Trump is making clear he is closely following the campaign to challenge him on the ballot. Facing no serious primary opponent of his own — at least so far — Trump is establishing himself as an in-their-face observer of the Democratic Party's nominating process — and no will be surprised to find that he's not being coy about weighing in.

Presidents traditionally ignore their potential opponents as long as possible to maintain their status as an incumbent floating above the contenders who are auditioning for a job they already inhabit.

Not Trump. He's eager to shape the debate, sow discord and help position himself for the general election. It's just one more norm to shatter, and a risky bet that his acerbic politics will work to his advantage once again.

This is the president whose 240-character blasts and penchant for insults made mincemeat of his 2016 Republican rivals. And Brad Parscale, Trump's campaign manager, said the president aims to use Twitter again this time to "define his potential opponent and impact the Democrat primary debate."

But often Trump's commentary reflects a peculiar sense of disengagement from the events of the day, as though he were a panelist on the cable news shows he records and watches, rather than their prime subject of discussion. He puts the armchair in armchair punditry. In an interview with The New York Times, Trump assessed Harris' campaign like a talk show regular, declaring her opening moves as having a "better crowd, better enthusiasm" than the other Democrats.

Crowd size was also at play last week when he held a rally in El Paso, Texas, that was countered a few blocks away by one led by former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, a potential 2020 candidate.

"So we have let's say 35,000 people tonight, and he has 200 people, 300 people," Trump observed, wildly exaggerating both numbers. "Not too good. In fact, what I would do is, I would say, that may be the end of his presidential bid."

When Sen. Klobuchar announced her candidacy on a frigid day in her home state of Minnesota, Trump anointed her with a nickname of sorts, and a benign one at that: "By the end of her speech she looked like a Snowman(woman)!"

Inside the West Wing and in conversations with outside allies, Trump has been workshopping other attempts to imprint his new adversaries with lasting labels, according to two people on whom the president has tested out the nicknames. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations with the president. He is also testing out lines of attack in public rallies, exploring vulnerabilities he could use against them should they advance to the general election.

No candidate has drawn more commentary and criticism from Trump than Sen. Warren, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat. Warren's past claims of Native American heritage prompted Trump to brand her "Pocahontas" and he has shown no qualms about deploying racially charged barbs harking back to some of the nation's darkest abuses.

Wading into a Twitter frenzy over an Instagram video Warren posted after she announced her exploratory committee while sharing a beer with her husband at their kitchen table, Trump jeered: "Best line in the Elizabeth Warren beer catastrophe is, to her husband, 'Thank you for being here. I'm glad you're here' It's their house, he's supposed to be there!"

"If Elizabeth Warren, often referred to by me as Pocahontas, did this commercial from Bighorn or Wounded Knee instead of her kitchen, with her husband dressed in full Indian garb, it would have been a smash!" Trump tweeted.

Even in the midst of the partial government shutdown, those tweets mocking Warren were widely joked about by White House staff weary from the protracted closure, according to one aide who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal conversations. The person said the president repeatedly ridiculed Warren's video in private conversations with aides and outside advisers.

Attention from Trump can drive up fundraising and elevate a candidate above a crowded field. But responding to attacks also distracts from a candidate's message.

Trump's rivals in the 2016 GOP primary learned that lesson as he bedeviled them with name-calling. Trump goaded Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida into making a thinly veiled insult of his manhood that quickly backfired, and weeks later he sucked Texas Sen. Ted Cruz into a brutal back-and-forth about an insult he had leveled at Cruz's wife.

"The president has an ability to use social media to define his opponents and influence the primary debate in a way no sitting president before him has," said former White House spokesman Raj Shah. "I expect him to take full advantage."

On Friday, hours after declaring a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump tweeted a video made by a supporter that featured the president's Democratic critics in Congress. Harris, Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker were shown sitting dourly during the State of the Union address, set to the R.E.M. ballad "Everybody Hurts."

The mocking video may have been taken down later in the day after a copyright complaint by the band, and re-cut using Trump-supporter Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the U.S.A." But the message to Trump's would-be 2020 rivals, and people girding for another wild presidential cycle, remained anchored to the lyrics of that R.E.M. song: "Hold on."

# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:42

facialimpediment: Feb 11, 2005; as the world turns

EBB posted:

stop fighting and post sources or current events

This is a really lovely way to go.

quote:

BALTIMORE �

Officials are investigating a man's death Sunday after a fire engulfed portable bathrooms outside M&T Bank Stadium.

Baltimore police said officers are conducting a death investigation in a parking lot of M&T Bank Stadium.

Officers and fire crews were called shortly before 3 p.m. to the 1100 block of Russell Street. A security guard spotted the fire in Lot H, which is near the Light Rail tracks.

Fire officials said three portable bathrooms were fully engulfed in flames when firefighters arrived. Officials said the fire was extinguished quickly.

Fire officials said a stadium security guard saw a man running from the portable bathrooms. The official said the man was on fire, he collapsed and was pronounced dead.

"From what we were told, the security guard saw him running from the porta potty; his body was physically on fire," Baltimore fire spokeswoman Blair Adams said. "We're unclear what he was doing inside of the porta pottys at this time, if he was walking by or whatever the case, but that will be part of the investigation."

There are cameras in the area, but it's not clear if they captured what happened.

The victim has not been identified.

A cause of the fire remains under investigation. Police said Monday investigators do not suspect foul play.

# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:43

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

yo if someone could whip up a cure for kidney stones that'd be pretty fuckin great

# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:45

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

Never light up in a portajohn.

# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:46

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

facialimpediment posted:

This is a really lovely way to go.

# ? Feb 18, 2019 21:46

EBB: Feb 15, 2005

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

psydude: Apr 1, 2008

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

Nick Soapdish: Apr 27, 2008

https://twitter.com/PeteButtigifs/status/1097330653434007552

Mike in the replies with the real talk

# ? Feb 18, 2019 22:16

sharknado slashfic: Jun 24, 2011

I'm the Buttigifs

# ? Feb 18, 2019 22:37

Vasudus: May 30, 2003

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

psydude: Apr 1, 2008

Vasudus posted:

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.

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 00:58

Crakkerjakk: Mar 14, 2016

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

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > February Current Events: a momentary lapse of treason

«‹›108 »