Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
razor

What I Heard Pres. Obama Say

Recommended Posts

:withstupid:

 

That is the best post I've seen EVER. If I could quote that entire long winded explanation, I would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people can't rationally navigate the president's politics by putting their emotions beside, then they're just as ignorant as those they call ignorant. My dad did it with Bush and it pissed me off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In before melodramatic posts with little to no knowledge or facts to back them up that have to do with the complete downfall of this country.

 

 

Oh wait, I missed my cue. I should have posted before this thread was even an inkling in someone's mind.

 

Can we please abolish all political threads on OCC for a few weeks? I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of hearing uneducated bull crap about who said this or that and what this guy wants to do with everyone's money. It's a tired old subject and nobody cares about anyone else's opinion. It just sparks useless debates that cause everyone to be angry at everyone else.

Edited by Thewacokid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. I rather enjoy them :P

You're evil, that's what you are. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In before melodramatic posts with little to no knowledge or facts to back them up that have to do with the complete downfall of this country.

 

 

Oh wait, I missed my cue. I should have posted before this thread was even an inkling in someone's mind.

 

Can we please abolish all political threads on OCC for a few weeks? I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of hearing uneducated bull crap about who said this or that and what this guy wants to do with everyone's money. It's a tired old subject and nobody cares about anyone else's opinion. It just sparks useless debates that cause everyone to be angry at everyone else.

 

Very true. While I wouldn't ban them, I do enjoy reading about the perverse logic and uninformed views that seem to get presented on a daily basis. When these threads go to the dogs, there is always at least one common denominator that can be singled out as the reason. Every time. Fact.

 

I prefer to post in threads that are based on facts, figures and analysis, rather than opinions and feelings of what could have been if you had a different president and what could have been if this and if that. What an absurd waste of calories and keystrokes.

 

I've stopped being angry at these sort of threads, because what other people think is wrong if I don't agree with it :lol:. Simple as that. Ever argued with a dog? A cat? A tree? A brick wall? No? You may as well argue with some half-wit on an Internet forum then, who can quote a few sentences that they've just picked up in today's classes or found in Wikipedia and convince themselves that they actually have a clue what they are writing about. Plenty fall for it, but ask yourself this: would the same person be able to whittle off the same crap without an Internet browser and a text book?

 

Probably not.

 

In the meantime, sit back and relax at the warm fuzzy feeling that you are a better person for not getting dragged in to it :lol: I know I'm going to stop, unless it's something with substance or relevance to myself. Much like my next quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a reason we are the #1 pharmaceutical producer in the world with the safest, strictest drug administration in the world. And anyone who believes putting ANYTHING into the hands of government to make it cheaper has been smoking too much crack. It might make some individuals pay less, making them "think" it's cheaper, when in reality it actually costs more per capita, it's just placing the majority of the costs on to the backs of other people.

 

 

Could you define what you mean as #1 pharma producer in the world? Not being a d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer to post in threads that are based on facts, figures and analysis, rather than opinions and feelings of what could have been if you had a different president and what could have been if this and if that. What an absurd waste of calories and keystrokes.

Well that discounts about half of the threads on any internet forum (OCC included). :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree with your assessment regarding pharmaceuticals. Having a drug take a long time to get to market is only a good thing, as we've seen through examples such as Vioxx. It allows for extensive testing, the most important one being long term testing. More testing for drugs that can seriously alter human body chemistry is only a good thing. Loosening regulations so that companies can push out drugs more quickly is only going to backfire on us.

 

Then there's the FDA issue. The FDA needs MORE funding, not less. It can barely handle its duties right now, forget about independent clinical trials. The FDA is so underfunded and understaffed that it's forced to resort to accepting drug trial information pioneered by pharmaceutical companies. How can you not see a problem with this blatant conflict of interest? The FDA is about consumer safety, and when it comes to medication, I'd prefer to have the highest level of safety as possible. Safety should always trump convenience when it comes to things human beings rely upon for their daily survival.

 

Finally, pharmaceutical companies have plenty of time to reap the benefits of the drugs they produce before generic companies are allowed to produce their own versions. Also, it's not like having a generic version automatically kills sales of the pharmaceutical product, there are many people out there who prefer name brand products regardless of how identical the generic version may be, and as such will insist on getting that product. Sure, the company isn't making as much money were it the sole provider of that drug, but like you said, it stimulates progress. Having generics around is only helping us by forcing the pharmaceutical companies to release better drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're evil, that's what you are. :lol:

 

Yes, yes I am :P

 

I do enjoy reading about the perverse logic and uninformed views that seem to get presented on a daily basis.

 

I like to think of myself as very informed on current events and political topics. However, I know that the vast majority of people out there are ignorant about such matters. As such, these sort of threads help me better understand how regular people view such issues. There is always the possibility of a gold nugget of insight, but they're mostly useful in helping me formulate my own arguments as I respond to them. Plus, it's also incredibly amusing to flame the trolls :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very true. While I wouldn't ban them, I do enjoy reading about the perverse logic and uninformed views that seem to get presented on a daily basis. When these threads go to the dogs, there is always at least one common denominator that can be singled out as the reason. Every time. Fact.

 

I prefer to post in threads that are based on facts, figures and analysis, rather than opinions and feelings of what could have been if you had a different president and what could have been if this and if that. What an absurd waste of calories and keystrokes.

 

I've stopped being angry at these sort of threads, because what other people think is wrong if I don't agree with it :lol: . Simple as that. Ever argued with a dog? A cat? A tree? A brick wall? No? You may as well argue with some half-wit on an Internet forum then, who can quote a few sentences that they've just picked up in today's classes or found in Wikipedia and convince themselves that they actually have a clue what they are writing about. Plenty fall for it, but ask yourself this: would the same person be able to whittle off the same crap without an Internet browser and a text book?

 

Probably not.

 

In the meantime, sit back and relax at the warm fuzzy feeling that you are a better person for not getting dragged in to it :lol: I know I'm going to stop, unless it's something with substance or relevance to myself. Much like my next quote.

 

<3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree with your assessment regarding pharmaceuticals. Having a drug take a long time to get to market is only a good thing, as we've seen through examples such as Vioxx. It allows for extensive testing, the most important one being long term testing. More testing for drugs that can seriously alter human body chemistry is only a good thing. Loosening regulations so that companies can push out drugs more quickly is only going to backfire on us.

 

Then there's the FDA issue. The FDA needs MORE funding, not less. It can barely handle its duties right now, forget about independent clinical trials. The FDA is so underfunded and understaffed that it's forced to resort to accepting drug trial information pioneered by pharmaceutical companies. How can you not see a problem with this blatant conflict of interest? The FDA is about consumer safety, and when it comes to medication, I'd prefer to have the highest level of safety as possible. Safety should always trump convenience when it comes to things human beings rely upon for their daily survival.

 

Finally, pharmaceutical companies have plenty of time to reap the benefits of the drugs they produce before generic companies are allowed to produce their own versions. Also, it's not like having a generic version automatically kills sales of the pharmaceutical product, there are many people out there who prefer name brand products regardless of how identical the generic version may be, and as such will insist on getting that product. Sure, the company isn't making as much money were it the sole provider of that drug, but like you said, it stimulates progress. Having generics around is only helping us by forcing the pharmaceutical companies to release better drugs.

 

I'm not suggesting that the FDA should relax their stance on approving drugs. Not one bit! Clinical trials speak for themselves for the most part, so please don't feel that I am bitter about the FDA. They do the best they can. Safety is key and the pharma's know this, else they face hundreds of lawsuits going forward (they all do anyway, but better to reduce the number that could arise). Less than 1% of compounds developed ever makes it past a Phase II study. The bulk of these rarely get past the animal testing and Phase I.

 

I'm suggesting that the FDA stands up and beats out the crap that flies around and gives itself more credibility and power by being able to support or deny claims that a given drug is a killer/wonder. One bad comment from a medical journal or equivalent is enough to ruin a drug. The FDA needs the power to say with conviction, "this person is wrong/right based on this evidence". Sadly, this doesn't happen enough.

 

Pharma's do not get the full time to reap the benefits. Once the compound is createed and patented, the 20 years starts there and then before expiry (assuming it is for 20 years for example). 10 years to market, and profits are not usually seen for around 6 years or so, until development and clinical research costs (huge!) are recovered. Generics can dent projections of course, and this can certainly be an issue with the development of new products, if for example, the pharma decides it needs to plough huge amounts of cash into a developing product. More cash ploughed in, with less cash from sales, can be difficult to say the least.

 

Generic companies regularly release reverse engineered products before they have permission to, when they feel that they can challenge the patent in some way or another. In fact, the bulk of generic companies as I understand it, are made up of legal professionals, compared to large pharma co's that have massive numbers of scientists. This happens all the time, as I regularly deal with the contingent liabilities that are set up to offset a challenge that we fear we could lose in a particular country, based on various laws. Pharma's have big legal teams sure, but generics can specialise their workforce looking for loopholes in patents (and there are many), rather than be diverse. It's then up to the courts to decide, unless settlements happen outside.

 

It happens a lot more than companies will let on, but investors/analysts are always in the know. Quite often, if the pharma co is challenged by the generic maker of a product, the larger company will often settle out of court and set up a licensing deal for the generic co and take a royalty, rather than lose a profit margin altogether. Sometimes the larger pharma will create it's own generic drug to compete too. I've seen this happen on many occasions, often with accusations of "evergreening" a product :)

 

I'm not pointing the generic finger at the USA at all. However, when you look at the lackadaisical attitude that is found in the likes of Brazil and India when generic companies go against the law and sell drugs without permission or licenses, the law stands back and turns a blind eye - usually because the generics are dirt cheap and are helping their citizens. This is fair enough in my eyes as a human, but as a businessman, that doesn't bode well for trading. After all, I'd want my citizens to be cured of illnesses if I could do it for as little as possible, but there are ways and means of doing this. But not everyone can win, and not everyone will.

 

In this respect, the pharma's look quite greedy, but there are massive issues of parallel trade too, meaning that drugs supplied cheaply to a poor country are often sold on to a wealthier country that gets them at a discount. It's just not right, but it happens.

 

I actually asked the CEO of my company face to face at a graduate meeting last November if he thought generics could be seen as a good thing, in that they provoke us (big pharma) into being innovative and bringing out products faster. (more or less what I think you were saying Kash - so we are on the same wave length I think ;))

Everyone else laughed at me thinking I was an idiot, but the CEO looked at me sternly and avoided answering it, because a CEO admitting that a generic will force us to be better, does not go down too well with investors. Like a true professional, he answered the question by not answering it and I smiled wrily and he knew exactly why. I think it's safe to assume what he really thought.

 

Generics can be seen as a good thing if they play ball. But too often, they do not. The monetary and manpower costs involved in responding to the challenges are often so huge, that settlements out of court are much cheaper in many cases and the generics know this all too well and time challenges deliberately.

 

The next ten years will be very different though. Companies like mine are moving from small molecule compounds to biologic compounds that have no side effects whatsoever, and are near to impossible to reverse engineer. It's the way forward - it really is, clich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...