[ldrews]

PassedOut, on 2017-December-28, 14:24, said:

So this is a situation that the market does not handle, thus libertarians have no solution to offer. Sounds like a backhanded endorsement of the government taking action: prioritizing and funding the needed research. Is that right?

Not really. You haven't addressed the problem, the incompatibility of goals. Do you want safety? Do you want affordability? Do you want rapid response?

For example, can you imagine how long it would take the government to react to a new bacteria/virus? First there would have to be hearings, then impact statements, then further studies, then legislation. We might get the research started in 5-10 years.

And then the government could contract for the production, much like the $10000 dollar toilets or the $500 hammers of the past.

If one wants new products in a short timeframe at affordable prices, then one must incentivize the private pharmaceutical companies to do the job, and remove the roadblocks. That means rethinking the balance between regulation, public safety, profitability, and pricing. Given the vested interests, not an easy task.

[Bad_Wolf]

rmnka447, on 2017-December-28, 13:17, said:

Veritas Project Vs. NPR Newshour - Both are biased toward a particular viewpoint. I do often listen to the local NPR station while driving and find that there is virtually only one viewpoint expressed in all their programming and that is a liberal/progressive one. So I wonder how can National Public Radio be truly national or public when it ignores the viewpoint of a sizable part of the national population? A better label would be National Progressive Radio, then it would be at least an honest label.

If anyone is interested in an outsider's perspective...

During local discussions of US politics I have often heard comments along the lines that the "center" of the Left-Right political axis in the US has moved far to the right of what is regarded as the center in many other locales. From our point of view, positions that are normally regarded here as middle of the road are described in The States as having a liberal/progressive bias, and viewpoints described as conservative on your side of the Pacific are lunatic fringe down here. The most right-of-center party represented in the NZ parliament(ACT) holds one seat only - and even this party is probably more accurately described as libertarian rather than conservative.

Anyway I am not really making a point, just reporting an observation that US political discourse sounds skewed from my vantage point, like a Doppler shifted fire-siren, and it sadly appears that sensible, reasonable discussion will long remain difficult while the (from my seat)far right has managed to get itself regarded as mainstream and the largest party in the legislature supports a psychopathic sex offender as head of state.

[hrothgar]

PassedOut, on 2017-December-28, 14:24, said:

So this is a situation that the market does not handle, thus libertarians have no solution to offer. Sounds like a backhanded endorsement of the government taking action: prioritizing and funding the needed research. Is that right?

FWIW, I've seen a number of interesting proposals based on having the government provide prizes for drug breakthroughs

For example, see

https://www.vox.com/...ers-drug-prices

[Winstonm]

Leave it to the Trump-favoring libertarian to misuse the regulation argument when, for the pharmaceuticals, the choice of what areas of profitability to pursue is not regulated. It is the lack of profit combined with no compulsion from government regulations that has led to the lack of new antibiotics.

[Winstonm]

Bad_Wolf, on 2017-December-28, 15:36, said:

If anyone is interested in an outsider's perspective...

During local discussions of US politics I have often heard comments along the lines that the "center" of the Left-Right political axis in the US has moved far to the right of what is regarded as the center in many other locales. From our point of view, positions that are normally regarded here as middle of the road are described in The States as having a liberal/progressive bias, and viewpoints described as conservative on your side of the Pacific are lunatic fringe down here. The most right-of-center party represented in the NZ parliament(ACT) holds one seat only - and even this party is probably more accurately described as libertarian rather than conservative.

Anyway I am not really making a point, just reporting an observation that US political discourse sounds skewed from my vantage point, like a Doppler shifted fire-siren, and it sadly appears that sensible, reasonable discussion will long remain difficult while the (from my seat)far right has managed to get itself regarded as mainstream and the largest party in the legislature supports a psychopathic sex offender as head of state.

I appreciate your point but it seems our right wing types here cannot see the trees....or the forest.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-December-28, 12:40, said:

Winnie, you like to decry "tribalism" in everybody else, but do you realize how much you engage in progressive tribalism yourself?

Like the recent comment --

Pot
Kettle

:-)

I guess if you want to call neo-enlightenment proponents a tribe, you can do that.

[PassedOut]

ldrews, on 2017-December-28, 15:09, said:

Not really. You haven't addressed the problem, the incompatibility of goals. Do you want safety? Do you want affordability? Do you want rapid response?

For example, can you imagine how long it would take the government to react to a new bacteria/virus? First there would have to be hearings, then impact statements, then further studies, then legislation. We might get the research started in 5-10 years.

And then the government could contract for the production, much like the $10000 dollar toilets or the $500 hammers of the past.

You haven't addressed the real problem, which is that the antibiotics aren't being developed at all. There is no reason to imagine that the government can't take action effectively and efficiently.

I'm in business myself and understand that the market can be very efficient in many situations -- but not in all. This problem with developing antibiotics -- and healthcare in general -- is one of the exceptions. Putting healthcare into the market is like putting a square peg into a round hole. The fact that the US tries to do that is why our healthcare is so much worse than that of other nations.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2017-December-28, 15:58, said:

Leave it to the Trump-favoring libertarian to misuse the regulation argument when, for the pharmaceuticals, the choice of what areas of profitability to pursue is not regulated. It is the lack of profit combined with no compulsion from government regulations that has led to the lack of new antibiotics.

Do you want to nationalize the pharmaceutical industry?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2017-December-28, 16:53, said:

Do you want to nationalize the pharmaceutical industry?

No.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-December-28, 15:58, said:

Leave it to the Trump-favoring libertarian to misuse the regulation argument when, for the pharmaceuticals, the choice of what areas of profitability to pursue is not regulated. It is the lack of profit combined with no compulsion from government regulations that has led to the lack of new antibiotics.

Do you have some evidence to back up your assertion?

[andrei]

hrothgar, on 2017-December-28, 10:06, said:

And, FWIW, if moderators like you actually did your damn jobs and nipped the problems in the bud I suspect that forums would be in much better shape.

Totally agree.

But you would be long gone to enjoy it.

[Winstonm]

This explains the antibiotic crisis.

Quote

Antibiotic development is no longer considered to be an economically wise investment for the pharmaceutical industry.14 Because antibiotics are used for relatively short periods and are often curative, antibiotics are not as profitable as drugs that treat chronic conditions, such as diabetes, psychiatric disorders, asthma, or gastroesophageal reflux.1–3,13,14 A cost–benefit analysis by the Office of Health Economics in London calculated that the net present value (NPV) of a new antibiotic is only about $50 million, compared to approximately $1 billion for a drug used to treat a neuromuscular disease.14 Because medicines for chronic conditions are more profitable, pharmaceutical companies prefer to invest in them.2

Another factor that causes antibiotic development to lack economic appeal is the relatively low cost of antibiotics. Newer antibiotics are generally priced at a maximum of $1,000 to $3,000 per course compared with cancer chemotherapy that costs tens of thousands of dollars.2,3,13,14 The availability, ease of use, and generally low cost of antibiotics has also led to a perception of low value among payers and the public.13

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-December-28, 20:44, said:

This explains the antibiotic crisis.

As you point out, lack of appeal to the pharmaceutical companies of antibiotics is a return-on-investment/pricing problem. But if effective antibiotics become scarce the price will rise until it becomes profitable for the pharmaceutical companies to produce antibiotics. Of course that price may not be palatable to a number of people. The only thing that would prevent this sequence of events is government regulation and artificial price capping. If the government steps in and restrains the pharmaceutical companies from charging what the market will bear then the pharmaceutical companies will divert their resources elsewhere and we will have no antibiotics at all.

And having the government produce antibiotics doesn't change the financial considerations at all. It just shifts the cost from the users to the taxpayers. And if history is any guide the costs will be significantly higher and the availability will become a political decision.

I just plagiarized this quote from MrAce:
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"

[Winstonm]

Teen thinking doesn't solve adult problems. Maybe the world stays good for libertarians - but they squeal the loudest when the world doesn't work as they want.

[awm]

A simple example with pharma:

Company A has developed a drug which can cure a deadly disease. It cost only $5 a dose to manufacture. Every year a million people come down with this disease. A quarter of them can afford to pay $1000 for the drug, a quarter can pay $100, and the rest can only pay $10. It’s easy to see that the best pricing model for company A (with no competition) is to charge $1000, making a profit of almost $250M per year until patent rights expire. 750k people will die every year of a disease with a $5 cure!

What about competition? It cost company A a billion dollars over ten years to develop this cure. Since it’s illegal to just copy company A’s cure, company B will have to make a similar investment. At the end of the ten year research period (during which 7.5M people die of the disease and company A has made almost $1.5B over their initial investment) we finally have competition! But now company A will immediately drop their price to $100. In the remaining 20 years before patent protection expires, company B cannot make more than $500M, much less than the initial reserch cost. So it makes no sense for B to get involved, especially since there are many other diseases B could have tried to cure instead (hoping to be first to market).

Okay maybe this is the governments fault for enforcing patent law! Without this, company C would jump in and copy the drug and sell for $10 a dose. Without the research investment they’d still make plenty of profits and no one would die! But in such a country, company A is a big loser. Why would they invest in the research to begin with? The reality is that no drug would have been developed and 1M people per year would die.

So here’s a government solution. The government sets the drug price at $260 per dose and buys a million doses per year. All sick peoples get the drug and survive. Company A makes $255M/year for the patent duration, more than the 248.75M they made in the first example. The government gets the money by charging the 250k richest sick people $950, the next richest 250k at $100 and all other sick people $10. This raises $267.5M which yields some extra money for administration costs (which may well create jobs for some people too). Compared to the status quo:

1. 750k lives are saved every year
2. The richest folks get a 5% discount on the drug.
3. Company A makes $150M extra profit over the patent lifetime.
4. Some extra jobs are produced in government medical care admin.

Basically everyone wins!

[cloa513]

awm, on 2017-December-29, 02:51, said:

A simple example with pharma:

Company A has developed a drug which can cure a deadly disease. It cost only $5 a dose to manufacture. Every year a million people come down with this disease. A quarter of them can afford to pay $1000 for the drug, a quarter can pay $100, and the rest can only pay $10. It’s easy to see that the best pricing model for company A (with no competition) is to charge $1000, making a profit of almost $250M per year until patent rights expire. 750k people will die every year of a disease with a $5 cure!

What about competition? It cost company A a billion dollars over ten years to develop this cure. Since it’s illegal to just copy company A’s cure, company B will have to make a similar investment. At the end of the ten year research period (during which 7.5M people die of the disease and company A has made almost $1.5B over their initial investment) we finally have competition! But now company A will immediately drop their price to $100. In the remaining 20 years before patent protection expires, company B cannot make more than $500M, much less than the initial reserch cost. So it makes no sense for B to get involved, especially since there are many other diseases B could have tried to cure instead (hoping to be first to market).

Okay maybe this is the governments fault for enforcing patent law! Without this, company C would jump in and copy the drug and sell for $10 a dose. Without the research investment they’d still make plenty of profits and no one would die! But in such a country, company A is a big loser. Why would they invest in the research to begin with? The reality is that no drug would have been developed and 1M people per year would die.

So here’s a government solution. The government sets the drug price at $260 per dose and buys a million doses per year. All sick peoples get the drug and survive. Company A makes $255M/year for the patent duration, more than the 248.75M they made in the first example. The government gets the money by charging the 250k richest sick people $950, the next richest 250k at $100 and all other sick people $10. This raises $267.5M which yields some extra money for administration costs (which may well create jobs for some people too). Compared to the status quo:

1. 750k lives are saved every year
2. The richest folks get a 5% discount on the drug.
3. Company A makes $150M extra profit over the patent lifetime.
4. Some extra jobs are produced in government medical care admin.

Basically everyone wins!

Governments don't enforce patent law- companies have to do it themselves. Patent law is the biggest scam ever- you have to publish and then defend the result of the information you put and then there foreign with dodgy patent laws like China. There is few problems with the plan- government has to choose which medicine actually works. The plan costs taxpayers - not everyone wins.

[barmar]

cherdano, on 2017-December-28, 11:27, said:

They only "seem to be about the issues" in the eyes of moderators who don't read the posts. ("Read" as in "digesting the content", not "checking for the presence of personal insults".) They don't seem to be about the issues in the eyes of anyone else participating in the discussion.

I admit that I don't always read every post in this thread fully -- there's just too much to keep up with (if I miss a day, I'll usually just mark it read). But if someone says "Trump has followed up on all his campaign promises", how can you say that's not "about the issues"? It may be a blatant lie, but it's still directly related to the subject of the thread. On the other hand, I don't see how calling one poster an idiot or another one hateful has anything to do with whether US democracy has been Trumped.

If you must respond to the troll, explaining all the ways in which Trump didn't follow up on his campaign promises is a proper way to show how he's wrong. Saying that he's wrong just because he's an idiot is the very definition of "ad hominem".

Quote

And I agree with hrothgar that ad hominem attacks can be appropriate. If someone consistently makes racist posts, then at some point it does help the discussion to label them "racist". Do you disagree?

I see your point. But repeatedly responding just call them racist does little to advance the conversation.

This on-topic posts in this thread are already so voluminous that it's hard to keep up with. That's a big part of the reason I'm trying to get people to stop the posts that are just name-calling, they add noise where we can't really afford it.

[barmar]

cloa513, on 2017-December-29, 04:08, said:

Governments don't enforce patent law- companies have to do it themselves. Patent law is the biggest scam ever- you have to publish and then defend the result of the information you put and then there foreign with dodgy patent laws like China. There is few problems with the plan- government has to choose which medicine actually works. The plan costs taxpayers - not everyone wins.

Patent law is enforced by the courts -- that's the government. But like any other civil action, the plaintiff has to sue and prove their case. That could be expensive and time-consuming, but so are most other lawsuits. I guess what you meant is that governments don't investigate and prosecute patent infringement on behalf of the plaintiff (in contrast, copyright infringement can be a criminal act) -- they only rule on them and impose/enforce the awards.

Patents are a tradeoff. You can try to keep your invention a secret, but then if someone reverse-engineers it or invents it independently, you can't do anything about their competition. Or you can publish it and gain a temporary monopoly. The patent is also an asset that can be used to make money separate from the revenue of the invention itself, since you can license it to others. It might not make sense to do this with the patent for your main bread-winner, since it could allow competitors to undercut you (e.g. in the above pharma example, someone else could sell the drug for $100, and then no one will buy your $1000 drugs). But if you idle patents you're not using, licensing them is a way to make back the costs of the R&D and gain ongoing revenue, and improve the state of the world -- win-win. Many big companies also engage in broad cross-licensing agreements -- they avoid the costs of defending patents and gain access to each others' inventions, another win-win.

Is patenting perfect? Of course not, but what is? There are plenty of ridiculous patents, but they're really outliers. And licensing has resulted in patent trolls, organizations that do nothing but acquire patents so that they can license them at exorbitant rate and then sue people who aren't willing to pony up.

Regarding regulation of pharmaceuticals, it's quite possible that the US goes too far. The FDA seems to be more rigid than most other countries' regulations, and we don't generally allow consumers the choice to import drugs from less restrictive countries. But a pure free market is what allowed snake oil salesmen in the 19th century -- do you really want caveat emptor to be the rule for something so important? And even ignoring out-and-out fraud like snake oil, how can a free market protect consumers from drugs with severe side effects? It's well known that businesses will sell products that they know are dangerous, if the costs of fines for injury are less than the profits they make from the rest (there's even insurance available for it). Eventually the market may realize that the product is no good, but in the mean time thousands of people may have been injured or killed. How does that fit in with your libertarian ideals?

[RedSpawn]

hrothgar, on 2017-December-28, 10:06, said:

Bullshit...

It has become fashionable to decry "ad hominem" attacks, but for better or worse its vitally important to understand the source of information and whether or not they are credible.

Think about the political sphere: Would you place the same degree of trust in a video that is made by the Veritas Project as you would one producer by the NPR Newshour?

Or alternatively, there's education were we label people as A students and F students. The A students go on to top schools and get to become Doctors and the like.
The F students pretty much don't.

Or, if you prefer, there's the whole field of machine learning that pretty much ALL based on trusting those parts of the algorithm that have good predictive value and down ranking those that don't.

Personal insults are nothing more than another form of labeling.

If I say that so-and-so is an idiot and a worthless, its nothing more than convenient short hand.

I am placing my reputation on the line and saying "You know, if you really want, you can invest all sorts of time and effort going through the history of this forum and inspecting so-and-so's posting history. Or you can save yourself some time and effort and trust me".

If I do a good job labelling, things will work out fine for me.
If I do a bad job, people will start pointing this out and questioning my judgement.
(FWIW, I think that I have a pretty good track record here)

And, FWIW, if moderators like you actually did your damn jobs and nipped the problems in the bud I suspect that forums would be in much better shape.

Hrothgar, I am not trying to be disrespectful, but do you think your response smacks a little of self-aggrandizement?

In one post, Diana said that she doesn't know exactly what she will get from me. On some posts I nail the issue, while on others I may promote a conspiracy theory or unorthodox idea or use a rhetorical fallacy (when that wasn't my intention).

That's how a forum should work. No one and I mean no one should rest on their intellectual laurels and assume he can use his reputation as a substitute for "making the case" in his argument. The merit of the argument should stand on its own and be subject to scrutiny regardless of source. Name calling and self-aggrandizements are other forms of rhetorical fallacies known as ad hominem and "appeal to authority" where the member has a "Trust me, I am an expert on these matters because my reputation matters. And you have my word on it."

In this forum, you don't get a hall pass from the hard work of making your case because of your reputation. Also, you can't use your reputation to change the lexicon. We all know what constitutes an "ad hominem" attack because the term has already been clearly defined. You should not use a rhetorical fallacy to demonstrate how idiotic someone else's idea is because the idiot may actually be smart enough to expose your fallacy. Further, you should not make an informal appeal of authority to suggest that labeling people an idiot because of their ideas is inherently different than an ad hominem attack and then refer to yourself as the authority. You put your pants on one leg at a time like everyone else in this forum.

You have used two rhetorical fallacies to try to prove how misguided other people's views are. That helps neither your reputation nor your argument. It undermines both.

Try harder!

Source:

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-December-28, 12:40, said:

Winnie, you like to decry "tribalism" in everybody else, but do you realize how much you engage in progressive tribalism yourself?

Like the recent comment --

Pot
Kettle

:-)

Btw, you seem not to know me too well so I thought I might help. Here is a list of the sources I routinely go to for news and information: Washington Post, New York Times, Vox, Huffington Post, Politico, Reuters, McClatchy, Bloomberg, Daily Beast, ISA Today, LA Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, public tv and radio.

You probably not that I do not read, watch, or listen to Breitbart, Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh.

In the early 1990s, I was a dedicated watcher of Fox and I listened to Rush. The key issue witch you seem unwilling to even want to know is: what caused me to move to change? I can assure you of one thing: those two entities have not changed.

But I know from personal experience that when you are ensnared by the Fox/Rush/Hannity-types right wing media bubble, what caused others to leave is not of importance to you, is it?