2020 US Elections | Next: GA Senate Runoffs on 5 January

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
4,822
Location
Florida
Oil is an important industry, especially in some of the swing states. Republican pundits are thrilled that Biden said it.
I was being facetious & pulling your leg a bit.

It wasn’t a brilliant quote, but it won’t make much difference overall.
 

matherto

ask me about our 50% off sale!
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
15,110
Location
St. Helens
He said he would transition the oil industry, which, judging by all the Exxon commercials I see of them promoting themselves as an “energy” company and touting their research in renewable energy, is something that the oil industry is already doing anyway.
We know he said that and we know he’s right but that’ll get twisted and turned into ‘they’re coming for your oil’ just like gun control is ‘they’re coming for your guns.

Fear is how you sell to people on issues like this. Republicans do well with fear to the masses.
 

Edgar Allan Pillow

Ero-Sennin
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
37,584
Location
┴┬┴┤( ͡° ͜ʖ├┬┴┬
We know he said that and we know he’s right but that’ll get twisted and turned into ‘they’re coming for your oil’ just like gun control is ‘they’re coming for your guns.

Fear is how you sell to people on issues like this. Republicans do well with fear to the masses.
Oil won't vote Democrat anyways, so no big loss. It may help gain some young votes who are into environment protection.
 

SinNombre

Full Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
876
Collective bargaining? The exact way the rest of the world has fixed it!?
Let's do that.

WHO:
“Every time one country demands a lower price, it leads to a lower reference price used by other countries. Such price controls, combined with the threat of market lockout or intellectual property infringement, prevent drug companies from charging market rates for their products, while delaying the availability of new cures to patients living in countries implementing these policies.”

This is seen in the data: Of 74 cancer drugs launched between 2011 and 2018, 70 (95%) are available in the United States. Compare that with 74% in the U.K., 49% in Japan, and 8% in Greece.

Scientists at non profit RAND:
According to one estimate, if the U.S. were to adopt European-level price controls, the reductions in U.S. prices today would result in 0.7 years lower longevity for future cohorts of Americans and Europeans due to fewer new drugs. This would cost Americans more than $50,000 per person when the value of foregone health is valued.


As someone living in the US, purely for selfish reasons, I would be all for a collective bargaining/cap. One just has to be cognizant that the academic research indicates this will be at the cost of longer term longevity declines.

This was one of the Trump admin's better ideas but as with all of their good ideas, it never went anywhere.
Health and Human Services has invited comment on a potential rule that would tether what Medicare Part B pays for certain drugs to a price index of what other developed countries pay. The goal is to bring prices down to 126% of what other countries pay, versus 180% today.
 

Asger

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
2,926
So when can we expect Trump being murdered by Mexicans? Maybe then America can be “Great again”

Btw when was America great?
 

Edgar Allan Pillow

Ero-Sennin
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
37,584
Location
┴┬┴┤( ͡° ͜ʖ├┬┴┬
For feck sake, Biden's an ex VP 2x and presidential nominee, an 80+ years old politician veteran and he looks abit more mature?

That's scarry reality
Not really. I'd say it's an improvement to current. You really can't debate with Trump without dropping your standards a bit, so this is forgivable.
 

Redplane

Full Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
7,246
Location
The Royal Kingdom of Trumpistan
We know he said that and we know he’s right but that’ll get twisted and turned into ‘they’re coming for your oil’ just like gun control is ‘they’re coming for your guns.

Fear is how you sell to people on issues like this. Republicans do well with fear to the masses.
I think that "coming for your oil" thing in particular is one of those rare few things where I think you're likely to see cracks in conservative couples. I can think of several in my life (incl family) where the wife is in tandem with her husband generally but that when the topic of electric or self driving cars come up they dont give a hoot about giving up on gasoline and even think it sounds great.
 

oneniltothearsenal

Caf's Milton Friedman (and Arse aficionado)
Scout
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
8,897
Supports
Brazil, Arsenal,LA Aztecs
Scientists at non profit RAND:
According to one estimate, if the U.S. were to adopt European-level price controls, the reductions in U.S. prices today would result in 0.7 years lower longevity for future cohorts of Americans and Europeans due to fewer new drugs. This would cost Americans more than $50,000 per person when the value of foregone health is valued.
That's a hogwash statement. You can't call a few biased economists "scientists". Second, it's one estimate and a faulty one at that because it's impossible for them to make those assertions without unprovable assumptions that they subjectively tweak for the model.
 

SinNombre

Full Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
876
Sorry? I would think you are the one interpreting a general point about the ability of OECD countries ('first world' in @Red Stone's post) to provide universal healthcare for a point about oil countries giving it large. You can't just decide that a discussion can now only be about one aspect of an ambiguous post, that's ridiculous.

Also, speaking of misrepresentation, you didn't wrote an OP, you responded to @Red Stone who responded to @nimic, who started the conversation. And I would appreciate less ad hominem and more substance, if you could.
More pointless posting and trying to argue what I wrote very clearly meant something different just because you jumped to your talking points.

I am going to ignore you on this conversation.
 

Sir Matt

Blue Devil
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
16,699
Location
LUHG

:lol: Not that it matters since Fox and the NY Post have already spewed lies about Hunter Biden, but the WSJ news side just destroyed the Trump campaign's claims re: Biden and China. Rupert is going to be pissed. No doubt editors held the story up until after the debate was done.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
4,822
Location
Florida

:lol: Not that it matters since Fox and the NY Post have already spewed lies about Hunter Biden, but the WSJ news side just destroyed the Trump campaign's claims re: Biden and China. Rupert is going to be pissed. No doubt editors held the story up until after the debate was done.
The editorial side of that paper must be pissed right now.
 

SinNombre

Full Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
876
That's a hogwash statement. You can't call a few biased economists "scientists". Second, it's one estimate and a faulty one at that because it's impossible for them to make those assertions without unprovable assumptions that they subjectively tweak for the model.
Quite impressive that you were able to declare the research to be faulty after a couple of minutes.

That said, I am open to alternate research papers on this topic with completely provable assumptions and a mathematically proven model.
 

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
4,204
Let's do that.

WHO:
“Every time one country demands a lower price, it leads to a lower reference price used by other countries. Such price controls, combined with the threat of market lockout or intellectual property infringement, prevent drug companies from charging market rates for their products, while delaying the availability of new cures to patients living in countries implementing these policies.”
That's simultaneously both wrong (capitalism wouldn't work if it were true) and unconnected to collective bargaining.
This is seen in the data: Of 74 cancer drugs launched between 2011 and 2018, 70 (95%) are available in the United States. Compare that with 74% in the U.K., 49% in Japan, and 8% in Greece.
That says nothing about the effectiveness of those cancer drugs, or their safety.

Scientists at non profit RAND:
According to one estimate, if the U.S. were to adopt European-level price controls, the reductions in U.S. prices today would result in 0.7 years lower longevity for future cohorts of Americans and Europeans due to fewer new drugs. This would cost Americans more than $50,000 per person when the value of foregone health is valued.
I'm not reading that entire piece of paid 'research' the abstract really suffices:
When US consumers pay higher prices for drugs, this stimulates innovation that benefits consumers all over the world. Conversely, when large European markets restrict prices and profits, foreign consumers bear some of the long-run cost in the form of less innovation. The result is a free-riding problem at a global level.
And it's wrong. Even just on an economical terms. It's not a free-riding problem they are describing, it's the lack of a free riding opportunity they are bemoaning.
As someone living in the US, purely for selfish reasons, I would be all for a collective bargaining/cap. One just has to be cognizant that the academic research indicates this will be at the cost of longer term longevity declines.
If there was any truth to this Americans would be living longer. Living longer right now. Would have lived longer In the past 20 years. Not in some distant future.
 

langster

DJ Stink mouth, so soppy few pints very wow!
Scout
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
20,124
Location
My brain can't get pregnant!
BP announced only a few days ago that they planned to reduce oil AND gas production by 40% in the next decade. Biden's comments won't make any difference at all. Anyway, Trump also said he wanted to move away from oil and gas production too. Surely it's worse for a Republican President to say it than a Democratic challenger?
 

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær

Lutefisk is it!
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
81,975
Location
Eric Bailly's Red Army
Supports
Moanchester United
In some cases yeah but he literally forgets where he is mid-sentance and takes a few seconds to figure out what he's trying to do, I have a stutter to an extent but I don't get lost mid-sentance, he mumbles the words because he literally has no idea what to say.

I.e forgetting Kim Jong Un who ended up as "Thug"
Have you ever been on live TV?
 

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
6,577
It's interesting reading this thread, and then looking at my twitter feed. For reference, my twitter feed is full of mostly people like myself, young (mid-late 20s) left leaning type people, none of us living in the US, but still having a good grasp of what's been going on there over the past four years. Most of the people on my feed seem to think that Biden came away from this debate looking much weaker than Trump did.
 

SinNombre

Full Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
876
That's simultaneously both wrong (capitalism wouldn't work if it were true) and unconnected to collective bargaining.

That says nothing about the effectiveness of those cancer drugs, or their safety.
FDA has very strict regulatory requirements.

Unless you are claiming Greece has the strictest approval requirements amongst those 4 countries by a margin of 10x compared to the US.

If there was any truth to this Americans would be living longer. Living longer right now. Would have lived longer In the past 20 years. Not in some distant future.
This is an illogical assertion. Americans don't live longer since they have a 42.4% adult obesity rate and 12% of the population is uninsured. Having access to fewer drugs will only make things worse.

This is the equivalent of saying that United should sell Rashford, since if he was any good right now, United would be winning the league.


There are two things the US should still be doing
1. ban direct to customer pharma advertising. Strictly bad and only the US and NZ still allow this. Pharma companies can "save" this money.
2. cap the price to 126% of the OECD indexed value and force capitalism to increase drug prices / reduce availability in other developed countries.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
16,308
Let's do that.

WHO:
“Every time one country demands a lower price, it leads to a lower reference price used by other countries. Such price controls, combined with the threat of market lockout or intellectual property infringement, prevent drug companies from charging market rates for their products, while delaying the availability of new cures to patients living in countries implementing these policies.”

This is seen in the data: Of 74 cancer drugs launched between 2011 and 2018, 70 (95%) are available in the United States. Compare that with 74% in the U.K., 49% in Japan, and 8% in Greece.

Scientists at non profit RAND:
According to one estimate, if the U.S. were to adopt European-level price controls, the reductions in U.S. prices today would result in 0.7 years lower longevity for future cohorts of Americans and Europeans due to fewer new drugs. This would cost Americans more than $50,000 per person when the value of foregone health is valued.


As someone living in the US, purely for selfish reasons, I would be all for a collective bargaining/cap. One just has to be cognizant that the academic research indicates this will be at the cost of longer term longevity declines.

This was one of the Trump admin's better ideas but as with all of their good ideas, it never went anywhere.
Health and Human Services has invited comment on a potential rule that would tether what Medicare Part B pays for certain drugs to a price index of what other developed countries pay. The goal is to bring prices down to 126% of what other countries pay, versus 180% today.
Economists confidently taught me what happens to employment when you raise the minimum wage and then Seattle raised it and it was empirically checked again and again and again, till the theory lies in tatters now.
So forgive me if I don't trust them when they say for the millionth time that good things are bad.

https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/RI_Profit-Over-Patients_brief_201902.pdf

Despite ample revenue and profits, however, R&D spending has been relatively stagnant. While industry revenue increased by 45 percent, or $241 billion from 2008 to 2014, industry spending on R&D increased just 8.5 percent in that same period, from $82 billion to $89 billion (GAO 2017). By some measures, R&D expenditures are actually falling, as more firms are outsourcing R&D to third parties. In that seven-year period, purchased R&D increased from $20.5 billion to $31.2 billion while in-house R&D fell from $61.7 to $58.2 billion (GAO 2017). Finally, the industry can only claim partial credit for recent medical breakthroughs. The federal funding provided by taxpayers contributes around 25 to 30 percent of all R&D spending per year, and a Bentley College study found that all 210 drugs approved between 2010 and 2016 were rooted, in whole or in part, on National Institute of Health (NIH)-funded research (Cleary et al. 2017).

Many pharmaceutical firms spend more on activities intended to increase profits and stock price than they do on the development of needed drugs. Of the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies, only one spent more on research and development than it did on sales and marketing in 2013. Johnson & Johnson, the world’s largest drug corporation, spent more than double on sales and marketing ($17.5 billion) as they did on R&D (8.2 billion), according to research firm GlobalData (Anderson 2014). Spending on stock buybacks outpacing spending on R&D was also an industry norm (Lazonick et al. 2017).

Meanwhile, the investments that drugmakers do make in research and development often do not meet the greatest health care needs of the many, instead investing in cures and remedies for diseases that affect those who can pay the most. Researchers describe this phenomenon with the 90-10 rule: 90 percent of R&D focuses on diseases affecting 10 percent of the world’s population (Stiglitz and Jayadev 2010). This misalignment often results in drugmakers not investing in R&D to treat diseases we need, such as the development of new antibiotics (Mazzucato et al. 2018), or for diseases that affect lower-income individuals, who are unable to pay for the fixed costs of drug production (Stiglitz and Jayadev 2010). This failure amplifies pre-existing inequalities in health outcomes, disproportionately harms people of color and women, and disincentivizes development for diseases that disproportionately impact people in the developing world.

Between 2006 and 2015, the 18 largest American pharmaceutical companies spent $516 billion on buybacks and dividends, more than the $465 billion spent on research and development. During that period, shareholder payouts represented roughly 100 percent of profits (Lazonick et al. 2017). These trends worsened after the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which President Trump signed into law in December of 2017. In response to the tax cuts, nine drug companies announced buyback programs totaling $50 billion by February of 2018, several of which also increased dividends payouts (Herman 2018). Prioritizing spending on buybacks directly detracts from expenditures related to patient health, like reducing drug prices or new investments in R&D.
 
Last edited:

Pscholes18

Full Member
Joined
Jul 21, 1999
Messages
6,365
Location
Fresno, CA
It's interesting reading this thread, and then looking at my twitter feed. For reference, my twitter feed is full of mostly people like myself, young (mid-late 20s) left leaning type people, none of us living in the US, but still having a good grasp of what's been going on there over the past four years. Most of the people on my feed seem to think that Biden came away from this debate looking much weaker than Trump did.
No one's mind was changed after tonight. Anyone who would vote for that man child has serious fecking issues.
 

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
6,577
No one's mind was changed after tonight. Anyone who would vote for that man child has serious fecking issues.
To be honest I would question if debates ever really change anyone's mind, since it's just a single snapshot of ongoing issues and discussions that, as a voter you should have been aware of beforehand. If someone relies on debates to decide who to vote for then I would think there are some serious issues there overall.

I was just pointing out the difference in how these things are viewed by different people.
 

SinNombre

Full Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
876
Good post berba with real research and solutions, instead of random assertions.

Many pharmaceutical firms spend more on activities intended to increase profits and stock price than they do on the development of needed drugs. Of the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies, only one spent more on research and development than it did on sales and marketing in 2013. Johnson & Johnson, the world’s largest drug corporation, spent more than double on sales and marketing ($17.5 billion) as they did on R&D (8.2 billion), according to research firm GlobalData (Anderson 2014).
Agree with this 100% (see post above yours). Banning DTC advertising is a big part of the solution for the US.

Researchers describe this phenomenon with the 90-10 rule: 90 percent of R&D focuses on diseases affecting 10 percent of the world’s population (Stiglitz and Jayadev 2010). This misalignment often results in drugmakers not investing in R&D to treat diseases we need, such as the development of new antibiotics (Mazzucato et al. 2018), or for diseases that affect lower-income individuals, who are unable to pay for the fixed costs of drug production (Stiglitz and Jayadev 2010).
How do you change the incentives?

This is also true for drug research in other "proper" "first world" countries like Switzerland and Germany so not just an isolated American problem.

Very topical as well as we saw with Covid and how little R&D money is spent on vaccines. And how we got a bit lucky that some work was done on SARS-1 and MERS vaccines.

Globally, it is not a great state of affairs when the Gates foundation is the biggest spender globally on vaccine research (pre-Covid).

Prioritizing spending on buybacks directly detracts from expenditures related to patient health, like reducing drug prices or new investments in R&D.
I am all for banning stock buybacks, as was the case until the Reagan administration.

Dividends are a different kettle. Pharma companies globally have a high dividend yield, it is a large part of why retail investors (especially older people) and pension funds buy them in their investment portfolios.
 

Wittmann45

Full Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
6,549
Location
'Keep the flag flying Jimmy'
No one's mind was changed after tonight. Anyone who would vote for that man child has serious fecking issues.
I obviously don't know if the polls are right, but if they are close to being accurate, Trump needed an undeniable home run tonight with lots of good sound bits that will get plenty of air time over the next few days or he needed Biden to have an absolute horror show where he said something incredibly stupid

Neither of those things happened and the fact that Biden did not shoot himself in the foot bodes well for Biden and doesn't help Trump in the least bit.

This debate probably turned more people off from voting then it did change anyone's mind
 

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
4,204
FDA has very strict regulatory requirements.

Unless you are claiming Greece has the strictest approval requirements amongst those 4 countries by a margin of 10x compared to the US.
Greece really shouldn't be the yard stick for the US to measure itself against (although it's decent in life expectancy!). My point was that the simple amount of medicines for a certain illness means very little by itself. The US undoubtedly contributed a lot (along with other countries, including the UK, which per Capita has arguably done more), but that's not solely down to the pharmaceuticals ability to wring every last $ out of the sick. It's also due to great universities, historically having a society that believed in scientists, and being the preferred destination for intelligent people from around the world for the best part of 100 years, and probably a dozen more reasons.
This is an illogical assertion. Americans don't live longer since they have a 42.4% adult obesity rate and 12% of the population is uninsured. Having access to fewer drugs will only make things worse.
But they'll have access to more drugs when they can actually afford them? They won't have to decide between different drugs for price reasons, or decide between making the car payment or buying that prescription.


This is the equivalent of saying that United should sell Rashford, since if he was any good right now, United would be winning the league.
It's not a perfect barometer but that comparison is a bit of a stretch;)
There are two things the US should still be doing
1. ban direct to customer pharma advertising. Strictly bad and only the US and NZ still allow this. Pharma companies can "save" this money.
2. cap the price to 126% of the OECD indexed value and force capitalism to increase drug prices / reduce availability in other developed countries.
That won't happen because nearly all these companies are still making a healthy profit in all the markets they are active in. Not as much per pill as in the US, but that doesn't even matter because they may well still be making more because they're selling many more pills.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
16,308
Good post berba with real research and solutions, instead of random assertions.



Agree with this 100% (see post above yours). Banning DTC advertising is a big part of the solution for the US.



How do you change the incentives?

This is also true for drug research in other "proper" "first world" countries like Switzerland and Germany so not just an isolated American problem.

Very topical as well as we saw with Covid and how little R&D money is spent on vaccines. And how we got a bit lucky that some work was done on SARS-1 and MERS vaccines.

Globally, it is not a great state of affairs when the Gates foundation is the biggest spender globally on vaccine research (pre-Covid).



I am all for banning stock buybacks, as was the case until the Reagan administration.

Dividends are a different kettle. Pharma companies globally have a high dividend yield, it is a large part of why retail investors (especially older people) and pension funds buy them in their investment portfolios.
The quoted lines are just from the paper I linked :lol:


I do not see how incentives are changed within the current system. Maybe it can involve state-coporate collaboration like with covid.
 

entropy

Full Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Messages
9,657
Location
Where's my arc, Paulie?
If you're disruptive, you will get banned. I've restored you here, so make the most of it by improving the quality and tone of your posts. If you have any issues with other posters then please use the report function.
disruptive how exactly? your pm doesn't say anything about my post regarding Biden or me calling him a rapist.
 

SinNombre

Full Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
876
@Abizzz
I would like the US to have free college education and universal healthcare, those are basic human rights. I feel the path to getting there is way more complicated than smaller countries given the size and systematic complexities in the country.

I like the idea of banning stock buybacks from the roosevelt institute paper, or at least in necessary industries or those which benefit from free academic research. This would also have prevented airlines from buying back their stock pre-Covid and now needing to go to the federal government with their begging bowls now.

The quoted lines are just from the paper I linked :lol:


I do not see how incentives are changed within the current system. Maybe it can involve state-coporate collaboration like with covid.
I know :lol:

What's your research area btw?
 

Halftrack

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
2,070
Location
Chair
It's interesting reading this thread, and then looking at my twitter feed. For reference, my twitter feed is full of mostly people like myself, young (mid-late 20s) left leaning type people, none of us living in the US, but still having a good grasp of what's been going on there over the past four years. Most of the people on my feed seem to think that Biden came away from this debate looking much weaker than Trump did.
Conversely, my timeline is full of leftists in their 20s and 30s, and seems pretty evenly split. Most agree that Biden looks low energy, but Trump isn't really saying anything of substance, and when his admin's failings are pointed out he blames the previous one. He has nothing, and he's trying to distract from that fact.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
16,308
@Abizzz
I would like the US to have free college education and universal healthcare, those are basic human rights. I feel the path to getting there is way more complicated than smaller countries given the size and systematic complexities in the country.

I like the idea of banning stock buybacks from the roosevelt institute paper, or at least in necessary industries or those which benefit from free academic research. This would also have prevented airlines from buying back their stock pre-Covid and now needing to go to the federal government with their begging bowls now.



I know :lol:

What's your research area btw?
i'm a molecular biologist.
 

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
6,577
Conversely, my timeline is full of leftists in their 20s and 30s, and seems pretty evenly split. Most agree that Biden looks low energy, but Trump isn't really saying anything of substance, and when his admin's failings are pointed out he blames the previous one. He has nothing, and he's trying to distract from that fact.
As I said in the other reply to my post, I was just pointing out how differently the same thing is viewed by different people, even when the people may have the same political leanings and preferences. I really do hope everyone is right and Trump ends up losing.
 

shamans

Hoser
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
14,093
Location
Just want to see Scholes hit a volley.
@Abizzz
I would like the US to have free college education and universal healthcare, those are basic human rights. I feel the path to getting there is way more complicated than smaller countries given the size and systematic complexities in the country.

I like the idea of banning stock buybacks from the roosevelt institute paper, or at least in necessary industries or those which benefit from free academic research. This would also have prevented airlines from buying back their stock pre-Covid and now needing to go to the federal government with their begging bowls now.



I know :lol:

What's your research area btw?
Your posts are good but you're in the wrong place. I said some similar things few months ago and was called a trump supporter for it. I commented specifically on free college and how it's not an easy problem (but one we should solve )

Anyway I can't believe anyone thinks biden looked weak today. He dominated trump for me who seemed very triggered