kapkomet

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 25, 2007 -> 10:21 PM) This is clearly not the example I'm discussing. In this case, there's some validity to the new research. But this isn't what happens today, at least not in all cases. Much of the reformulation of drugs is done not because it reduces side effects. In fact, in more than a few cases, drugs have been put onto the market that do a worse job with more side effects in all cases, but they are heavily marketed and often used because the newer drug has not yet gone generic. Somewhere in this thread I'm pretty sure I actually stuck a link with the evidence on that, but the search function is offline and I'm lazy. A non-trivial amount of research dollars, in the billions, is spent producing drugs that do the same job or a worse job than drugs that already exist, with more side effects than drugs that already exist, and those drugs are put onto market solely because the older, more effective drugs have already gone generic. There is some of that, and I agree that in that case, it's a bad thing. I have some other examples though that still makes me come down on the side of disagreeing with this. Hopefully I can articulate them later.

I agree... when we have the tornado sirens going off the three times a year they go off, we make sure we have the pets buttoned down as well right there with us.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 26, 2007 -> 01:30 PM) (mixing threads) When I read stuff like this, I think, that's corruption. That is why I find it hard to call our government corrupt. "Loyalty" = money in this country.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Oct 26, 2007 -> 11:31 AM) Happy Sox Day.

QUOTE(knightni @ Oct 26, 2007 -> 05:18 AM) Bill Maher's a pompous assbag. Not just an assbag, but a POMPOUS assbag.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2007 -> 11:13 PM) Why are people evacuating not taking their animals with them? Assholes. Where they are going probably won't let them in...

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 25, 2007 -> 08:42 PM) Look around the globe. Look at Mexico ten years ago. The UN. To call a government corrupt, IMHO, illegal transactions would be the norm, not the exception. People would not be convicted, let alone, charged for bribery, etc. The public would somewhat accept the officials as dishonest. You start walking the halls from congress to your local school board and pass out bribes. I'll bet a tiny percentage would accept them. It is not as clean as anyone would like, but it falls way short of what I would call corrupt. Again, it's corrupt, but corrupt in a different way (not like Mexico or other places where the mafia mentality seems to run wild). However, you do have to have influence and power (read: money) to obtain access to our representatives.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 25, 2007 -> 08:19 PM) Sorry, hit the add reply too soon. Do you mean competing drugs that do the same thing? I don't know, split it or something. Not really a bad problem to have. Or do you mean different targets? Cancer, AIDS, major diseases will always be bad. Anything to cure or immunize anything in that territory will always be useful to society, and virtually no one would argue that. If you have to choose between curing hepatitis and curing a type of cancer, well, just split the pot. Its not as if there will be tens of thousands of drugs in that territory in a given year - more like a small handful if any. Interesting thoughts. But I just get the feeling that it's not as easy as "split it". There's too much influence and power when it comes to this sort of stuff. If you have time go back and read my examples. This is a very slippery slope, IMO.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 25, 2007 -> 08:25 PM) No sir. There may be a few corrupt individuals in our government, the government as a whole, is not corrupt. When was the last time you paid a bribe to get a driver's license? Building permit? When was the last time a cop shook you down? Sorry Kap, I have to call a crap on that one. It's corrupt in different ways. People are paying bribes all the time. Tell me why it is you have to make a $1000 campaign contribution as a business (read: PAC) to get access to the government officials? Think about it. You pay to gain the proper access. It's not blatent corruption, but it is corrupt none the less.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 25, 2007 -> 08:12 PM) That, obviously, would be bad (bolded). Has nothing to do with the principle, that's just bad execution. Agreed. But again, what about competing drugs?

F those accountants.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 25, 2007 -> 08:10 PM) A drug that cures or immunizes against a disease which hurts or kills people is, unequivocally, good for society. No deadly disease is good. Whether a degree in Social Work is better for society than one in Education, on the other hand, is highly subjective. The two suggestions are apples and oranges. One can be easily delineated in a non-partisan fashion, the other cannot. Not necessarily. I think lobby money is going to dictate which delination is going to occur. BTW, what about competing drugs that do the same thing? Which gets preference?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 25, 2007 -> 07:55 PM) Some of these are easy, for example, not getting the disease versus treating the symptoms of the disease. Too bad you live in a country with such a stupid government. You may wish to move by me. We have actual thinking people that work in our government. The government's not stupid. It's corrupt. There's a difference. As far as your first statement, that part I can agree on. But, I still don't want them telling me what is more important. Example 1: A drug can contain the symptom with little side effects of X disease. B drug can actually eliminate X disease but have enourmous side effects. B drug gets "fast-tracked" or whatever you want to call it, people die, but the argument that "elimination" over "contaiment" now gets clouded. Example 2: A drug treats acne B drug treats blood pressure. A drug to a teenager is very important, but let's face it, A drug is cosmetic and yet can have a powerful impact on the positive manner of which a teenager conducts their lives. Now, A drug will get no dollars to do r&d on, but yet, it is VERY important to some people out there. Who is the government to tell me which drugs are more important? To further example 2: A drug has been out for years, and they reformulate with less side effects. OH BUT WAIT! According to Balta, it's just to avoid the generic bugaboo. That's not true all the time. But the government could see it that way. I think it's bulls***.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 25, 2007 -> 06:51 PM) And on a different topic...this one is one I really like. One of the things that really annoys me about our healthcare system is that the priorities of the drug companies are completely screwed up. The biggest profit for them can be had in making a drug which doesn't cure people, but which people take to treat a symptom. In other words, if you actually were to produce a vaccine that killed the AIDS virus, it would eat into your profits significantly compared with having people need to take drugs for the rest of their life to manage the disease, and therefore, the for-profit structure drives research dollars away from many of the drugs that would be most useful to society, and on top of that, companies spend billions of other research dollars trying to develop slightly newer versions of older drugs that do nothing except allow the company to get around the generic drug competition. And then beyond that, companies spend tens of billions more on advertising trying to get you to take a drug that is to some extent optional (like Viagra), because if you don't take the drug the profit margin goes down. This bill, if it's structured right, could go a long way towards fixing that problem. Bernie Sanders of VT has put forward a bill that would establish basically a government sponsored, $80 billion/year fund through which companies that develop drugs would be reimbursed if they produce a drug useful to society. So, if you wanted to get the biggest profit in the drug industry, you wouldn't waste tens of billions on advertising and on sneaking around the generic drug laws, you'd get the biggest profit by developing actual new drugs that cure things. A system like this has the potential to dramatically improve the way the drug industry behaves, by putting all of the profit in the drug industry exactly where it should be; developing new drugs that help people. Oh boy. Here we go. For those of you so in favor of this, but against the other post I just read about Mitt Romney, tell me exactly what the difference is. Who has the right to say which drug is better then another one? Who is going to the the police on which drug benefits society more? Just like you folks who were so quick to call Romney a douche bag for structuring a need program for college based on "society differentiators", this is pretty much the same dictate, but in a different area. I'll start with those questions. I will only say that I do realize there's a problem, but I certainly don't want my government telling me which drugs are more "beneficial" then another one.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 25, 2007 -> 03:23 PM) Not sure where yet. It's going to be a day trip on the 3rd. Will be carpooling with others so just waiting to hear from them. You're all over the place. Ron Paul, Obama, Kucinich. Make up your mind! So seriously, are you to the point that Obama is sort of your main pick?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 25, 2007 -> 12:06 AM) I just find it funny how the argument shifts. First it was, he doesn't give anything at all. When that's shown its not true, it's he doesn't give over a sustained period of time. When that's shown to be not true, it's he doesn't give enough and he made investments in funds that had holdings in subprime mortgages. I'm not excusing Edwards for making investments that are ethically questionable. I'm not saying there aren't some conflicts in his life regarding this issue. I am saying, that it appears to me that his concern is genuine, and he does seem actively involved on a day to day level with making a difference. It's this kind of inability to look beyond an imperfection in a public official's concern that has just made me not at all want to be involved with politics. And it's not just this particular issue that illustrates it, but its everything. I don't think you're saying it to me in particular, but I've been pretty consistant with my arguments concerning Edwards. For me personally, I don't care what he gives, it's the message and the way he handles himself regarding that message.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:06 PM) I know it isn't. I think that what Limbaugh did is pretty cool with the letter. I'm just sick of people talking out of their ass about candidates not walking the walk in their personal life without any data to back it up. Especially when its a google click away. Edwards donates a significant amount of his income to charity and works for poverty reduction, whether you want to believe it or not. What he does a bad job of is making vain decisions that look like he isn't walking that walk. On the issue of poverty reduction, Edwards is not the empty suit he appears to be. This comes from people I know that have worked with him, and it comes from actual data. Rex, the guy invests in things that takes money from poor people - programs specifically that sham poor people. The firm he has (had) made money from people's misfortunes. It adds up to me as an empty suit. But I guess no one is going to change their minds, so I'll just stop now.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 09:58 PM) John Edwards donated, a shade under 9% of his income between 1994 and 2003 to charity - 3.3 million dollars. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/03/...urns/index.html See, that's honorable, and what Limbaugh did is shennanigans. BTW Rex, that's not directed at you, but the consensus that's out there surrounding "charitable contributions".

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 09:19 PM) Durbin fired back saying that the immigration status of everyone involved had in fact been resolved, and accused Sen. Tancredo of not bothering to take the time to find that out. What does "resolved" mean?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 08:34 PM) So exactly how much is he supposed to give for you to be happy? 100% of his income? Is he supposed to become homeless in order for you to not think he's a hypocrite? It's not the amount of money, it's the message that he is sending.

Ahhh, yes. Little Dick Durbin. Can politics stoop any lower then using illegal aliens under our capital roof to sway for policy and votes? What a disgusting act.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 08:25 PM) Please tell us who you plan to vote for and the percentage of net income they donate to charity each year. That's not the point. John Edwards is the one with the "two americas" platform. I won't go on any further from there.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 07:53 PM) I've never watched a full episode of Friends. Heads has never gotten laid.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 06:13 PM) Linkage. Has anyone heard about this site or used it? I'm intrigued. . . It seems like it could be a really good easy way to get involved and help. . . In concept, I think this is a really cool thing. I only saw the cover page and didn't read a lot of the details - but how do we prove out the legitamacy? Is it spelled out on the website? This is a really neat cause if it is legit. Edit: went back and read it - I'll have to read the "field partners" a little closer but this sounds really neat.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 05:49 PM) There isn't a legitimate conservative in the country who isn't sickened by Bush's spending. This guy is pushing the NWO and that's all there is to it. I 10000000% agree.