Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Our state has done so with tax incentives for long term jobs and initial investments.............and it has worked.
That particular may not provide the long term jobs as ours did though. Bang for the buck. 1.3 Billion in the area and those providing the building materials isn't anything to snicker about.
Do you have specifics? I thought the problem stemmed from patent laws. If a company creates a drug , they own it and effectively have a monopoly on it. It doesn't matter how many other companies exist.Create laws or rules that favor one over the other. Incentives to political donors.....others.........not so much.........guaranteeing the winner of competition is in their pocket.I don't understand. Can you explain?They have allowed Monopolies to exist via picking the winners and losers in the Market
Tie a chain to one company..........lower the bar for others.
Nope..............In the case of our state the manufacturers were going to invest in this country.....States were offering incentives for investing in Alabama versus Georgia..............as an example..............Our state has done so with tax incentives for long term jobs and initial investments.............and it has worked.
That particular may not provide the long term jobs as ours did though. Bang for the buck. 1.3 Billion in the area and those providing the building materials isn't anything to snicker about.
So you're in favor of Crony Capitalism?
Nope..............In the case of our state the manufacturers were going to invest in this country.....States were offering incentives for investing in Alabama versus Georgia..............as an example..............Our state has done so with tax incentives for long term jobs and initial investments.............and it has worked.
That particular may not provide the long term jobs as ours did though. Bang for the buck. 1.3 Billion in the area and those providing the building materials isn't anything to snicker about.
So you're in favor of Crony Capitalism?
Why............to get the foreign investment and jobs here instead of there. Competition wasn't a factor in this equation. It was trying to win over foreign investment in the state. In Alabama the investment came with a contracted GUARANTEE of a SET NUMBER OF JOBS.........and the incentives were for the growth period of the auto plants only.
Didn't pick or choose the winner here..............just competed for investment that was gonna happen anyway.
FDA Generic Drug Rejection, Approval Rates Tell a Conflicting StoryDo you have specifics? I thought the problem stemmed from patent laws. If a company creates a drug , they own it and effectively have a monopoly on it. It doesn't matter how many other companies exist.Create laws or rules that favor one over the other. Incentives to political donors.....others.........not so much.........guaranteeing the winner of competition is in their pocket.I don't understand. Can you explain?They have allowed Monopolies to exist via picking the winners and losers in the Market
Tie a chain to one company..........lower the bar for others.
This isn't health care related but its related to the fact that pino trump is a kleptocrat.
The trumpkins are thrilled about this too
The winners are the people getting the jobs.Nope..............In the case of our state the manufacturers were going to invest in this country.....States were offering incentives for investing in Alabama versus Georgia..............as an example..............Our state has done so with tax incentives for long term jobs and initial investments.............and it has worked.
That particular may not provide the long term jobs as ours did though. Bang for the buck. 1.3 Billion in the area and those providing the building materials isn't anything to snicker about.
So you're in favor of Crony Capitalism?
Why............to get the foreign investment and jobs here instead of there. Competition wasn't a factor in this equation. It was trying to win over foreign investment in the state. In Alabama the investment came with a contracted GUARANTEE of a SET NUMBER OF JOBS.........and the incentives were for the growth period of the auto plants only.
Didn't pick or choose the winner here..............just competed for investment that was gonna happen anyway.
The losers are the people who don't get the perks. States shouldn't be allowed to sacrifice equal protection in their zeal to appease wealthy investors.
There oughta be pragmatism, common sense, and the acknowledgement of the fact that the free market system isn’t perfect, and shouldn’t be applied to every aspect of human enterprise – such as healthcare.Why do you put up with this abuse ? Freedom or something ?
There oughta be a law!!
There oughta be pragmatism, common sense, and the acknowledgement of the fact that the free market system isn’t perfect, and shouldn’t be applied to every aspect of human enterprise – such as healthcare.
I do not know the answer to that. What I do know is that there is only one customer for diabetes medication in the UK so its a big market for any drug company. I suspect that there is a fragmented approach in the US so the companies charge a bit more. Doesnt explain all of it though.Why do you put up with this abuse ? Freedom or something ?
Ridiculous that we pay so much more, but just for a better understanding, are the lower prices effected by regulations in those countries, or are they set by market forces? Do our US laws actively help in outrageous profits, or do they just not bother to prevent them?
The EU subsidizes drugs to member nations.........and now England is being threatened to lose those subsidies because of Brexit..............The article I read said England is now thinking of tying to the FDA in the United States for that reason. VAT taxes and other taxes help lower the cost on the surface but are paid as well.I do not know the answer to that. What I do know is that there is only one customer for diabetes medication in the UK so its a big market for any drug company. I suspect that there is a fragmented approach in the US so the companies charge a bit more. Doesnt explain all of it though.Why do you put up with this abuse ? Freedom or something ?
Ridiculous that we pay so much more, but just for a better understanding, are the lower prices effected by regulations in those countries, or are they set by market forces? Do our US laws actively help in outrageous profits, or do they just not bother to prevent them?
Do drug patents run out in the US ? In the UK they do and anybody is free to market a drug under a generic brand.
I thought protecting property was a primary responsibility of government. Now you claim that in doing so the government is picking winners and losers. Isn't the winner the one that invented the drug (property) to begin? Being first isn't the definition of winning anymore?FDA Generic Drug Rejection, Approval Rates Tell a Conflicting StoryDo you have specifics? I thought the problem stemmed from patent laws. If a company creates a drug , they own it and effectively have a monopoly on it. It doesn't matter how many other companies exist.Create laws or rules that favor one over the other. Incentives to political donors.....others.........not so much.........guaranteeing the winner of competition is in their pocket.I don't understand. Can you explain?They have allowed Monopolies to exist via picking the winners and losers in the Market
Tie a chain to one company..........lower the bar for others.
Pharma companies fight behind-the-scenes wars over generic drugs
Eighty percent of the growth in profits in 2015 among the 20 largest drug companies resulted from price increases, rather than from the addition of new products. Between 2010 and 2014, prices for the 30 best-selling drugs in the U.S. rose eight times faster than inflation. Americans bear the brunt of these increases. For example, the liver failure drug Syprine, which costs less than $400 a year in some countries, has a list price around $300,000 in the United States. As an executive at the drug company Sanofi noted bluntly, “Everybody has to make money. Should it be surprising? We do serve different stakeholders.”
The temptation to avoid generic competition can be overpowering. Delaying generic competition for as little as six months can be worth half a billion dollars in sales for a blockbuster drug. As pharma executive and bad boy Martin Shkrelionce tweeted in 2012, “Every time a drug goes generic, I grieve.” Given the value of holding off generic competition, drug companies string out a variety of delay games, one after another, each adding a little more time for the brand-name drug to flourish without generic competition. As I noted when testifying in Congressabout such strategies, “a billion here, a billion there, that adds up to real money, and the taxpayers are paying.
I thought protecting property was a primary responsibility of government. Now you claim that in doing so the government is picking winners and losers. Isn't the winner the one that invented the drug (property) to begin? Being first isn't the definition of winning anymore?FDA Generic Drug Rejection, Approval Rates Tell a Conflicting StoryDo you have specifics? I thought the problem stemmed from patent laws. If a company creates a drug , they own it and effectively have a monopoly on it. It doesn't matter how many other companies exist.Create laws or rules that favor one over the other. Incentives to political donors.....others.........not so much.........guaranteeing the winner of competition is in their pocket.I don't understand. Can you explain?They have allowed Monopolies to exist via picking the winners and losers in the Market
Tie a chain to one company..........lower the bar for others.
Pharma companies fight behind-the-scenes wars over generic drugs
Eighty percent of the growth in profits in 2015 among the 20 largest drug companies resulted from price increases, rather than from the addition of new products. Between 2010 and 2014, prices for the 30 best-selling drugs in the U.S. rose eight times faster than inflation. Americans bear the brunt of these increases. For example, the liver failure drug Syprine, which costs less than $400 a year in some countries, has a list price around $300,000 in the United States. As an executive at the drug company Sanofi noted bluntly, “Everybody has to make money. Should it be surprising? We do serve different stakeholders.”
The temptation to avoid generic competition can be overpowering. Delaying generic competition for as little as six months can be worth half a billion dollars in sales for a blockbuster drug. As pharma executive and bad boy Martin Shkrelionce tweeted in 2012, “Every time a drug goes generic, I grieve.” Given the value of holding off generic competition, drug companies string out a variety of delay games, one after another, each adding a little more time for the brand-name drug to flourish without generic competition. As I noted when testifying in Congressabout such strategies, “a billion here, a billion there, that adds up to real money, and the taxpayers are paying.
So we help fund the R & D..................then they say look what we did........and they do find cures..........and charge out the ass for it..........including to major uses like Medicare.............and the Gov't pays out the ass for the new drug that tax payers helped develop.
Yes they should get to recover their costs plus profits for research...........but please don't tell me they did it all by their lonesome.
