Democratic Policies

[thethe]

That is silly.

you just finished telling us that a drug takes $14.9B to get to manufacture -- to my mind that is not the definition of "working"

You never answered --- are you invested the pharmaceutical industry ?

Ground breaking advances are expensive. You think these things come easy?

[sturg33]

Ground breaking advances are expensive. You think these things come easy?

Yeah he does.

This is the same dude who wants to give FEMA billions of dollars after they made motor homes for an avg cost of $500K

[sturg33]

Ground breaking advances are expensive. You think these things come easy?

Remember, miracle drugs will be discovered out of the goodness of people's hearts... costs be damned

[57Brave]

under the current system yes they are!!!!
Do we have to use the recently jailed epipin CEO as an example ?
I was really hoping to leave him out of this

Curious of the (R) policy being proposed
I think it was you smugly declaring (D) has no policies

Agree or disagree (D) has a policy on the table

[sturg33]

epipen and gilead are two wildly different things

[sturg33]

Does a policy to you HAVE to include the government?

[57Brave]

Remember, miracle drugs will be discovered out of the goodness of people's hearts... costs be damned

Miracle drugs are discovered by scientists

Are you invested in the pharmaceutical industry and stand to lose money if this would go through ?

[sturg33]

The amount of money I have invested in a bio-pharma stock is peanuts to the amount of money I will lose in time and quality down the road if we let an incompetent bureaucratic nightmare completely run our healthcare

[thethe]

Miracle drugs are discovered by scientists

Are you invested in the pharmaceutical industry and stand to lose money if this would go through ?

And how do you entice scientist to enter the field of science?

How do you obtain the rare elements to create drigs?

How do you obtain sophisticated machinery to test and combine materials?

How do you procure space to have experiments?

How do you entice people to be test cases for experimental drugs?

[57Brave]

Does a policy to you HAVE to include the government?

yes because in this case if not a government policy it is a for profit business

I don't think health care should be for profit

Actually, I find it immoral to profit from anothers sickness

[thethe]

yes because in this case if not a government policy it is a for profit business

I don't think health care should be for profit

Actually, I find it immoral to profit from anothers sickness

What about profiting from a person's hunger?

[sturg33]

yes because in this case if not a government policy it is a for profit business

I don't think health care should be for profit

Actually, I find it immoral to profit from anothers sickness

Hmm... so is it immoral that doctors make a lot of money?

[57Brave]

The amount of money I have invested in a bio-pharma stock is peanuts to the amount of money I will lose in time and quality down the road if we let an incompetent bureaucratic nightmare completely run our healthcare

In a nut shell should Sanders proposal go through you would suffer an investment loss.
The higher the pharmaceutical cost the more money you make

I think I have that right

[sturg33]

I think I have that right

I assure you... you don't

[57Brave]

" I'm a stock-holder of Gilead. In 2014, they brought a drug to market that cured Hep-C, a deadly disease that previously required a lifetime of treatment if not a liver transplant. They priced the drug at $94K, and your Hep-C was gone.

Now, people like Bernie Sanders had a big issue with this. How could these greedy bastards charge this much money??? They have a cure, and they are price gouging!! Many people on the left demanded price controls. Many people demanded that the government not allow this. I read countless articles about it, every freaking day (ignoring the fact that $94K is FAR cheaper than lifetime maintenance and liver transplants)

Now, a little background.

Gilead a few years ago wanted to cure Hep-C, so they invested $2.4B in R&D to do it... and they failed.

Then, they went out and spent $11B on a company that has 0 revenues, because they believed their compound would work with Gildead's to make the cure.

3 years later, and another $1.5B in R&D, they found the cure.


Bernie bros see the price tag of a cure and cry foul. I see a company that invested $14.9B before finding a miracle drug. And they've made a fortune off of it. And I'm sure glad they have.

The question for you is, if the US government decides to implement price controls, do you think we would see something like this? Because this is a very uncommon story... 9/10 drugs FAIL in trials. When you hit on one, you need to hit big - not only to re-coup your costs, but to invest in the next big thing (Gilead just closed a deal to buy a zero revenue company for $12B in an effort to cure blood cancer)

Oh - and you know the kicker? The cost of Gilead's life-saving druf is now down to about $27K... you know why, a whole bunch of competitors came in to drive down the costs.

/\

[sturg33]

LOL do you recognize how easy it is to sell a stock? Do you recognize how little money I have in the company? Do you recognize that the stock is DOWN 20% in the last year? Senator Sanders is no threat to the stock of Gilead. He is a threat to the American people who won't get companies like Gilead investing billions of dollars to find miracle cures.

But yeah... the reason I don't support a socialist health system is that I will lose a few thousand dollars. You got it, pal!

[Hawk]

https://newrepublic.com/article/1448...ton-presidency

The way Obama has acted in his post-presidency suggests that he has still not fully grappled with the last election.

Hillary Clinton’s new campaign memoir, What Happened, has been panned by critics for failing to take enough responsibility for losing the election to Donald Trump. Jonathan Allen noted at Politico that the book “devotes many more pages to casting blame in other directions.” The New Republic’s Sarah Jones wrote, “Hillary Clinton doesn’t get it.” But on one issue—her decision to deliver speeches to Goldman Sachs for enormous amounts of money—Clinton did get it. “Especially after the financial crisis of 2008-2009,” Clinton writes, “I should have realized it would be bad ‘optics’ and stayed away from anything having to do with Wall Street. I didn’t. That’s on me.”

Barack Obama, the president who presided over the regulation of Wall Street after the financial crisis struck, has seemingly learned the opposite lesson. On Monday it was reported by Bloomberg that Obama in August accepted $400,000 for a speech he delivered to Northern Trust Corporation, a wealth management bank. That was followed last week by a speech to the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm. It had also been previously reported that Obama was receiving $400,000 from the bond firm Cantor Fitzgerald to speak at a health care conference later this month.

[57Brave]

your point ?

[Hawk]

But Trump’s presidency changes everything. Obama thus far has largely stayed out of the political limelight, but with the Democratic Party in shambles and his legacy under attack, he will undoubtedly remain an influential leader in the party—perhaps the most influential leader, until the Democrats nominate a 2020 presidential candidate. He has already thrown his weight behind the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, a private non-profit that launched in January to roll back years of Republican gerrymandering. Obama is also planning a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee in late September, his first time raising money for the party since he left office. However, even when Obama has spoken up, he has made an effort to stay on the sidelines, often refusing to call out Trump by name.

This is clearly an unprecedented environment for a post-presidency to roll out, requiring Obama to tread a particularly difficult course between keeping a respectful distance (his eight years are up after all) and standing up for bedrock American institutions and principles. But there is just no way to be apolitical in the Trump era. And if Obama wants to be an effective leader for Democrats as they rebuild and rehabilitate themselves, he can’t be on the paid Wall Street circuit. As Matt Yglesias wrote at Vox in April, “Leaders who sincerely care about the fate of the progressive center as a nationally and globally viable political movement need to push back against this perception by behaving with a higher degree of personal integrity than their rivals—not by accepting the logic that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

[57Brave]

I'm still not sure what point you are making and

what does this have to do with Trump threatening 25M North Koreans with destruction and another 30M Americans health insurance ?

ex Presidents and high ranking government officials make lot of money to giving speeches.
I would rather them listening to Barrack Obama than Mitt Romney or Ron Paul

did I miss your post on Obama's visit to a grade school first day of school ??
..............

No one has ever confused me with a New Republic liberal
aren't those the guys that gave (R) the 2010 mid terms ?