Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pogi

"LDS Church: Legal analysis raises concerns about Utah medical marijuana initiative"

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, poptart said:

Here's my take on illegal drugs, legalize em, all of em.  As a rule people don't want to do what it really takes to control it and we waste so much money on keeping the stuff illegal.  I put a lot of blame on families, go to the CDC and look at a breakdown on who's overdosing.  We need actual mental health and addiction treatment as well as a way to streamline these people back into mainland society but whenever something like housing and treatment for the homeless comes up (Many homeless are addicts), no one wants it in their neighborhood because of property values.  Marijuana isn't as bad as alcohol which I find hilarious, the latter is one of the few drugs out there where the withdraw can kill yet it's everywhere.  Kind of mean to say but hey, if they overdose they overdose, it's not like society really seems to care either way, only reason why people complain now is that it's affecting their neighborhoods and children, emphasis on the "their". 

Yeah, but pharmaceuticals bring in big bucks and those $$$ go to politicians, and companies that own stock in them. So what about them? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yeah, but pharmaceuticals bring in big bucks and those $$$ go to politicians, and companies that own stock in them. So what about them? ;) 

Pharma should be brought in, if anyone has an interest at keeping alternative product that could help someone for less money it's them.  Considering the side affects those things have and  the lack of regulation plus them being busted for lying, yeah them I say bring the hammer down.  I still stick with saying we need more rehab facilities and decent mental health plus a way to mainstream them into society, preferably as individuals who can make a living wage and pay taxes vs. going in and out of jail and costing us millions upon millions. 

I see drug abuse of any kind as more of a symptom of a disease, big pharma has just been a big winner in all this.  Honestly the drug companies in this country could be considered some of the most successful drug dealers in history, they managed to bribe a good chunk of our politicians into allowing all this to spiral out of control.  Way I see it you can't put the demon you unleashed back in his holding pin, best you can do is adapt to the problems we have now and hopefully stop it from spreading to the young via decent education available to everyone not just rich kids from the suburbs, that and actual job opportunities as well as other things like sports programs for impoverished youth.  I don't hold my breath, much like people not wanting rehab facilities in their neighborhood wrecking their property values i'd expect them not to be too thrilled with my ideas of investing in youth.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, poptart said:

Here's my take on illegal drugs, legalize em, all of em.  As a rule people don't want to do what it really takes to control it and we waste so much money on keeping the stuff illegal.  I put a lot of blame on families, go to the CDC and look at a breakdown on who's overdosing.  We need actual mental health and addiction treatment as well as a way to streamline these people back into mainland society but whenever something like housing and treatment for the homeless comes up (Many homeless are addicts), no one wants it in their neighborhood because of property values.  Marijuana isn't as bad as alcohol which I find hilarious, the latter is one of the few drugs out there where the withdraw can kill yet it's everywhere.  Kind of mean to say but hey, if they overdose they overdose, it's not like society really seems to care either way, only reason why people complain now is that it's affecting their neighborhoods and children, emphasis on the "their". 

Methinks Thou paintest with entirely too broad a brush, there Poptart.  Whatever double-standards might exist regarding alcohol in society in general, those double-standards are absent among observant members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who eschew alcohol (as well as other drugs) as a matter of religious faith and conviction.

As much merit as I might find in the argument that the resources spent currently attempting to interdict currently-illegal drugs could be better expended elsewhere, I'm not at all sure that across-the-board legalization is the answer.  What if some yet-to-be-invented substance which is more dangerous than all other illegal drugs combined hits the streets tomorrow?  Do we pass a new law trying to interdict that while continuing to ignore other drug use?  And would someone who is subject to such a law have a valid Equal Protection argument under the Constitution?  I think so.  There are enough unintended consequences that ensue from legalizing one drug that legalizing them all simply would multiply those problems.

And while members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may be concerned with how drugs affect their neighborhoods and their families, such concern is not limited locally and is much broader among members of the Church, embracing how it affects society as a whole.  Many members of the Church of Jesus Christ are concerned less with property and with its value than they are with how drug use affects people, people who are all children of God.  The number of our service missionaries involved in the Latter-day Saint Addiction Recovery Program is testament to that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Methinks Thou paintest with entirely too broad a brush, there Poptart.  Whatever double-standards might exist regarding alcohol in society in general, those double-standards are absent among observant members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who eschew alcohol (as well as other drugs) as a matter of religious faith and conviction.

As much merit as I might find in the argument that the resources spent currently attempting to interdict currently-illegal drugs could be better expended elsewhere, I'm not at all sure that across-the-board legalization is the answer.  What if some yet-to-be-invented substance which is more dangerous than all other illegal drugs combined hits the streets tomorrow?  Do we pass a new law trying to interdict that while continuing to ignore other drug use?  And would someone who is subject to such a law have a valid Equal Protection argument under the Constitution?  I think so.  There are enough unintended consequences that ensue from legalizing one drug that legalizing them all simply would multiply those problems.

And while members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may be concerned with how drugs affect their neighborhoods and their families, such concern is not limited locally and is much broader among members of the Church, embracing how it affects society as a whole.  Many members of the Church of Jesus Christ are concerned less with property and with its value than they are with how drug use affects people, people who are all children of God.  The number of our service missionaries involved in the Latter-day Saint Addiction Recovery Program is testament to that fact.

While being as nice as I possibly can, i'm going to be a bit blunt.  We see more and more powerful drugs hitting the market, you and I have no say so over it, our own gov't lets it happen.

https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2018/11/02/fda-dsuvia-fentanyl-approval/

My attitude is people are what they are, if they have that predisposition from whatever genetics they inherited plus a lousy childhood, well good chance they'll get addicted on something without discipline and possible intervention on their part.  My father was a violent, psychotic alcoholic and guess what?  I have the same worries with alcohol.  No one cared about my problems, I could have drunk myself to death on the street and most likely no one would have raised a finger. 

I have to say, my impression of the saints in WA state was quite the opposite, with the exception of like 2 people most of em were entitled upper class people from the burbs who bought into the prosperity gospel and that they were better than some filthy lgbt gentile like me.  Not saying they're all like that, like you most of the people here I consider good people, if I would have run into more people like you my opinion of Christianity here stateside wouldn't be so tainted, yet here we are.  Thing is, most religious people i've met IRL here stateside had horrible opinions of the poor, the addicted, the very people Christ would have hung out with.  Even that ward I used to go to, if Christ himself walked in I could picture most of the people panicing and wanting the police to arrest him for vagrancy.  Also, the saints I knew were very, very concerned about their property values, not all but most.  Will say this, the good ones I knew were exactly as you describe your membership, to the letter.  That's one reason why I don't think you've seen the decline the rest of Christiandom has, your religion has seen extermination orders while pretty much every other denimination rode the wave of entitlement and privelage that gave them the wealth and status they had and squandered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, poptart said:

... I have to say, my impression of the saints in WA state was quite the opposite, with the exception of like 2 people most of em were entitled upper class people from the burbs who bought into the prosperity gospel and that they were better than some filthy lgbt gentile like me.  Not saying they're all like that, like you most of the people here I consider good people... 

That's interesting.  That description would be entirely foreign to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I know who are from Washington state and post on the Board.  (There may be exceptions, of course.  To the best of my knowledge, I've never met anyone from Washington state who posts here in real life, but I can think of a couple here who are among my favorite posters, Bernard Gui and Meerkat.)

People who are not from Utah, and who probably know fairly little about people from Utah would say the same thing of many Latter-day Saints here.  I'm reminded of the story of the visiting gentleman who was new to town and who stopped a local denizen and asked, "Excuse me.  Could you tell me what the people are like here?"

In response, the local denizen asked, "Well, what are they like where you come from?"

The visitor replied, "They're great!  Among the happiest, friendliest, most helpful people you'll ever meet!  The very personification of Will Rogers's old saw that there are no strangers in the world, only friends I haven't met yet.  Always willing to lend a hand and to help someone who's down on his luck find whatever he might need."

In response, the local denizen said, "Well, you're in luck.  That's exactly what you'll find here."  The visitor thanked him for the information and went on his way.

A short while later, this same local denizen was stopped by yet another visitor who asked him the same question, whereupon the local denizen posed the same question in return to this visitor as he had to the previous visitor.

"Oh, dear!" the visitor said.  "I'm ashamed to say that that's why I'm thinking of moving.  Everyone there is so dour, unfriendly, and unhelpful.  I doubt they've ever even so much as heard of Will Rogers, let alone never having heard his old saw that there are no strangers in the world, only friends I haven't met yet.  I doubt any of them would so much as lift a finger to try to help anyone who's down on his luck."

The local denizen frowned thoughtfully and said, "Well, I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but I'm afraid that's pretty much what you'll find here."

 

 

Edited by Kenngo1969

Share this post


Link to post

I can agree with the legalization of some current substances.

What ever substance is legalized, tax it, and make the importation of that substance illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That's interesting.  That description would be entirely foreign to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I know who are from Washington state and post on the Board.  (There may be exceptions, of course.  To the best of my knowledge, I've never met anyone from Washington state who posts here in real life, but I can think of a couple here who are among my favorite posters, Bernard Gui and Meerkat.)

because people who are not from Utah, and who probably know fairly little about people from Utah would say the same thing of many Latter-day Saints here.  I'm reminded of the story of the visiting gentleman who was new to town and who stopped a local denizen and asked, "Excuse me.  Could you tell me what the people are like here?"

In response, the local denizen asked, "Well, what are they like where you come from?"

The visitor replied, "They're great!  Among the happiest, friendliest, most helpful people you'll ever meet!  The very personification of Will Rogers's old saw that there are no strangers in the world, only friends I haven't met yet.  Always willing to lend a hand and to help someone who's down on his luck find whatever he might need."

In response, the local denizen said, "Well, you're in luck.  That's exactly what you'll find here."  The visitor thanked him for the information and went on his way.

A short while later, this same local denizen was stopped by yet another visitor who asked him the same question, whereupon the local denizen posed the same question in return to this visitor as he had to the previous visitor.

"Oh, dear!" the visitor said.  "I'm ashamed to say that that's why I'm thinking of moving.  Everyone there is so dour, unfriendly, and unhelpful.  I doubt they've ever even so much as heard of Will Rogers, let alone never having heard his old saw that there are no strangers in the world, only friends I haven't met yet.  I doubt any of them would so much as lift a finger to try to help anyone who's down on his luck."

The local denizen frowned thoughtfully and said, "Well, I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but I'm afraid that's pretty much what you'll find here."

 

 

Easy to vouch for your own kind when you're from the suburbs, middle class and have their values.  Big suprise someone like me would not fit in with your people, plus have judgement passed.  Thing is, when something happens when life is being really, really horrible you become resentful to the point where you for the most part want absolutely  nothing more to do with their kind as a rule.  I'd never set foot in a meetinghouse here in the mainland again unless I had some pressing need, same with pretty much any church.  I will never forget how I was treated and decided a while ago to do what most religious people here do, associate people as a group.  Thing is, I have no children nor any real ties so I can watch as things colapse and people tear each other apart with glee, not my problem.

Share this post


Link to post

Nationalize all the pharmaceuticals companies. Their unethical coverups of how addictive their medication is, their repeated refusal to self-police in reporting suspicious drug buying activity, the corruption in the FDA approval process, their double digit percentage price increases on most drugs every year for many years, and the fact that the “research” they tout they are doing that is so expensive usually means waiting for universities and government funded research hospitals to do the groundwork and then snapping up the data and tweaking the formula and patenting it for profit.

Add in the complicity between the government and pharma that led to the opioid epidemic and they need their teeth kicked in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, poptart said:

Easy to vouch for your own kind when you're from the suburbs, middle class and have their values.  Big suprise someone like me would not fit in with your people, plus have judgement passed.  Thing is, when something happens when life is being really, really horrible you become resentful to the point where you for the most part want absolutely  nothing more to do with their kind as a rule.  I'd never set foot in a meetinghouse here in the mainland again unless I had some pressing need, same with pretty much any church.  I will never forget how I was treated and decided a while ago to do what most religious people here do, associate people as a group.  Thing is, I have no children nor any real ties so I can watch as things colapse and people tear each other apart with glee, not my problem.

Well, I'm sorry for what you've experienced, although I do wonder how much of what you say here is a matter of provable fact and how much is a matter of perception.  Perception is a powerful thing, but it can be (and often is) far different from reality. As I've said here so often, none of us sees the world as it is; rather, we see it as we are.  In any case, I wish you well. 

As for vouching for "my own kind," "my own kind" are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: They come from rural, suburban, and urban areas, from all walks of life, from most all political persuasions, and are of every race, color, and socioeconomic background.  They come from almost every area of the world, North and South America, Mexico, Central America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia.  These things make us far different from one another in many ways.  However, what unites us is far more important and far stronger than anything that might divide us as we are "knit together in love." (Colossians 2:2).  Many of them are former alcoholics, drug addicts, and reformed criminals; some of them have endured abuse, poverty, squalor, and other desperate circumstances which I can barely imagine.  I salute them for responding to the Good Shepherd's call to join the fold when doing so took more courage than I can possibly imagine. We seek, however haltingly, however hesitatingly, however imperfectly, to obey the Lord's injunction, "I say unto you, Be one, and if ye are not one, ye are not Mine." (Doctrine and Covenants 38:27).  They, along with those outside the circle I describe, are my brothers and sisters, and I love them. 

Is the description in the foregoing paragraph an ideal?  Yes.  Do I fall short of that ideal, and do others?  Unquestionably.  Do we fall short often?  Certainly.  Are we as welcoming to those outside of that circle as we should be?  There is room for improvement on that score, as well.  On the other hand, it's rather difficult to hug a porcupine.  You might ask yourself whether, deep down, you are more interested in getting mileage out of your outsider status than you are in laying aside any differences and grievances (insofar as that is possible to do).  While I don't know you well enough to know whether you fit into this category, many people find the cloak of victimhood comfortable, stylish, and validating.  As long as I'm determined to be a victim, then I don't need to take any responsibility for my own choices, my own circumstances, or my own destiny.  While I recognize that your mileage likely varies, as life reminds me so frequently, there only so much I can do to choose my own circumstances.  Life is 10 percent about what happens to me, and 90 percent about how I respond to it (which is the only thing I can control).

Again, I recognize that your mileage likely varies.  In any event, I wish you well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Nationalize all the pharmaceuticals companies. Their unethical coverups of how addictive their medication is, their repeated refusal to self-police in reporting suspicious drug buying activity, the corruption in the FDA approval process, their double digit percentage price increases on most drugs every year for many years, and the fact that the “research” they tout they are doing that is so expensive usually means waiting for universities and government funded research hospitals to do the groundwork and then snapping up the data and tweaking the formula and patenting it for profit.

Add in the complicity between the government and pharma that led to the opioid epidemic and they need their teeth kicked in.

If there is complicity between government and pharma in the opioid epidemic (as you say) and corruption in the FDA, then how can you trust the government to run things better?

The greatest motivator for new research into life saving drugs is profit.  Remove that motive and watch research and new drugs come to a stand still.  We have seen this happen with the nationalization of pharmaceuticals in Russia.  Russia has not produced one single new drug since the revolution.  The free market system is the best system for innovation.  Sure there is risk for corruption, but who agrees that the government is immune from corruption?  You have already noted 2 fine examples of this corruption.

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, pogi said:

If there is complicity between government and pharma in the opioid epidemic (as you say) and corruption in the FDA, then how can you trust the government to run things better?

The greatest motivator for new research into life saving drugs is profit.  Remove that motive and watch research and new drugs come to a stand still.  We have seen this happen with the nationalization of pharmaceuticals in Russia.  Russia has not produced one single new drug since the revolution.  The free market system is the best system for innovation.  Sure there is risk for corruption, but who agrees that the government is immune from corruption?  You have already noted 2 fine examples of this corruption.

Except that motivation is not working. Like I said the government is paying for the research while pharma picks up the results and makes the money. The whole industry is a government welfare case. In addition a lot of the drugs being produced are palliative because that is where the money is. A permanent solution only lets you cash in once. Where are the cures? That and the drugs for stuff we have known about for years are still going up in price. What happened to make insulin so expensive to produce? The free market does not work well with medicine. If the price goes too high in other areas you go to a competitor. If a medication is patented where do you go? You pay or you suffer or you possibly die. It is like the free market will set the ideal price for a ransom of a child. While sort of true I am not convinced the parents think it is a very free market. I am lucky. I can afford medication and medical care. I complain about the cost but it is not a choice between medication and my mortgage.

The problem is the government is no more prone to corruption then private industry. The advantage of nationalization is that it kills a lot of the potential for collusion with private industry and puts the drugs within reach of an angry electorate. There are other options but I like mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Except that motivation is not working.

It is working.  Our system is FAR more effective at new drug development and research.  

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Like I said the government is paying for the research while pharma picks up the results and makes the money.

That is not entirely true.  There are different stages of development and pharmaceutical companies and venture capitalists primarily pick up the bill in late stage development. The government only helps fund basic discovery research along with the help of philanthropic organizations.  

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In addition a lot of the drugs being produced are palliative because that is where the money is. A permanent solution only lets you cash in once. Where are the cures?

You are leaving out the most important side of medicine - prevention.  Look at what vaccine development has done to small pox, polio, etc!  I write prescriptions for preventative medications for malaria, altitude illness, leptospirosis, and others for travelers going to developing countries every single day.  These drugs save thousands of lives!  I would shudder to think where we would be without them - No thanks to Russia! 

I don't have prescriptive power as an RN but with standing orders from our collaborating infectious disease doctors I can and do actually hand write prescriptions every day for curative medicines too.  There are drug cures for malaria like Coartem and Malarone.  I write these for adventure travelers who will be far from medical treatment for long periods i high risk areas and may require self-treatment measures.  I also write prescriptions for the treatment of high altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and high altitude cerebral edema (HACE).  On top of that I write prescriptions which cure travelers diarrhea, yeast infection,  anaphylactic reactions, etc. That is what I do in my very limited scope as an RN in travel medicine.  I don't even work in post-travel care where there are hundreds of drugs which cure all sorts of tropical diseases and infections.  Developments in antibiotics, antivirals, antiparasitics have saved millions of lives (again, no thanks to Russia), so I 'm not sure where you are coming from with this.  If you watch TV much, you will have learned that there is a new curative drug for hepatitis C!  New stuff is coming out all the time.  But lets not downplay the role of palliative treatments either.  Where would we be without these medicines!?  They are wonder drugs that vastly improve the quality of life for people and actually save their lives in many cases.  New research into palliative care is important and needed too. 

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That and the drugs for stuff we have known about for years are still going up in price.

You can't place the entire blame on pharmaceuticals, the government has dropped the ball here too.

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If the price goes too high in other areas you go to a competitor. If a medication is patented where do you go?

I guess you could go to Russia if you want and partake of their offerings in the field of medicine...oh wait 😁

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

https://www.dcatvci.org/250-biopharmaceutical-innovation-which-countries-rank-the-best

Quote

A recent industry study examines the extent to which the public investment, intellectual property, and drug pricing policies of 56 countries proactively contribute to or detract from global life-sciences innovation. So what did the report find?

The report finds that the United States places first overall, with policies (on a per-GDP basis) that contribute the most to global biopharmaceutical innovation, followed by Switzerland, Taiwan, Singapore, and Sweden. T Value Chain Insights (VCI) examines the rankings. 

Examining the rankings 
The study is based on three main indicators: governments' R&D expenditures on health (measured by the share of government R&D dedicated to health research and government R&D as a share of gross domestic product (GDP); the extent of their price controls on pharmaceutical drugs; and their protections for life-sciences intellectual property (IP), a measured by the period of biologics data exclusivity. The study was conducted by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a nonprofit public policy think tank based out of Washington, D.C. focused on public policies that spur technology innovation. 

The United States ranked first overall. In terms of the specific indicators, it ranked seventh in the government R&D allocated to health research, first with respect to IP protection, and tied for first on the price-controls indicator. Switzerland, Taiwan, Singapore, and Sweden came in second through fifth, respectively, as a result of strong government investment in life-sciences research, low pharmaceutical price controls for Switzerland, Taiwan, and Singapore, and strong IP protection for Switzerland and Sweden. Overall, the US accounts for the largest funding for global life sciences innovation. Although the US produces about 22% of the global GDP and accounts for 4% of the world's population, it accounts for 44% of global biomedical R&D expenditures and its domestic pharmaceutical market about 40% of the global market.

Not as much price control encourages innovation according to this study.

Quote

The ITIF study uses the indicator of price indicator as it find that it correlates to biopharmaceutical innovation. The study further cited another study that examined the 28 largest pharmaceutical markets between 1980 and 2000 and found that countries with strict price controls temper domestic innovation in the life sciences. Another study analyzing data from 1986 through 2004 on European pharmaceutical price controls concluded that such policies resulted in 46 new medicines not being developed and estimated that if the US had had similar pricing policies during the same period, it would have resulted in 117 fewer new medicines.

Otoh, reading a book by Michael Pollan on neuroscience and medical psychedelics in preparation as soon as my insurance approves (dang expensive, but much cheaper than ECT with tons less side effects) to trying out the new keta-mine nasal spray for depression since no antidepressants yet tried (and I have tried a dozen or more in the past 35 years due to being misdiagnosed, bad side effects) and it reports psychedelics are really the only thing new on the market for CNS drugs as pharmaceutical companies are not investing in them.  

PS:  I will let the board know if I see any angels...or demons.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Big derail, but thread topic isn't happening right now anyway...

Quote

Of more interest to me are the institutional underpinnings of new drugs. Did they arise out of academia, from small biotechs, or were they home grown from within Big Pharma companies? The answer to this question seems more important because understanding this issue might ultimately help accelerate the discovery of new medicines. Robert Kneller published a detailed analysisof the origin of new drugs approved by the FDA between 1998 and 2007 on a country-by-country basis. The most striking finding was that about 61 percent of the 118 new drugs coming out of U.S.-based companies originated in either academia or in smaller biotechnology companies. In contrast, less than 20 percent of the 23 new drugs coming out of Japan and about 25 percent of the 98 new drugs generated by all European companies (including the UK) met these criteria...

I think this reanalysis would support the idea that the rise of biotech companies in the U.S. tipped the innovation balance strongly in our direction. This is despite the fact that biotechnology, as its own industry, only became profitable in 2008. It would likely also illustrate the critical role the government plays in supporting basic biomedical research, the foundation upon which the biotech and pharmaceutical industries are built. Others have different viewpoints of what factors influence drug innovation. In a recent Forbes article, author Paul Howard wrote, “The imposition of a number of drug price controls or their functional equivalents in the E.U.—reference pricing, capped drug budgets, health technology assessments, and the like— have all helped shift the epicenter of drug innovation from the E.U. to the U.S. (the world’s largest single pharmaceutical market) from the 1980s to today.”

Interesting in depth analysis of where new drugs are actually originating.  2014, so may be out of date some.

https://xconomy.com/seattle/2014/09/02/which-countries-excel-in-creating-new-drugs-its-complicated/?single_page=true

2004 study, so may be even more out of date, but different conclusions about price regulations and innovation:

Quote

One might therefore expect the United States to be the most innovative given that it is the only country with a predominantly unregulated pharmaceutical market. However, US pharmaceutical innovation appeared to be roughly proportional to its national wealth and prescription drug spending. Our data suggest that the United States is important but not disproportionate in its contribution to pharmaceutical innovation. Interestingly, some countries with direct price control, profit control, or reference drug pricing appeared to innovate proportionally more than their contribution to the global GDP or prescription drug spending.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/

Looks like one of those areas you can find a study to agree with you no matter what position you hold. 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, pogi said:

It is working.  Our system is FAR more effective at new drug development and research.  

That is not entirely true.  There are different stages of development and pharmaceutical companies and venture capitalists primarily pick up the bill in late stage development. The government only helps fund basic discovery research along with the help of philanthropic organizations.  

You are leaving out the most important side of medicine - prevention.  Look at what vaccine development has done to small pox, polio, etc!  I write prescriptions for preventative medications for malaria, altitude illness, leptospirosis, and others for travelers going to developing countries every single day.  These drugs save thousands of lives!  I would shudder to think where we would be without them - No thanks to Russia! 

I don't have prescriptive power as an RN but with standing orders from our collaborating infectious disease doctors I can and do actually hand write prescriptions every day for curative medicines too.  There are drug cures for malaria like Coartem and Malarone.  I write these for adventure travelers who will be far from medical treatment for long periods i high risk areas and may require self-treatment measures.  I also write prescriptions for the treatment of high altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and high altitude cerebral edema (HACE).  On top of that I write prescriptions which cure travelers diarrhea, yeast infection,  anaphylactic reactions, etc. That is what I do in my very limited scope as an RN in travel medicine.  I don't even work in post-travel care where there are hundreds of drugs which cure all sorts of tropical diseases and infections.  Developments in antibiotics, antivirals, antiparasitics have saved millions of lives (again, no thanks to Russia), so I 'm not sure where you are coming from with this.  If you watch TV much, you will have learned that there is a new curative drug for hepatitis C!  New stuff is coming out all the time.  But lets not downplay the role of palliative treatments either.  Where would we be without these medicines!?  They are wonder drugs that vastly improve the quality of life for people and actually save their lives in many cases.  New research into palliative care is important and needed too. 

You can't place the entire blame on pharmaceuticals, the government has dropped the ball here too.

I guess you could go to Russia if you want and partake of their offerings in the field of medicine...oh wait 😁

It is not working except for those who can afford the medication and even they are not happy. We are also not substantially surpassing Europe and other developed nations in drug development per capita anymore. Yeah, we are still beating Russia but that is like someone without any mental or physical disability being proud of winning the Special Olympics.

Yeah, and the basic research is where most of the work is done but who gets the profit? It is corporate welfare wearing a trench coat to avoid notice.

Preventative medicine is important. Small pox and polio vaccines were available in the 60s. There have not been a ton of vaccines since though some new ones have, of course, been found. Until about a decade ago the vaccine market was not a moneymaker. Now it is a huge profit generator.

How has the government caused high drug prices and what ball have they dropped?

What is your obsession with Russia? Russia is an autocratic state flirting with fascism to cover up their impending weakness. Pointing out that there are worse systems in the world is not an excuse for tolerating a not quite as bad but still bad one. No one is suggesting we become Russia. Well, one prominent person praises the Russian system and admires their autocratic leader and seems to think an executive should rule like that but surely no one would be stupid enough to put him in a position of any power here so we are probably safe.

The reason the US has so much innovation is government spending on medical research. Pharmaceutical companies spend less then a fifth of their budget on research and insist that drugs cost more due to the cost of innovation.......ignoring the fact that the biggest price increases in recent years have been on tested medication that have been around for over a decade. You can’t raise drug prices 9-10% a year every year on long-standing and proven drugs and claim it is due to the cost of innovation.

I like drugs. I take two prescription medications daily and both improve my life. I can still complain about the rising costs that are way beyond inflation and want something done. If the drug companies would cut their prices down to a reasonable level I will leave them alone. From what I hear they have promised to slow the rising costs......but still way above inflation which is why I am okay with nationalizing them.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post

My newest "drug", ;) is Kefir. It's for the gut and they say the gut is everything for health. I make my own, the Kefir in stores is above my pay grade. It's helping me with loads of things.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is not working except for those who can afford the medication and even they are not happy. We are also not substantially surpassing Europe and other developed nations in drug development per capita anymore. Yeah, we are still beating Russia but that is like someone without any mental or physical disability being proud of winning the Special Olympics.

Yeah, and the basic research is where most of the work is done but who gets the profit? It is corporate welfare wearing a trench coat to avoid notice.

Preventative medicine is important. Small pox and polio vaccines were available in the 60s. There have not been a ton of vaccines since though some new ones have, of course, been found. Until about a decade ago the vaccine market was not a moneymaker. Now it is a huge profit generator.

How has the government caused high drug prices and what ball have they dropped?

What is your obsession with Russia? Russia is an autocratic state flirting with fascism to cover up their impending weakness. Pointing out that there are worse systems in the world is not an excuse for tolerating a not quite as bad but still bad one. No one is suggesting we become Russia. Well, one prominent person praises the Russian system and admires their autocratic leader and seems to think an executive should rule like that but surely no one would be stupid enough to put him in a position of any power here so we are probably safe.

The reason the US has so much innovation is government spending on medical research. Pharmaceutical companies spend less then a fifth of their budget on research and insist that drugs cost more due to the cost of innovation.......ignoring the fact that the biggest price increases in recent years have been on tested medication that have been around for over a decade. You can’t raise drug prices 9-10% a year every year on long-standing and proven drugs and claim it is due to the cost of innovation.

I like drugs. I take two prescription medications daily and both improve my life. I can still complain about the rising costs that are way beyond inflation and want something done. If the drug companies would cut their prices down to a reasonable level I will leave them alone. From what I hear they have promised to slow the rising costs......but still way above inflation which is why I am okay with nationalizing them.

I use Russia as an example as it is the only country that I am aware of that has nationalized pharmaceuticals.  Europe is definitely not nationalized so you can’t use them as an example.  Some of the biggest pharma companies in the world are out of Europe.  

Europe does regulate the industry more which helps bring down drug prices (which is where our government is failing in my opinion), but the argument can be made that such regulations hurts innovation, as Calm has pointed out.

You said, “The reason the US has so much innovation is government spending on medical research.”

That doesn’t seem to be the case.  The governments of Europe spend far more on research (corporate welfare, as you put it) than our government, yet we still have more innovation.

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/7/2019 at 9:11 AM, poptart said:

I have to say, my impression of the saints in WA state was quite the opposite, with the exception of like 2 people most of em were entitled upper class people from the burbs who bought into the prosperity gospel and that they were better than some filthy lgbt gentile like me. 

23 years ago I married into a Latter-day Saint family from Washington State.  They are some of the finest people I have ever known.  Salt of the earth.  Kind.  Welcoming.  Good.

My wife spent her entire childhood in Washington, and speaks very warmly of it.  She also speaks highly of the Latter-day Saint communities in which she was raised (Federal Way and, later, Poulsbo).

I have visited Washington State dozens of times, including a two-month stint of living there over a summer.  My in-laws' ward was great.  Very nice and welcoming and kind.  Just like my in-laws.

I am sorry to hear you had a bad experience in Washington.  

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Calm said:

Looks like one of those areas you can find a study to agree with you no matter what position you hold. 

This may be true if we are talking about stricter regulations, but Nehor is talking about nationalization of pharma, which Europe has not done.

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

23 years ago I married into a Latter-day Saint family from Washington State.  They are some of the finest people I have ever known.  Salt of the earth.  Kind.  Welcoming.  Good. 

I can second that...13 years ago for me.

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, pogi said:

I use Russia as an example as it is the only country that I am aware of that has nationalized pharmaceuticals.  Europe is definitely not nationalized so you can’t use them as an example.  Some of the biggest pharma companies in the world are out of Europe.  

Europe does regulate the industry more which helps bring down drug prices (which is where our government is failing in my opinion), but the argument can be made that such regulations hurts innovation, as Calm has pointed out.

You said, “The reason the US has so much innovation is government spending on medical research.”

That doesn’t seem to be the case.  The governments of Europe spend far more on research (corporate welfare, as you put it) than our government, yet we still have more innovation.

We used to but we are not exceeding Europe by much anymore in innovation and the government do not (in general) spend more per capita on medical research if my memory serves. If I remember right Switzerland does and there might be one or two more but in general they spend less per capita on research. They do spend more on medical care in general but that is to be expected with various degrees of socialized medicine.

I have my doubts regulation will work. Congress has every reason not to impose limits on increases (*cough* campaign contributions *cough*) and the executive branch could do some work in this area but they seem uninterested.

The United States needs to sort out health care. The ACA was a paper tiger. It had a short term effect but it was easily gutted and was easily circumvented. It did have the effect of showing that half measures are not working. 

No one seems to want to tackle the basic question of whether American citizens are entitled to health care regardless of ability to pay, entitled to reasonably affordable health care, or whether you only get it if you pay for it. Saying you would let people die or that you want taxpayers to keep the infirm and/or lazy alive is also unpalatable so we keep dancing in the middle.

I have two suggestions for repairing this. One is knock out the “below 65” requirement for Medicare and let anyone who wants in to Medicare pay in. Then other insurance companies can compete. The other is go pure fair market. Abolish insurance. Make pricing for medical services transparent. A hospital argued their pricing for services was a trade secret and won in court to hide it. Most businesses tell you what something will cost beforehand and in the rare cases where that is too dangerous provide a solid estimate (medicine probably fits in there. Then probably add some kind of safety net. Tie acquiring medical care to some government issued card or your driver’s license that is tracked. Then when you do your taxes if your necessary and preventative medical care exceeds a fixed percentage of your total income it is reimbursed. I think either model would work but we keep trying to straddle the fence and get bilked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, pogi said:

This may be true if we are talking about stricter regulations, but Nehor is talking about nationalization of pharma, which Europe has not done.

A less extreme solution I would accept would be to nationalize the worst offender to set a precedent. Might scare the rest straight.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

23 years ago I married into a Latter-day Saint family from Washington State.  They are some of the finest people I have ever known.  Salt of the earth.  Kind.  Welcoming.  Good.

My wife spent her entire childhood in Washington, and speaks very warmly of it.  She also speaks highly of the Latter-day Saint communities in which she was raised (Federal Way and, later, Poulsbo).

I have visited Washington State dozens of times, including a two-month stint of living there over a summer.  My in-laws' ward was great.  Very nice and welcoming and kind.  Just like my in-laws.

I am sorry to hear you had a bad experience in Washington.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I have been to Washington a few times and really like it.

I even like the Seattle area. Uh-oh, guess I better:

13650-duck-and-cover-0-230-0-345-crop.jp

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have been to Washington a few times and really like it.

I even like the Seattle area. Uh-oh, guess I better:

13650-duck-and-cover-0-230-0-345-crop.jp

I have not been to Seattle for a few years now.  I have heard it has gone downhill a lot.  If so, that is too bad.  It's a cool place.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have not been to Seattle for a few years now.  I have heard it has gone downhill a lot.  If so, that is too bad.  It's a cool place.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is beautiful. My brother got married there a few years back. The cost of living is horrendous of course but what can you do? My brother’s down payment was about 3/4s the value of my entire house. Mine is over twice as big and built three years ago. His was built in the 60s. Still, he can go wind surfing easily so I think it is worth it to him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...