312 replies to this topic

[niner]

I was wondering how much support Barack Obama has on the forum. He's getting a lot of support from young people, more than Hellery.

Obama is a black Lieberman without the experience. Google "Obama Lieberman" and see what I mean. Obama's health plan and social security reform are straight out of the republican playbook. If the republicans weren't so fussy about ideological purity Obama would be a republican. Give Obama time and he will probably end up in the republican party.

Well, I googled, and found this:

(AP) Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, a vocal defender of Sen. Joe Lieberman earlier this year, is urging Connecticut voters to rally behind his rival, Ned Lamont.

I'm not crazy about the fact that Obama ever supported the war monger Lieberman, but one could spin that it's an example of the way that Obama is able to cross the aisle and work with both sides.

I would also note that Hillary has never met a Muslim nation she didn't want to bomb, and is also Republican lite. At least republicans don't viscerally hate Obama, which is more than you can say for Hillary.

[david ellis]

I was wondering how much support Barack Obama has on the forum. He's getting a lot of support from young people, more than Hellery.

Obama is a black Lieberman without the experience. Google "Obama Lieberman" and see what I mean. Obama's health plan and social security reform are straight out of the republican playbook. If the republicans weren't so fussy about ideological purity Obama would be a republican. Give Obama time and he will probably end up in the republican party.

Well, I googled, and found this:

(AP) Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, a vocal defender of Sen. Joe Lieberman earlier this year, is urging Connecticut voters to rally behind his rival, Ned Lamont.

I'm not crazy about the fact that Obama ever supported the war monger Lieberman, but one could spin that it's an example of the way that Obama is able to cross the aisle and work with both sides.

I would also note that Hillary has never met a Muslim nation she didn't want to bomb, and is also Republican lite. At least republicans don't viscerally hate Obama, which is more than you can say for Hillary.

We are on the same page, I wish Edwards was still a choice. There is not much choice on the democratic ticket this time.

[biknut]

I was wondering how much support Barack Obama has on the forum. He's getting a lot of support from young people, more than Hellery.

Obama is a black Lieberman without the experience. Google "Obama Lieberman" and see what I mean. Obama's health plan and social security reform are straight out of the republican playbook. If the republicans weren't so fussy about ideological purity Obama would be a republican. Give Obama time and he will probably end up in the republican party.

Damn, I knew there was something I liked about him. That must be it.

[biknut]

Guess who's going to give Obama an endorsement now? You'll never believe this.

http://www.theatlant...ama-endorsement

[maxwatt]

I was wondering how much support Barack Obama has on the forum. He's getting a lot of support from young people, more than Hellery.

Obama is a black Lieberman without the experience. Google "Obama Lieberman" and see what I mean. Obama's health plan and social security reform are straight out of the republican playbook. If the republicans weren't so fussy about ideological purity Obama would be a republican. Give Obama time and he will probably end up in the republican party.

They say Bill Clinton was the best Republican president this country ever had. We have a pretty good idea what we'll get if Hillary is president. Life wasn't so bad, and the country seemed better off under Bill than under Bush.

The candidates who've dropped out on the Dem. side (Kucinick, Richardson, Edwards) were taking lines from the New Deal Democrat playbook: "evil corporations are the problem." The two left standing have reached an accommodation with corporate sponsorship. No danger they will stop large corporations from picking the public's pocket. Edwards was making it a centerpiece of his campaign, and had trouble getting financing, or editorial space in the press and on the spots on the news.

Even a libertarian would have to admit that there is not much besides the government to stand between the money power of corporations and the individual, which is why they go to such trouble to prevent a populist from getting elected. But maybe it's a good thing Hillary has made her peace with them. She might be allowed to govern if elected.

McCain I think is the only Republican who could defeat Obama, by running against Bush and picking up the dissaffected middle class who won't vote for a Obama even if they say they will, and the stupid one's who confuse Obama with Osama. (With Romney, a lot of the working class who gave Bush enough votes to almost win an election will probably just stay home.)

The Iowa Electronic Futures market gives any Democrat favorable odds against any Repugnant Party candidate, and has been see-sawing between Clinton and Obama.

If the state of the city of New York is any indication, Michael Bloomberg would make a better president than any of the candidates.

[stephen]

The candidates who've dropped out on the Dem. side (Kucinick, Richardson, Edwards) were taking lines from the New Deal Democrat playbook: "evil corporations are the problem." The two left standing have reached an accommodation with corporate sponsorship. No danger they will stop large corporations from picking the public's pocket.

I think maxwatt's comments are some of the best so far in this thread. I just wish I was more confident in his thought above. Frankly, I'm surprised (and dismayed) that more people here aren't looking at the election from an immortality-seekers' viewpoint. There are three key things we (as immortalists) should be seeking in our policymakers:

1. A desire for fewer regulations (specifically in healthcare).

2. A belief in the power of free markets to promote entrepreneurship and innovation.

3. A time preference that places utmost priority on current economic development (and the resulting technological advancements).

As much as I think Obama would be a fantastic figurehead for the US, his policy viewpoints are *directly* opposed to the realization of immortality in our lifetimes. I will not vote for someone whose policies will lead to the permanent death of millions more by delaying progress in immortality. Delaying immortality just a single day is the equivalent of murdering 155,000 people -- almost twice as many people as have been murdered in the entire Iraqi war! Even if you're not selfish enough to want immortality as quickly as possible for yourself, it should turn your stomach to think of how many people will be lost by delaying it to others.

I would much rather vote for a Republican candidate -- not because I think any of them are attractive, but because it might make it more difficult for a majority Democratic congress to enact restrictive regulations, nationalize and further regulate healthcare, implement protectionist policies, and redirect billions of productive economic dollars to wasteful climate change efforts. As a member of this board, how can you not?

Edited by stephen, 02 February 2008 - 08:47 PM.

[niner]

I would much rather vote for a Republican candidate -- not because I think any of them are attractive, but because it might make it more difficult for a majority Democratic congress to enact restrictive regulations, nationalize and further regulate healthcare, implement protectionist policies, and redirect billions of productive economic dollars to wasteful climate change efforts. As a member of this board, how can you not?

I can not because I see the Republicans standing against science, rather than supporting it. Republican economic policies seem to be aimed at concentration of wealth in the hands of a few rather than toward supporting research. The Republicans would prefer to lavish public money on the entrenched industries of the 19th and 20th century, agribusiness and fossil fuels, instead of moving us into the 21st century.

If you let go of the 1960's and examine the records of the Democrats and Republicans over the past quarter century, I think you'll see what I mean.

[Futurist1000]

Well it looks like there is a good chance that our country is headed towards more price controls, whether its a democrat or republican leading the charge. Not good for the purposes of life extension at all.

Presidential candidates and Price controls.
John McCain

Controlling health care costs will take fundamental change - nothing short of a complete reform of the culture of our health system and the way we pay for it will suffice. Reforms to federal policy and programs should focus on enhancing quality while controlling costs:

Barack Obama

Lower prescription drug costs. The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans more than double the price. Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion.

Hillary Clinton's Plan for Health Care Disaster

Clinton’s plan would force price controls on drug manufacturers, almost certainly resulting in steep cuts in the research and development of new drugs, the kind that sustain and enrich the lives of millions today. Research has shown that even when Congress merely discusses such controls, the results are steep declines in the growth of pharmaceutical R&D budgets. Under Clinton’s plan, the miracle cures the drug industry steadily produces today could become a thing of the past. Yet still she claims that this is a plan geared toward providing “choices.”

I don't think Mitt Romney favors price controls because he specifically mentioned on a debate that we shouldn't be so negative about drug company profits. Romney is actually supposed to be a fairly intelligent guy (top 5% of an Ivy league), so he might not be such a bad president. Ron Paul/Mike Huckabee have no chance of winning so why bother talking about them.

Why are Price Controls are bad you ask?
Price controls

Democratic contenders for the 2008 presidential election want to use the federal government to lower the cost of prescription drugs, but while the move may be well-intentioned it could end up costing lives, an economist argued during an event in Washington, D.C.

Already, price controls may have had an adverse effect on our pharmaceutical industry.
Are drug price controls good for your health?

Using the predicted trend in pharmaceutical prices without government influence and an established elasticity of R&D spending with respect to drug prices from prior research, we determined that the resulting government-induced loss of capitalized pharmaceutical R&D expenditures was $188 billion (in 2000 dollars) from 1960 to 2001. This "lost" R&D may be translated into human life years "lost"—literally, increased pain and suffering and shorter lives caused by the absence of new medicines and future research—by using results from recent econometric work on the productivity of pharmaceutical R&D in the U.S. over the same period. We conclude that the federal government's influence on real drug prices cost the U.S. economy approximately 140 million life years between 1960 and 2001.

Price controls seen as key to Europe's drug innovation lag

Nor was this 'drug gap' due to faster FDA processing: both agencies have an identical mean approval time of 15.7 months. Instead, said Kaitin, drugs hit the US market first because the sponsors choose to submit them there first.

The advantage of the US is almost wholly down to its lack of price controls, says Kaitin. "Investors tend to invest in places where there is less control over prices, and it is always better to do your clinical trials in the countries where you plan to market," he says.

The shift of R&D out of Europe to the US is now "a pretty robust trend," adds Kaitin. "There is no indication that it will flop back unless the US switches to a different regulatory or pricing policy."

Europe Price controls

Actually, it's about research and development. And here's the connection between Europe's decision and Congress' folly. Pharmaceutical innovation is pinned on profitability. While 20 years ago pharmaceuticals were largely developed in Europe, European price controls made drug development an American enterprise. Fifteen of the 20 top-selling drugs worldwide this year were birthed in the United States. And even European firms such as GlaxoSmithKline have moved essential work across the Atlantic, to American shores. No wonder the EU is reconsidering their regiment of price controls.

What happened to Europe's vibrant drug industry?

The loss to research caused by price controls was quantified in a recent study by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The study looked at the impact of pharmaceutical price controls in 11 countries, among them Holland, France and Germany, and found that price controls caused a $5 billion to $8 billion annual reduction in funding for drug research and development.

What could that amount buy? According to the study, it could lead to the discovery of three or four new potentially life-saving chemicals each year. So it’s no surprise that from 1998 to 2002 there were only 44 new drug launches in Europe, compared to 85 in the U.S.

But now is no time for Americans to be smug. Ironically, there is a bipartisan move afoot in the United States to implement the same policies that have dried up pharmaceutical research in Europe by having the government “negotiate” drug prices.

The High Price of Cheap Drugs

Those price controls prevent innovative pharmaceutical firms from reaping free-market rewards anywhere but in the United States. That is one reason why the world pharmaceutical industry, which 20 years ago was mostly based in Europe, has largely relocated to the United States. American manufacturers now account for 7 of the top 10 worldwide best-selling medicines, and 15 of the top 20. This reflects a large and growing disparity in research and development expenditures. In 1990, European pharmaceutical firms outspent American firms on R&D by approximately 8billion euros to 5 billion euros ($7 billion to $4.3 billion). In 2000, U.S. firms outspent European firms by 24 billion euros to 17 billion euros ($20.9 billion to $14.8 billion). Even traditional European firms, notably GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, have moved many of their most essential operations to the United States.

I'm sure everyone knows that I have a huge bias about this. The blogger at fightaging.org sums it up pretty well.
Death (For Everyone) Before Inequality (For Anyone)

Creating "equality" by taking from the successful ruins the creation of wealth - very much a non-zero sum game - for all. It takes away the vital incentives and rewards for success. At the end of the process, as demonstrated by all that transpired in the Soviet Union, you are left with the same old inequalities, but now taking place amongst ruins, starvation and disease.

Economic ignorance is the death of cultures; it is presently eating away at the US, and is sadly most advanced in medicine and medical research. People who favor equality and envy over wealth and progress are, unfortunately, usually comparatively wealthy themselves and thus largely insulated from the short-term consequences of their ignorance. These dangerous philistines will have to decide in the years ahead whether their dearly-held positions are worth losing their lives to, not to mention the lives of everyone they manage to kill - at the rate of 100,000 with each and every day of delay on the way to working anti-aging technologies.

Fighting economic ignorance is very much a part of fighting for longer, healthier lives - because economic ignorance is the root of objections, delay and destructive regulation and governance. It's also at the root of darker paths best not taken, such as government-mandated limits to life span. We should remember that.

I will still not vote democratic. If it came down to McCain vs. Clinton, I would have to go for McCain (even though he seems to favors price controls himself). I think a lot of people fail to see the threat of a government beauracracy in getting life extending products to market. It seems like some level of price controls may be inevitable, though. Even if the federal government doesn't do anything, the states have already taken the steps to ensure universal healthcare (but they aren't having a lot of luck). There are a lot of new medical innovations that are coming down the pipeline besides drugs like gene therapy, rna interference, stem cells etc.. Governments are not going to get this stuff to market, private companies are (and probably companies here in the States as opposed to Europe). Look at Europe. Price controls due to universal healthcare have had a chilling effect on the medical industry there. Price controls (due to medicare, medicaid etc.) in the US have already negatively impacted the output of our industry (see the links above) Do I have a one track mind? Yes, but if I thought that there was 70% chance that the republicans were going to institute a draft in the next four years, I would vote democratic instead. I have to weigh threats as I see them and the biggest issue for me, and I would hope most immortalists, is the threat of more government regulation.

Edited by hrc579, 03 February 2008 - 01:21 AM.

[missminni]

I was wondering how much support Barack Obama has on the forum. He's getting a lot of support from young people, more than Hellery.

Obama is a black Lieberman without the experience. Google "Obama Lieberman" and see what I mean. Obama's health plan and social security reform are straight out of the republican playbook. If the republicans weren't so fussy about ideological purity Obama would be a republican. Give Obama time and he will probably end up in the republican party.

ITA. I suspect there's quite a bit of Republican money backing his campaign as it is.
Hillary is the far superior candidate in every way. Obama has no experience. All he can talk about is what he
did in Chicago and according to those in Chicago, it wasn't a hell of a lot.
For those too young to remember, our economy was flourishing under Clinton's administration.

[niner]

Europe Price controls
And even European firms such as GlaxoSmithKline have moved essential work across the Atlantic, to American shores. No wonder the EU is reconsidering their regiment of price controls.

This is nonsense. GSK has a huge new facility at Harlow in the UK. They work on things all over the world. There is no advantage to doing discovery research in the US over anywhere else- If the research is done anywhere, the drug will be sold worldwide.

What happened to Europe's vibrant drug industry?

The loss to research caused by price controls was quantified in a recent study by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The study looked at the impact of pharmaceutical price controls in 11 countries, among them Holland, France and Germany, and found that price controls caused a $5 billion to $8 billion annual reduction in funding for drug research and development.

What could that amount buy? According to the study, it could lead to the discovery of three or four new potentially life-saving chemicals each year. So it’s no surprise that from 1998 to 2002 there were only 44 new drug launches in Europe, compared to 85 in the U.S.

That's rich. What would it actually buy? $3-5 billion worth of marketing, with some of the balance going to R&D.

I'm sure everyone knows that I have a huge bias about this. The blogger at fightaging.org sums it up pretty well.
Death (For Everyone) Before Inequality (For Anyone)

Creating "equality" by taking from the successful ruins the creation of wealth - very much a non-zero sum game - for all. It takes away the vital incentives and rewards for success. At the end of the process, as demonstrated by all that transpired in the Soviet Union, you are left with the same old inequalities, but now taking place amongst ruins, starvation and disease.

Here's the problem h, we are SO FAR from the Soviet Union, it's just ridiculous to make a comparison like this. Our government is forbidden by statute from even Negotiating with drug companies! (Insurance companies are free to do so.)

I will still not vote democratic. If it came down to McCain vs. Clinton, I would have to go for McCain (even though he seems to favors price controls himself).

Well, of course. Your very DNA will not allow you to vote democratic. Even if McCain said he was going to clamp down on Big Pharma and Hillary said she was going to shower them with cash, you would still vote for McCain.

There are a lot of new medical innovations that are coming down the pipeline besides drugs like gene therapy, rna interference, stem cells etc..

Aren't these the kinds of things that Republicans are trying to suppress?

Governments are not going to get this stuff to market, private companies are (and probably companies here in the States as opposed to Europe). Look at Europe. Price controls due to universal healthcare have had a chilling effect on the medical industry there. Price controls (due to medicare, medicaid etc.) in the US have already negatively impacted the output of our industry (see the links above) Do I have a one track mind? Yes, but if I thought that there was 70% chance that the republicans were going to institute a draft in the next four years, I would vote democratic instead. I have to weigh threats as I see them and the biggest issue for me, and I would hope most immortalists, is the threat of more government regulation.

Big Pharma in America is under pressure not because of government regulation or the threat of it, it's because their business model is unsustainable. Given that there is a global market for drugs, it really doesn't matter where the drug is developed, it can be sold anywhere. If pharma output in Europe is lagging, I think you have to look somewhere else besides pressure on the sales side in any given country. All of the sources that you draw from are ideologically right wing. That lack of diversity in thought is causing you to miss the whole picture.

Finally, how much work in life extension is being done by Big Pharma anyway? Approximately zero. It's startups like Sirtris that are more interesting to us, and they are not going to go away just because the government finally wakes up and decides that a couple hundred bucks a month for a drug with only negligible improvements over its off-patent predecessor (e.g. Nexium) is not worth paying for.

Edited by niner, 04 February 2008 - 03:32 AM.

[Futurist1000]

All decent arguments niner. Instead of responding to all your comments, I'll just say lets agree to disagree. I doubt we would be able to convince each other.

Your very DNA will not allow you to vote democratic.

Well maybe, but as an atheist I would not consider the Republican party as being totally compatible with my own views. I'm glad the democrats are around to make sure this country doesn't turn into a theocracy. A balance between the two parties is good.

Edited by hrc579, 03 February 2008 - 11:03 PM.

[Futurist1000]

I think I'll respond to some of your comments niner. Sorry to go off topic.

niner
This is nonsense. GSK has a huge new facility at Harlow in the UK. They work on things all over the world. There is no advantage to doing discovery research in the US over anywhere else- If the research is done anywhere, the drug will be sold worldwide.

So what do you disagree with? That Europe is losing jobs/companies and that they are moving to the US?
How to plug Europe's brain drain
Besides thats not the point. Even if research is done in other countries, the US market is the most profitable. My point is that the move toward more government control will lead to some form of price controls, which will reduce profitability and lead to a reduction in new medical technology. So it doesn't necessarily matter what country the research is done in. What does matter is that companies can make more profits in the US, which will be curtailed if we move towards more price controls.
pharma-in-europe-going-from-heartburn-to-heart-attack

European job losses in the pharmaceutical R&D sector abound. In 2002, pharma giant Novartis said it would “move the headquarters of its worldwide research organization from Basel, Switzerland, to a new $250 million, 255,000 square-foot laboratory and office facility . . . in Cambridge, Massachusetts.” In November 2006, Novartis announced that it seeks to expand its R&D headquarters in the U.S. by adding as much as 500,000 square feet of additional R&D and office space. Europeans will not be enjoying these jobs—Americans will.
The brain drain to the U.S. that accompanies Europe’s rapidly declining R&D climate is far-reaching. Time magazine’s Jeff Chu recently noted, “Some 400,000 European science and technology graduates now live in the U.S. and thousands more leave each year.” Most European Ph.D. émigrés living in the U.S. have no plans to go back.

niner
That's rich. What would it actually buy? $3-5 billion worth of marketing, with some of the balance going to R&D.

Read the quote again. It says in drug research and development, not marketing. This piece was from the wall street journal.

price controls caused a $5 billion to $8 billion annual reduction in funding for drug research and development.

Besides you assume that marketing is a bad thing which is not necessarily the case. There is an interesting comment on this blog.
biotechs_net_loss

Marketing is designed to increase profits; it's supposed to be a profitable business unit. That's why you see the greatest number of ads for "lifestyle" problems where treatment is optional, or where people don't know that there are treatment options or might not want to mention the problem or think that it's a standard part of getting older. No one advertises for AIDS drugs or chemotherapy (except as part of a "look at how noble our company is" PR). It's absurd to claim, straight up, that money going to marketing is somehow "taken" from R&D. Of course you can argue that the pharmaceuticals are making less profit than they would if they would advertise less. A somewhat more sophisticated argument is that one that pharmaceutical drug advertising is some kind of tragedy of the commons where the companies are essentially spending money to grab bigger slices of the same pie. However, this contradicts the other common claim, made by milkshake about that "there is not much competitive pressure to keep the prices of new drugs low." If there's a bunch of me too drugs fighting with advertising over the same pie for some condition, then that means that there *is* competitive pressure.

niner
Here's the problem h, we are SO FAR from the Soviet Union, it's just ridiculous to make a comparison like this. Our government is forbidden by statute from even Negotiating with drug companies! (Insurance companies are free to do so.)

He's not comparing our country to the Soviet Union. He is only pointing out to an extreme example of why communism doesn't work. France is a fairly socialistic country and has also had its problems that are quite frankly due to too much government regulation. Our country may move toward more price controls. Negotiating Prices..

Aren't these the kinds of things that Republicans are trying to suppress?

Embryonic stem cells. But Bush isn't against stem cells per se. No one has tried to stop gene therapy or rna interference as treatments so I don't know what you mean. Perhaps extreme life extension or genetic engineering, but those are more science fiction at this point.

niner
Big Pharma in America is under pressure not because of government regulation or the threat of it, it's because their business model is unsustainable.

Sure but you have to ask why is it unsustainable? Pharmaceutical companies have already gotten all the low hanging fruit. It is harder to find new drugs that do something novel and have a significant benefit over existing therapies. The new therapies also have to have a large enough market to actually go through clinical trials. Plus the FDA has recently gotten more risk averse so they are much less likely to approve any new drugs. But increasing government regulation is only going to make it even harder for companies to get anything to market.

niner
Finally, how much work in life extension is being done by Big Pharma anyway? Approximately zero.

Its not just big pharma. A lot of other medical innovations have come out of the US market.

The six most important medical innovations of the last 25 years, according to a 2001 poll of physicians, were magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography (CT scan); ACE inhibitors, used in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure; balloon angioplasty; statins to lower cholesterol levels; mammography; and coronary artery bypass grafts. Balloon angioplasty came from Europe, four innovations on the list were developed in American hospitals or by American companies (although statins were based on earlier Japanese research), and mammography was first developed in Germany and then improved in the United States. Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas into workable commercial technologies.

Dr. Boehm argues that the research environment in the United States, compared with Europe, is wealthier, more competitive, more meritocratic and more tolerant of waste and chaos. He argues that these features lead to more medical discoveries. About 400,000 European researchers are living in the United States, usually for superior financial compensation and research facilities.

Edited by hrc579, 04 February 2008 - 08:16 PM.

[Futurist1000]

All of the sources that you draw from are ideologically right wing. That lack of diversity in thought is causing you to miss the whole picture.

FightAging.org is too right wing for you? Nature.com is too right wing?
Another article from Nature.

Europe is no longer the continent where most of the headquarters of traditional pharma companies are located. Today, only three (Novartis, Basel, Switzerland; Aventis, Strasbourg, France; and GSK, Uxbridge, UK) of the top ten pharmaceutical companies that are globally active can still be considered to be European (BioCentury, 2003b). Even worse, those that are still active in Europe are relocating and shifting their strategic R&D investments to the USA. This process is not driven by a lack of good quality science in Europe, but rather by the fact that the USA is the world's largest consumer market

niner
government finally wakes up and decides that a couple hundred bucks a month for a drug with only negligible improvements over its off-patent predecessor

That shouldn't be up to the government to decide. The market decides those things. Even copycat drugs are good because they lead to competition and choice. People can choose from multiple statins that have different half-lives, prices etc. Oh, an interesting side note is that while brand name medications are more expensive in the US, generic medications are actually cheaper here than they are in canada and europe. Its mostly due to the fact that the US allows more competition once a medication is off patent. People are already shielded from costs by their insurance company so they sometimes get brand-name medications when generics are available. But when the government doesn't allow medications to be sold because they believe that they are "not worth it" this leads to a reduction in choices available to the consumer. More competition is usually a good thing, which is why monopolies tend to lead to worse outcomes overall.

niner
It's startups like Sirtris that are more interesting to us.

Yeah but Sirtris is spending a ton of money and so far hasn't made any profit. I think I read somewhere that on average, biotechnology companies have actually spent more money than they have made in profits overall. If price controls are enacted on a wider scale, the chance that any of these companies would ever be able to make a profit would be even less (as their chance of making a profit is already slim to nil).

Edited by hrc579, 04 February 2008 - 08:18 PM.

[niner]

All of the sources that you draw from are ideologically right wing. That lack of diversity in thought is causing you to miss the whole picture.

FightAging.org is too right wing for you? Nature.com is too right wing?

freedomworks.org, a right wing front group chaired by Dick Armey
cybercast news service, formerly Conservative News Service, founded by right wing zealot Brent Bozell
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, a Big Pharma front group.
Weekly Standard, the house organ of the Neocons
manhattan-institue.org, right wing think tank founded by William Casey, Ronald Reagan's CIA dir. Has an add for a book titled "The Bottomless Well: The virtue of waste & why we will never run out of energy" as well as tracts by billionaire kook Steve Forbes.

niner
government finally wakes up and decides that a couple hundred bucks a month for a drug with only negligible improvements over its off-patent predecessor

That shouldn't be up to the government to decide. The market decides those things. Even copycat drugs are good because they lead to competition and choice. People can choose from multiple statins that have different half-lives, prices etc. Oh, an interesting side note is that while brand name medications are more expensive in the US, generic medications are actually cheaper here than they are in canada and europe. Its mostly due to the fact that the US allows more competition once a medication is off patent. People are already shielded from costs by their insurance company so they sometimes get brand-name medications when generics are available. But when the government doesn't allow medications to be sold because they believe that they are "not worth it" this leads to a reduction in choices available to the consumer. More competition is usually a good thing, which is why monopolies tend to lead to worse outcomes overall.

But there isn't competition if marketing/bribery by drug reps causes the doctor to write the prescription for a given drug. Once that happens, it almost always gets paid for. I'm not arguing for a national formulary, but when you see some of this heavily marketed not-really-better stuff, you have to wonder where all the money's going. I'm in favor of insurance provider formularies. Most good hospitals have them. (A formulary is a list of preferred drugs.)

niner
It's startups like Sirtris that are more interesting to us.

Yeah but Sirtris is spending a ton of money and so far hasn't made any profit. I think I read somewhere that on average, biotechnology companies have actually spent more money than they have made in profits overall. If price controls are enacted on a wider scale, the chance that any of these companies would ever be able to make a profit would be even less (as their chance of making a profit is already slim to nil).

This is not a good argument for throwing unlimited amounts of cash at Big Pharma, which has a much worse record of innovation than the startups. If Sirtris creates something good, I think they will make plenty of money.

Many of the articles you cite attempt to blame the changes in the pharmaceutical industry on Europe's price controls. But that doesn't explain the waves of layoffs, contraction, and consolidation in the US industry, when we have no such controls. It doesn't explain why US companies have been outsourcing R&D to China for years now. This has really accelerated. A few years ago I ran into a woman I used to work with. She was a long time employee at a big Pharma in the NorthEast, making $100K/year. When I last saw her, she was working in a Home Depot. I think that European Pharmas are relocating to the US more for the tax climate than anything else. They too are outsourcing R&D. It's all about making a profit. Most of the really groundbreaking new stuff comes out of academia and startups, not Big Pharma. If you want to end aging, you should vote for the people who are going to increase academic funding, and not stand in the way of promising research because it offends their fundamentalist base.

[Matt]

I'm not an American, but I hope that Obama becomes the president. But Clinton will be fine too. As long as its not republican

Edited by Matt, 08 February 2008 - 02:28 AM.

[Ghostrider]

I'm not an American, but I hope that Obama becomes the president. But Clinton will be fine too. As long as its not republican

In the end, I am most for whatever candidate will fight aging and support science as much as GWB supports war. Everything else comes second. That said, I think the Republicans will have a hard time in 2008. There is a split in the ranks between those who think that Bush was a good/ok president and those who are wondering if they should still be a Republican. Then again, the Democrats did lose to GWB not once, but twice. How lame is that?

Edited by Ghostrider, 08 February 2008 - 03:05 AM.

[niner]

I'm not an American, but I hope that Obama becomes the president. But Clinton will be fine too. As long as its not republican

In the end, I am most for whatever candidate will fight aging and support science as much as GWB supports war. Everything else comes second. That said, I think the Republicans will have a hard time in 2008. There is a split in the ranks between those who think that Bush was a good/ok president and those who are wondering if they should still be a Republican. Then again, the Democrats did lose to GWB not once, but twice. How lame is that?

Yeah. Unbelievable, really. Well, as of today, the next president of the US will be one of Clinton, Obama, or McCain. If it's Clinton, we'll be in for four more years of vitriol, as the one thing the fractured GOP agrees on is their hatred of Clinton. If McCain wins, things will be slightly less vitriolic, but we'll probably still be fighting the tired old culture war that had its roots in the Vietnam war. If Obama wins, I think the US has a good chance of healing some of its long standing internal wounds as well as its damaged relationship with the rest of the world.

BTW, I listened to Mitt Romney's speech today as he repeatedly took jabs at "Liberals". So much for him uniting the country. Good effing Riddance.

[missminni]

I'm not an American, but I hope that Obama becomes the president. But Clinton will be fine too. As long as its not republican

In the end, I am most for whatever candidate will fight aging and support science as much as GWB supports war. Everything else comes second. That said, I think the Republicans will have a hard time in 2008. There is a split in the ranks between those who think that Bush was a good/ok president and those who are wondering if they should still be a Republican. Then again, the Democrats did lose to GWB not once, but twice. How lame is that?

Yeah. Unbelievable, really. Well, as of today, the next president of the US will be one of Clinton, Obama, or McCain. If it's Clinton, we'll be in for four more years of vitriol, as the one thing the fractured GOP agrees on is their hatred of Clinton. If McCain wins, things will be slightly less vitriolic, but we'll probably still be fighting the tired old culture war that had its roots in the Vietnam war. If Obama wins, I think the US has a good chance of healing some of its long standing internal wounds as well as its damaged relationship with the rest of the world.

BTW, I listened to Mitt Romney's speech today as he repeatedly took jabs at "Liberals". So much for him uniting the country. Good effing Riddance.

Hillary Clinton is quite an extraordinary person, regardless of gender. They hate her because she's a woman.
They fear her because once she is in office she will actually make a change.
They prefer a man, any man, like Barak Obama with little experience and much
rhetoric and many celebrity supporters, like Oprah Winfrey, without whose support Obama wouldn't have had a chance of a snowball in hell. Oprah who is famous for supporting frauds and causes she knows nothing about. Also note that last year, Oprah made the top of the richest woman in the world list, while Hillary was voted the most popular woman in the world. Now Oprah can't have that, can she? And fat bloated Ted Kennedy, what do you think he's in it for? Yeah, everybody's got an agenda but nobodys got a plan. The Democrats are playing right into the hands of the Republicans. And the Republicans have a plan. Murdoch's paper is endorsing Obama. That should be a dead give away. He's the republican's choice because he'll be so easy for them to beat. They're holding off on the attacks now, in fact they're squelching them, until he gets the nomination. When he does, they have facts, not rumors, that will most certainly prevent him from winning the election. Barak Hussein Obama. It's the kind of stuff Republicans dream about.
What a lesson in misogyny.
See how black and white, democrat and republican can unite to hate a woman.

[niner]

I'm not an American, but I hope that Obama becomes the president. But Clinton will be fine too. As long as its not republican

In the end, I am most for whatever candidate will fight aging and support science as much as GWB supports war. Everything else comes second. That said, I think the Republicans will have a hard time in 2008. There is a split in the ranks between those who think that Bush was a good/ok president and those who are wondering if they should still be a Republican. Then again, the Democrats did lose to GWB not once, but twice. How lame is that?

Yeah. Unbelievable, really. Well, as of today, the next president of the US will be one of Clinton, Obama, or McCain. If it's Clinton, we'll be in for four more years of vitriol, as the one thing the fractured GOP agrees on is their hatred of Clinton. If McCain wins, things will be slightly less vitriolic, but we'll probably still be fighting the tired old culture war that had its roots in the Vietnam war. If Obama wins, I think the US has a good chance of healing some of its long standing internal wounds as well as its damaged relationship with the rest of the world.

BTW, I listened to Mitt Romney's speech today as he repeatedly took jabs at "Liberals". So much for him uniting the country. Good effing Riddance.

Hillary Clinton is quite an extraordinary person, regardless of gender. They hate her because she's a woman.
They fear her because once she is in office she will actually make a change.
They prefer a man, any man, like Barak Obama with little experience and much
rhetoric and many celebrity supporters, like Oprah Winfrey, without whose support Obama wouldn't have had a chance of a snowball in hell. Oprah who is famous for supporting frauds and causes she knows nothing about. Also note that last year, Oprah made the top of the richest woman in the world list, while Hillary was voted the most popular woman in the world. Now Oprah can't have that, can she? And fat bloated Ted Kennedy, what do you think he's in it for? Yeah, everybody's got an agenda but nobodys got a plan. The Democrats are playing right into the hands of the Republicans. And the Republicans have a plan. Murdoch's paper is endorsing Obama. That should be a dead give away. He's the republican's choice because he'll be so easy for them to beat. They're holding off on the attacks now, in fact they're squelching them, until he gets the nomination. When he does, they have facts, not rumors, that will most certainly prevent him from winning the election. Barak Hussein Obama. It's the kind of stuff Republicans dream about.
What a lesson in misogyny.
See how black and white, democrat and republican can unite to hate a woman.

Democrats don't hate Hillary. OK, some are really ticked off at her war vote and the bomb Iran thing, but many dems don't think she can win, not because she's a woman, but because so many people on the right hate her. A large segment of the Right hates all Clintons. Male or Female. I think that the republicans would really prefer to run against Clinton rather than Obama. A lot of people on the right actually seem to like Obama. I'm not saying misogyny isn't a factor; it is, but not that big. Racism is a factor too, but not a large one, I think. Now, Murdoch endorsing Obama, that scares me. I hope you're wrong about that...

[missminni]

Democrats don't hate Hillary. OK, some are really ticked off at her war vote and the bomb Iran thing, but many dems don't think she can win, not because she's a woman, but because so many people on the right hate her. A large segment of the Right hates all Clintons. Male or Female. I think that the republicans would really prefer to run against Clinton rather than Obama. A lot of people on the right actually seem to like Obama. I'm not saying misogyny isn't a factor; it is, but not that big. Racism is a factor too, but not a large one, I think. Now, Murdoch endorsing Obama, that scares me. I hope you're wrong about that...

Democrats don't hate Hillary. Just some democrats don't want a woman in charge. Everybody voted for the stupid
war. If Obama was there he probably would have too. He had the luxury of not having been there. He couldn't even get elected to
the Illinois state legislature that year.
She can most certainly win. That's a no brainer, and the people on the right who hate her are not going to make that much of a difference and they certainly aren't going to vote for Obama, they are just supporting him now, because they want him to get the nomination. Last night, on Anderson Cooper, I heard Glen Beck, a staunch pragmatic Republican conservative, say if McCain ran he would vote for Hillary Clinton because at least you know what you're getting. He thought Obama wasn't qualified to run. I agree. And as far as Murdoch supporting Obama, the New York Post, his paper, came out in support of Obama last week. Why is that hard to believe? They got a plan. A strategy. Something that the democrats never have. The Republicans would love to run against Barak Hussein Obama. He'll never win and they know it. If you think they gave the Clintons a hard time, wait until they dig their claws into Barak, born a Muslim in 1961 and didn't become a Christian until 1986. You think they are going to let that one go unnoticed. They're just keeping a lid on it now. Please. Nobody on the right is going to vote for Obama. They're going to say he's the anti-christ. Obama Osama will be their battle cry. The right is a bunch of religious fanatics. They're planning the Armageddon. They look forward to it. They certainly aren't going to achieve it with Obama in office.

[mike250]

I don't see why you have to bring the gender issue into it. Nobody cares if she's a male or female, and weather she makes a change in office remains to be seen.

[Alien65]

Democrats don't hate Hillary. OK, some are really ticked off at her war vote and the bomb Iran thing, but many dems don't think she can win, not because she's a woman, but because so many people on the right hate her. A large segment of the Right hates all Clintons. Male or Female. I think that the republicans would really prefer to run against Clinton rather than Obama. A lot of people on the right actually seem to like Obama. I'm not saying misogyny isn't a factor; it is, but not that big. Racism is a factor too, but not a large one, I think. Now, Murdoch endorsing Obama, that scares me. I hope you're wrong about that...

Democrats don't hate Hillary. Just some democrats don't want a woman in charge. Everybody voted for the stupid
war. If Obama was there he probably would have too. He had the luxury of not having been there. He couldn't even get elected to
the Illinois state legislature that year.
She can most certainly win. That's a no brainer, and the people on the right who hate her are not going to make that much of a difference and they certainly aren't going to vote for Obama, they are just supporting him now, because they want him to get the nomination. Last night, on Anderson Cooper, I heard Glen Beck, a staunch pragmatic Republican conservative, say if McCain ran he would vote for Hillary Clinton because at least you know what you're getting. He thought Obama wasn't qualified to run. I agree. And as far as Murdoch supporting Obama, the New York Post, his paper, came out in support of Obama last week. Why is that hard to believe? They got a plan. A strategy. Something that the democrats never have. The Republicans would love to run against Barak Hussein Obama. He'll never win and they know it. If you think they gave the Clintons a hard time, wait until they dig their claws into Barak, born a Muslim in 1961 and didn't become a Christian until 1986. You think they are going to let that one go unnoticed. They're just keeping a lid on it now. Please. Nobody on the right is going to vote for Obama. They're going to say he's the anti-christ. Obama Osama will be their battle cry. The right is a bunch of religious fanatics. They're planning the Armageddon. They look forward to it. They certainly aren't going to achieve it with Obama in office.

Very perceptive.

[missminni]

I don't see why you have to bring the gender issue into it. Nobody cares if she's a male or female, and weather she makes a change in office remains to be seen.

Oh yes they do. Very much. They just wouldn't admit it. Oh no, I take that back.
On CNN, hey interviewed many people down south, mostly men, who explicitly said they would never vote for a woman. You don't live
in this country do you?

[mike250]

I don't see why you have to bring the gender issue into it. Nobody cares if she's a male or female, and weather she makes a change in office remains to be seen.

Oh yes they do. Very much. They just wouldn't admit it. Oh no, I take that back.
On CNN, hey interviewed many people down south, mostly men, who explicitly said they would never vote for a woman. You don't live
in this country do you?

No I don't but it amazes me how some people like to politicize the gender issue and ram it into just about everything.

[missminni]

I don't see why you have to bring the gender issue into it. Nobody cares if she's a male or female, and weather she makes a change in office remains to be seen.

Oh yes they do. Very much. They just wouldn't admit it. Oh no, I take that back.
On CNN, hey interviewed many people down south, mostly men, who explicitly said they would never vote for a woman. You don't live
in this country do you?

No I don't but it amazes me how some people like to politicize the gender issue and ram it into just about everything.

Unfortunately, as much as I share your amazement, when you consider that
women only got the right to vote in the 1920's, it is easy to see how political an issue it is.

[mike250]

I don't see why you have to bring the gender issue into it. Nobody cares if she's a male or female, and weather she makes a change in office remains to be seen.

Oh yes they do. Very much. They just wouldn't admit it. Oh no, I take that back.
On CNN, hey interviewed many people down south, mostly men, who explicitly said they would never vote for a woman. You don't live
in this country do you?

No I don't but it amazes me how some people like to politicize the gender issue and ram it into just about everything.

Unfortunately, as much as I share your amazement, when you consider that
women only got the right to vote in the 1920's, it is easy to see how political an issue it is.

to me it seems they are all the same. how different is Hillary going to be compared to the others. there seems to be a lot of pre-hype but seldom is something seriously done.

[missminni]

I don't see why you have to bring the gender issue into it. Nobody cares if she's a male or female, and weather she makes a change in office remains to be seen.

Oh yes they do. Very much. They just wouldn't admit it. Oh no, I take that back.
On CNN, hey interviewed many people down south, mostly men, who explicitly said they would never vote for a woman. You don't live
in this country do you?

No I don't but it amazes me how some people like to politicize the gender issue and ram it into just about everything.

Unfortunately, as much as I share your amazement, when you consider that
women only got the right to vote in the 1920's, it is easy to see how political an issue it is.

to me it seems they are all the same. how different is Hillary going to be compared to the others. there seems to be a lot of pre-hype but seldom is something seriously done.

Read about her and what she has done with her life. I've been following who Hillary is for a long time. She is exceptional in every way.
Then read about Obama. Who do you think has the experience? The vision? The plan? Obama has a long way to go before gaining my confidence. Right now he is nothing more than a fad, a celebrity, a pop culture icon and I can't help but wonder who put up all that money. They planned on him running for president before he even became senator. A wealthy democratic friend of mine was invited to a fund raising benefit for Obama before he even won his senator's seat. Why were they pushing this guy so prematurely? Yes he's a good speaker, but he does nothing more than imitate Kennedy and Martin Luther King without Martins soul or sincerity. I was there to witness Kennedy and King. Both great speakers. King far superior to Kennedy. Obama inferior to both.

[Cyberbrain]

Good news everybody! Mitt Romney dropped out of the race! ... or at least he suspended his campaign.

Btw, does anyone know if Mike Gravel is still running?

[mike250]

I don't see why you have to bring the gender issue into it. Nobody cares if she's a male or female, and weather she makes a change in office remains to be seen.

Oh yes they do. Very much. They just wouldn't admit it. Oh no, I take that back.
On CNN, hey interviewed many people down south, mostly men, who explicitly said they would never vote for a woman. You don't live
in this country do you?

No I don't but it amazes me how some people like to politicize the gender issue and ram it into just about everything.

Unfortunately, as much as I share your amazement, when you consider that
women only got the right to vote in the 1920's, it is easy to see how political an issue it is.

to me it seems they are all the same. how different is Hillary going to be compared to the others. there seems to be a lot of pre-hype but seldom is something seriously done.

Read about her and what she has done with her life. I've been following who Hillary is for a long time. She is exceptional in every way.
Then read about Obama. Who do you think has the experience? The vision? The plan? Obama has a long way to go before gaining my confidence. Right now he is nothing more than a fad, a celebrity, a pop culture icon and I can't help but wonder who put up all that money. They planned on him running for president before he even became senator. A wealthy democratic friend of mine was invited to a fund raising benefit for Obama before he even won his senator's seat. Why were they pushing this guy so prematurely? Yes he's a good speaker, but he does nothing more than imitate Kennedy and Martin Luther King without Martins soul or sincerity. I was there to witness Kennedy and King. Both great speakers. King far superior to Kennedy. Obama inferior to both.

he might not be experienced enough or have a very impressive past but that does not make him any worse off. I honesty think that if Obama wins the Dem ticket, nobody will stop him (and he won't have Hillary on the ticket). This is very similar to 1992 where as much baggage as Clinton had, he represented change and people voted on that more than any other issue. Obama is getting a LOT of independent white vote, is picking up Latino vote, dominates African American voters, and attracts a ton of moderates EVEN though he is liberal. Hillary I don't mind her much, but she did vote for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. She seems to want total control and is very determined to get that which, in a way is kinda scary.......

just my humble thoughts.

Edited by mike250, 08 February 2008 - 05:43 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

Well in reality Hillary and Obama are essentially the same! They both care about party loyalties and lobbyist.

The only difference between the two is that one voted not to go to war and the other supports universal health care.

BOTH voted to continue funding the Iraq war

BOTH voted for the patriot act.

BOTH voted to continue sanctions on Iran.

and BOTH want war as last option with Iran on the table ... compared to Ron Paul and Mike Gravel who want NO war what so ever with any country.