Odd Lots

[billroper]

With apologies to my brother-in-law, jeff_duntemann:

The good news is that we are all almost recovered from the digestive crud that made its way through the family. daisy_knotwise is the last afflicted, but things are moving back to normal. (So to speak.)

When my Creative Zen MP3 player died over the weekend, I decided to spring for an iPod Touch, because it would handle about 90% of the things that I'd want to get from an Android-based phone and there was no Android phone on the market that would really do what I wanted, especially if I wanted to stay with Sprint. (Which requires a certain level of masochism on my part, but I see in the consumer ratings that all cellphone companies are pretty much equally reviled by their subscribers.) Yesterday, Sprint announced this lovely 4G phone loaded with Android 2.1 for release this summer. According to reports, you can even tether your computer to it via Wi-Fi and leach off the phone's Internet connection. Actually, you can tether up to eight computers to it. *gack* Of course, it's not available now and I did want a new MP3 player before going to FilkOntario. And we don't know what it will cost. *sigh*

I've been wrestling with getting the MFC Visual Studio wizards that assist you with writing code working following a bunch of changes that one of the other developers made to the resource files. After three-and-a-half days of beating my head against the wall, deleting the Intellisense files, and other dodges, I finally found out how to deal with multiple resource files in Visual Studio 2008. Because no one would expect that a user would do that, I guess.

Political violence: I'm against it. It's a bad idea. Not only is it immoral, but it is counter-productive. Even if you might think that the end can justify the means in some cases, it's not generally going to get the results that you want. (I wish I could say that it never works, but I know better than that. Look at some of the history of our unions where neither side has clean hands. Then consider why I'm so vehemently opposed to the proposed card-check legislation that's been floating around Congress.)

Political rhetoric: There's a lot of it. And I don't know how to get rid of it in a world where the news media lives and dies for the sound bite. If it takes more than fifteen seconds to formulate an argument, it doesn't get air time. That doesn't particularly help the cause of rational discourse.

The healthcare bill: The number one effect that I expect to see from this bill is a slowdown in the rate of medical innovation. They're already coming for the makers of medical devices -- from what I read, that will include my CPAP. I expect the pharmaceutical companies are going to be in the cross hairs next, because "everyone knows" that drug prices in the U.S. are too high. Personally, I've viewed high U.S. drug prices as our contribution to the world for the standard of living that we enjoy here. Of course, it's easier to have that point of view when you have a prescription plan that works for you.

I take four prescription drugs every day that let me lead a normal life. And I take one formerly prescription drug that is a whole lot cheaper now that the patent has expired and it's available over the counter. I anxiously await the development of the next new drug that will make my life better.

And I worry that it isn't going to show up, because the profit motive is a powerful thing and when you want to make inherently financially risky pharmaceutical research a lot less lucrative when you hit the jackpot, well, then why should the drug companies even bother to play the game? They can invest in something less risky. Like T-bills.

Oops. Maybe not.

And did I mention that Social Security has gone into the red and is paying out more than it's taking in. That's certainly not going to help...

Comments

[poltr1]

I happen to like my cell phone service provider: Cincinnati Bell Wireless. I've never had a problem with them.

And speaking as someone who briefly worked in the pharmaceutical industry, it takes several years and many millions of dollars to research and develop new drugs. The new drugs are priced to recoup the cost of the R&D.

[madfilkentist]

One result we're already starting to see in the healthcare bill is greater application of the principle, "We're paying for your medical bills, so we can tell you what choices to make that affect your health." The bill included some "sin taxes," e.g., on tanning salons, presumably on the theory that if you're increasing your risk of cancer and the government's going to pay your bills, it should collect against them in advance. We're going to see a lot more of this.

Political violence can do something good when a situation has gotten intolerable, when there's an organized movement that has broad support, and when there are clear plans for something better. Throwing rocks (unless you're on the moon), making senseless threats, and flying planes into buildings don't fall into that category, of course. Even with well-organized and well-intended revolutions, the results have often been very bad.

[qnofhrt.livejournal.com]

Drug prices are high in this country not because of the pharma companies spending billions on research (which they do) but because of the fact that the US Congress allowed them, starting in the '90s, to advertise directly to the consumer. Over all, the industry in the US (only) spends twice as much on advertising (the majority of which is the direct to the consumer or DTC) than they do on research.

Let me say that again - in the US, the drug companies spend TWICE as much in advertising than they do on research.

This is not the case in most of the world. In Canada for instance, they not only prohibit DTC but also restrict advertising to health care professionals too. As a result, docs tend to prescribe fewer medications overall and less pricey ones too. I read an article a year or so back on prescribing trends for Zetia between the US and Canada and the overall patient outcomes (this was part of the cluster of them a few years back that questioned the effectiveness of Zetia). Zetia was prescribed over 40% more in the US and the origin of most of that was consumer driven - patients asking their docs for the drug because they'd seen it on tv. Yet those patients saw no better, and in some cases, worse outcomes then their Canadian counterparts who were not prescribed it.

There are other factors that are involved obviously. I've worked in big pharma, I've worked in companies that were suppliers to big (and small) pharma. I now work in a pharmacy. Research is expensive and risky but I absolutely agree that it's worth it. There are literally thousands of compounds that don't make it for every one that does. But even those failures teach us something about how to do it better the next time. The biggest boon to pharma research is what I'm typing this on right now - the desktop computer. It has, and continues to revolutionize pharmaceutical research.

I have the data on the advertising costs in my office because I actually do a lecture on drug discovery and development for our summer high school program. It's disgusting really. I'd love to see the president and/or Congress take on the DTC issue but it's not on anybody's radar.

[robin-june.livejournal.com]

Political rhetoric: There's a lot of it. And I don't know how to get rid of it in a world where the news media lives and dies for the sound bite. If it takes more than fifteen seconds to formulate an argument, it doesn't get air time. That doesn't particularly help the cause of rational discourse.

Absolutely right. Which is why I get much or most of my news from NPR, and get blindsided by the attitudes of those around me who don't.

I'm in medical research, in academia instead of the private sector, and I remember when certain experimental drugs were researched by the physiology lab I was working in, funded by an NIH grant. (You could tell that they were experimental drugs, because instead of polysyllabic, not-quite-nonsense names, they had numbers, preceded by the initials of which company was developing them. SQ was Squibb, and U was Upjohn.)
The slowdown in the rate of medical innovation isn't from disincentivizing big pharma. They've been incentivized for a while now, and are either dragging their feet, or being unlucky in the rate of recognizing new drugs to new applications, since their (publicly-perceived) product pipelines are emptying.
What has gone down, is the research grants granted by the NIH and other government granting agencies. A proposal earning the same merit score that was funded just a few years ago, isn't high enough for funding now. There are grant moneys set aside especially for young researchers just starting their labs, but once that 3 to 5 years' funding is through, there isn't funding to replace it.
Match that with the trend of taxpayers unhappy with academic researchers who were doing basic or applied research and then handing their results off to commercial enterprises. In response to that, universities started to patent their results and get royalties, and you see why big pharma sez it wants to take its ball back and go home.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Robin_June:
Which is why I get much or most of my news from NPR, and get blindsided by the attitudes of those around me who don't.

Ditto. I find NPR is good at giving an in depth look at issues.

BillRoper:
And did I mention that Social Security has gone into the red and is paying out more than it's taking in. That's certainly not going to help...

But on the bright side, the Democrats stopped Bush from investing it in the stock market just in time for his second recession. That would have stung.

[billroper]

Two things: the first recession during Bush's presidency started during the Clinton administration. If you blame Bush for that one, you'd have to blame Obama for the current recession.

As far as investing the money in the stock market, the only thing that would have affected is the composition of the total U.S. debt. As it is, the Social Security money is invested in U.S. Treasury securities which -- as the article I linked to notes -- are in danger of losing their AAA rating. If any of the incoming Social Security money (which is all that was being discussed) had been invested in the stock market, it would have gone down in value, but the assets would still be there.

The U.S. government retains the right to adjust Social Security benefits at any time. That includes downward. Doing so would be yet another method of making the program solvent.

For a preview of what we may get if we can't manage to get our spending under control, I invite you to look at the current situation in Greece.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

Visual Studio: I've been convinved that Microsoft's development system is actively designed to sabotage large-scale professional development projects. They want people to have success with small, quick projects, especially projects that tie deeply into Windows and other Microsoft projects. But they don't like developers developing projects that are big and complicated enough that people using them feel that they're using the custom app, rather than a Microsoft machine with some customization.

Political violence: unfortunately, political violence is extremely effective for many of the high profile groups that use it, because so often governments and populations, when provoked by acts of terrorism, do *just what the terrorists want*. There could have been peace in the Middle East decades ago if the actions by the extremists on both sides weren't so effective in keeping the majorities too angry to compromise. On Sept. 10, 2001, very few people in the world knew who Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda even were; on every day since, they've been important in shaping world opinion. George Tiller's abortion clinic is out of business. Political violence is very bad for society as a whole, but it's very effective for the people who are so extreme in their views that nothing else matters.

Political rhetoric and the drug business: there's actually a common thread here. We see the level of discussion that we do because it's been reduced to a form of entertainment as TV networks compete for ratings. And why do they want to get high ratings? So they can make more money on drug ads. The economic landscape favors TV being nothing but a wasteland of intellect-free marketing, so that's what it is. And the use of marketing, by politicians, prescription drug makers, or whoever, has evolved to succeed in that environment.

it's easier to have that point of view when you have a prescription plan that works for you

Or, to paraphrase, you don't have a problem with the price of drugs because someone else pays for yours. Have you asked your pharmacist how much your drugs would cost if you didn't have a health plan? You've had one good, health-care-included job since you got out of college and as far as you've let us know it's still secure. I know you worked long and hard to get where you are, but you've also been lucky.

[billroper]

I don't argue that I've not been lucky.

As far as the cost of the drugs goes, I see the amount that my provider tells me that the drugs would have cost without insurance on each statement that I get from them. It's an annoyingly large number, but it's not clear to me how "true" that number actually is or would be in the absence of prescription plans. That is to say, I don't know if that number reflects what the insurance company is paying for the drug (I bet it doesn't) or what the hypothetical "retail" price of the drug is (which is only paid by people who aren't a member of the insurance company "buyers club" or who don't somehow receive other discounts).

Brief example: because of the circumstances of Katie and Julie's birth, we had to pay for the delivery out of pocket. The hospital had a theoretical "sticker" price for the deliveries, but we did actually get a discount off that amount.

[janmagic.livejournal.com]

i am glad i found and read your posts. i have often wondered how you have felt about this health care reform.
I wonder how red neck republicans get their information, if they are not looking for what the real truth is and get a steady diet of fox faux news( a report of a woman who believed that the reform would come between her and her doctor)

what do you expect from social security? the baby boomers paid for the SS of our parents and someone like me who never earned more that $20,000 a year for 5 decades will get $13,000 a year for 3 decades. if they removed the income cap from SS then it would not be in the red.