Comments on: The Golgafrincham Solution

By: kenoshamarge

kenoshamarge — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:51:36 +0000

The two things I found most interesting in the Moyers/Potter interview Friday night was that Potter says the “public option” will help some but not enough. He also says that the “mandate” would be a gift to insurance companies in that they would then have a shot a 40million plus new customers. Reluctant customers who must buy insurance or be fined by the government.

And for those that cannot afford to buy insurance there will be help from the government. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

By: JoseyJ

JoseyJ — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 11:58:21 +0000

btw – did Holder’s DOJ recently state there would be NO investigation of Plame/CIA?
I know the Supreme Court recently denied Plame.

By: Three Wickets

Three Wickets — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:41:32 +0000

Is Big Satan the insurers or pharma. I meant insurers, but no matter.

By: jangles

jangles — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:12:32 +0000

The AG is supposed to be independent of the the prez and has the authority to be independent—not a puppet of the prez. But most of them are not very independent.

By: jangles

jangles — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:58:55 +0000

What is wrong with it. I like the sound of it. She is saying, as HRC said, that criticism of public figures goes with the territory and even tho’ at times it can be pretty uncomfortable—complaining about it does not do any good. She is also saying that there is a difference between speech that finds fault, rips and tears and legal actions that are frivolous but have to be responded to. The first is what we all do with varying degrees of passion; the second is calculated personal destruction to ruin someone legally using the legal system. This is the Alinsky playbook—use the system to destroy the person and the system. It is based upon the belief that the people it is aimed at are not just political opponents with whom you argue and disagree—they are the enemy; they are evil; they are to be destroyed. How can you support that approach to politics from anyone? But that is the Obama approach; it is the Rove approach?

By: DandyTiger

DandyTiger — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:10:52 +0000

That’s my fondest wish. I say a prayer to that effect every night.

By: Three Wickets

Three Wickets — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:47:33 +0000

Agree with you about Big Satan and the lawyers. Until they are disintermediated, costs will never have a chance of coming under control. But pharma does have the right to recoup the cost of their research. That is, unless pharma is nationalized, like the defense industry, and we know how efficient that is. Problem is that American patients and taxpayers are subsidizing those vital R&D drug investments for the whole world, not just this country. Doesn’t matter if the company is American or foreign. The important research takes place here. There should be a way for those initial research costs to be more aggressively amortized across other countries who benefit from the generics but do not contribute to the cost of developing the original proprietary products.

By: Riverdaughter

Riverdaughter — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:19:44 +0000

Mergers fuck everything up. Researchers hate mergers. While the two companies hire a consulting firm to rearrange the deck chairs, research comes to a screeching halt. No one know what projects to keep until there is a portfolio review. That takes a lonnnnnng time and can’t really get underway until the merger is approved. Until then, the information is proprietary for each company. Thrn, there ate layoffs. Salespeople get hit hard and research units are eliminated. Marketing people lead charmed lives. They are almost never laid off.
So, the two companies’ research staffs finally get together after a year and try to pick up the pieces of their shattered projects while the executives tell them to do more research with less resources, because there’s no money left to hire staff or buy new reagents and equiptment. So, research hobbles by, fraught with scheduling problems and fewer FTE’s. Then there are extra meetings to figure out how to rearrange the workflow through the pipeline using what you’ve got.
Meanwhile, the click is ticking on any idea that ever e
went into a notebook, even if it doesn’t get used until years later. That’s how our patent law works. Created it in 1987 but not approved by the Fda until 2005? And you only get a few years of patent exclusivity out of?
Tough kershnoogies. Nobody cares that it cost $2b to develop and scientists have to eat too. Big Satan is eeeeeeevil for not offering the drug below the cost of recouping the investment. And don’t even get me started on class action lawyers.
Yes, mergers suck. I know people in four companies that are merging who are about to lose their jobs. No one I know is getting rich but Wall Street.

By: alice

alice — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:42:24 +0000

If it’s Office of Special Counsel like Fitzgerald was, it’s part of the Justice Dept. In any case, there was a lot of hope in a Fitzmas that never came to pass and anger that Libby took the fall for criminals who went unpunished.

This is no shot at Fitzgerald. It’s the environment in which he was operating — far from independent. I seem to recall that Fitz wanted a second grand jury. He never got one. And Libby got his sentence commuted.

By: RalphB

RalphB — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:21:14 +0000

Yeah WTF? Since people can’t seem to understand the plain english she used to describe why she resigned, might as well join the haters.