A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

California's Fires



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old October 25th 17, 08:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default California's Fires

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 11:25:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:06:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one.. The
fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in
ways that no individuals can hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve
prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways,
but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for
pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's
Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the
medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

What I find interesting that in some countries.... (strangely Thailand
comes to mind :-) the price of certain, perhaps most, pharmaceuticals
is lower, sometimes much lower then in other countries. Sometimes very
near by.

I remember, after I retired and living in Thailand, I visited a
doctor in Singapore and mentioned that I could buy medicines in
Thailand cheaper then in Singapore. The doctor replied that I didn't
need to go all the way to Thailand, "just cross the causeway to
Malaysia".

In the U.S. I read about people crossing the border to Canada or
Mexico to buy medicine.

Granted that the cost of doing business is higher in the U.S., but
still.

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch
the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding
to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are
spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to
do so, and they want to keep getting that money.


Of course, but no different then any other company. Everybody knows
that Chevrolet is better then a Ford. Says so, right there on the T..V.
:-)

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because
it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to
state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way.

Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited
money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where
drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to
consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As
a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.

The cost of medicine outside of the US isn't any sort of comparison to those sold in the USA where most of the funding for medicine development occurs.

Not to mention that many medications are counterfeited outside of the USA and a great many of them are ineffective. I can tell the difference between my anti-convulsive mediation made by different manufacturers here.


Much of the research is done by foreign drug makers. My wife's drug was developed by Hoffman-LaRoche in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is typically prescribed to patients with Huntington's disease but is also used for other chorea disorders. Drugs purchased from legitimate Canadian pharmacies are typically the same brands available in the US or safe and effective generics from foreign manufacturers. This is not like buying fake Viagra from China via the internet.

There is no reason CMS should pay extortive prices for orphan or branded drugs available in Canada or Europe for a small fraction of the price -- except to pad the pockets of domestic sellers. The tax code already rewards manufacturers and others with depreciating intellectual property. No need to pay twice.


The USA does 43.7% of pharmaceutical research and development. ONE country does this out of 195 countries. And MANY of the drugs that are sold by competing foreign firms were developed in the US and were immediately copied the second that the patents ran out.


The company with the largest R&D budget is Swiss. The fact that a large number of drugs are patented by US companies also does not mean they were in fact developed in the US, particularly with the world-wide operations of most US drug manufacturers. Also, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/

Also, nobody is contending that US companies don't produce a lot of new "NME" (new molecular entities), but that does not mean US drug manufacturers should be allowed to price gouge or that CMS should not be allowed to negotiate prices. The US also makes a lot of cars, but that doesn't mean the GSA shouldn't negotiate the price of fleet vehicles -- or computers or durable medical equipment. Why should drugs be different? WalMart does it. Other health plans do it. Why not Medicare? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/wa...-medicare.html

-- Jay Beattie.

Ads
  #92  
Old October 25th 17, 09:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default California's Fires

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:26:01 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 11:25:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:06:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The
fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in
ways that no individuals can hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve
prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways,
but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for
pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's
Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the
medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

What I find interesting that in some countries.... (strangely Thailand
comes to mind :-) the price of certain, perhaps most, pharmaceuticals
is lower, sometimes much lower then in other countries. Sometimes very
near by.

I remember, after I retired and living in Thailand, I visited a
doctor in Singapore and mentioned that I could buy medicines in
Thailand cheaper then in Singapore. The doctor replied that I didn't
need to go all the way to Thailand, "just cross the causeway to
Malaysia".

In the U.S. I read about people crossing the border to Canada or
Mexico to buy medicine.

Granted that the cost of doing business is higher in the U.S., but
still.

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch
the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding
to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are
spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to
do so, and they want to keep getting that money.


Of course, but no different then any other company. Everybody knows
that Chevrolet is better then a Ford. Says so, right there on the T.V.
:-)

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because
it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to
state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way.

Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited
money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where
drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to
consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As
a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.

The cost of medicine outside of the US isn't any sort of comparison to those sold in the USA where most of the funding for medicine development occurs.

Not to mention that many medications are counterfeited outside of the USA and a great many of them are ineffective. I can tell the difference between my anti-convulsive mediation made by different manufacturers here.

Much of the research is done by foreign drug makers. My wife's drug was developed by Hoffman-LaRoche in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is typically prescribed to patients with Huntington's disease but is also used for other chorea disorders. Drugs purchased from legitimate Canadian pharmacies are typically the same brands available in the US or safe and effective generics from foreign manufacturers. This is not like buying fake Viagra from China via the internet.

There is no reason CMS should pay extortive prices for orphan or branded drugs available in Canada or Europe for a small fraction of the price -- except to pad the pockets of domestic sellers. The tax code already rewards manufacturers and others with depreciating intellectual property. No need to pay twice.


The USA does 43.7% of pharmaceutical research and development. ONE country does this out of 195 countries. And MANY of the drugs that are sold by competing foreign firms were developed in the US and were immediately copied the second that the patents ran out.


The company with the largest R&D budget is Swiss. The fact that a large number of drugs are patented by US companies also does not mean they were in fact developed in the US, particularly with the world-wide operations of most US drug manufacturers. Also, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/

Also, nobody is contending that US companies don't produce a lot of new "NME" (new molecular entities), but that does not mean US drug manufacturers should be allowed to price gouge or that CMS should not be allowed to negotiate prices. The US also makes a lot of cars, but that doesn't mean the GSA shouldn't negotiate the price of fleet vehicles -- or computers or durable medical equipment. Why should drugs be different? WalMart does it. Other health plans do it. Why not Medicare? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/wa...-medicare.html


The largest drug company in the world is Roche and they have the largest R&D budget and almost ALL of their companies are American.

So why are you using an example of a holding company that has gone to a tax haven?
  #93  
Old October 25th 17, 09:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default California's Fires

On 10/25/2017 1:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2017 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/25/2017 8:49 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's
billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what
is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a
near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to
affect the election process in ways that no individuals can
hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will
involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly
written in some ways, but the essence is that no state
agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices
negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is
allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems
in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's
amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the
pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated.
Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending
fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money
to do so, and they want to keep getting that money.

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat
it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because
it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their
medications that way.

Other examples abound.ÂÂ* But when an industry like this has
unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they
want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed
nations where drug companies can, and do, market
prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell
your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result,
TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.


And as with any other human interaction, you're free to
buy or not buy whatever the hell they're hawking.


In some cases, yes. We recently made that decision on one
family member's medicine. The doctor prescribed a time
release version that was exorbitantly expensive, in part
because there is no generic for that version. But there is a
generic for the alternative that you must remember to take
twice per day. I phoned the doctor and had him change to
that generic, and there have been no problems.

Trouble is, "free to not buy" has little meaning when the
medication in question is literally necessary for life.Â* One
recent example is the Epi-pen.Â* See
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...oost/89129620/



"Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has written the manufacturer,
Mylan, asking for the reasons behind the price boosts for
EpiPen, an epinephine auto-injector used to treat allergy
reactions that has seen its price rise from $57 in 2007 to
about $500 today."Â* As I recall, the ultimate answer was "We
raised the price because we could."

Or more generally, there's this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...-protests.html



There's another medication in the house that costs a bundle
and is not available in generic form. Turns out that in
other countries it is a generic. Here, they've managed to
control the patents not because of the medication, but
because of the cute little dispenser. Fortunately, that med
is needed only rarely - but the legal/marketing ploy is
pretty offensive.

Bike analogy: I didn't mind SunTour having a patent
preventing other companies from using a slant parallelogram
derailleur. But I would have been pretty offended if the law
said "Bicyclists must use only one rear cog," or "bicyclists
can change from one gear to another only using their bare
hands."

For example, I notice a constant series of complaints
about WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been
inside one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?"
I just get a blank stare.


I hear you. I don't shop there, deliberately.


Epinephrine is generic and old; predates FDA regulation.
The branded pen device is patented and they keep making minor changes to
extend the device patent.
Possession of a syringe was, in recent memory, a crime. That's no longer
true.
But hey if you find the pen device handy, it costs more.


Using your own epinephrine and your own syringe sounds fine. Unless,
that is, you're trying to fumble with it in the middle of an
anaphylactic event. Especially if you're a kid.

Fortunately, the public outcry and legislative interest kicked in and
forced that poor, poor corporation to backtrack a bit.

I do feel sorry for the corporation. Somebody needs to give it a nice
hug, to make it feel better.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #94  
Old October 25th 17, 10:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default California's Fires

On 10/25/2017 3:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/25/2017 1:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2017 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/25/2017 8:49 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's
billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps,
what
is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a
near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have
money to
affect the election process in ways that no individuals
can
hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will
involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly
written in some ways, but the essence is that no state
agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices
negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is
allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical
sytems
in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's
amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the
pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated.
Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are
spending
fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the
money
to do so, and they want to keep getting that money.

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as
"defeat
it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right,
because
it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get
their
medications that way.

Other examples abound. But when an industry like
this has
unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what
they
want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed
nations where drug companies can, and do, market
prescription medications directly to consumers; as in
"Tell
your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result,
TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription
medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.


And as with any other human interaction, you're free to
buy or not buy whatever the hell they're hawking.

In some cases, yes. We recently made that decision on one
family member's medicine. The doctor prescribed a time
release version that was exorbitantly expensive, in part
because there is no generic for that version. But there is a
generic for the alternative that you must remember to take
twice per day. I phoned the doctor and had him change to
that generic, and there have been no problems.

Trouble is, "free to not buy" has little meaning when the
medication in question is literally necessary for life.Â
One
recent example is the Epi-pen. See
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...oost/89129620/



"Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has written the manufacturer,
Mylan, asking for the reasons behind the price boosts for
EpiPen, an epinephine auto-injector used to treat allergy
reactions that has seen its price rise from $57 in 2007 to
about $500 today."Â As I recall, the ultimate answer was
"We
raised the price because we could."

Or more generally, there's this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...-protests.html



There's another medication in the house that costs a bundle
and is not available in generic form. Turns out that in
other countries it is a generic. Here, they've managed to
control the patents not because of the medication, but
because of the cute little dispenser. Fortunately, that med
is needed only rarely - but the legal/marketing ploy is
pretty offensive.

Bike analogy: I didn't mind SunTour having a patent
preventing other companies from using a slant parallelogram
derailleur. But I would have been pretty offended if the law
said "Bicyclists must use only one rear cog," or "bicyclists
can change from one gear to another only using their bare
hands."

For example, I notice a constant series of complaints
about WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been
inside one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?"
I just get a blank stare.

I hear you. I don't shop there, deliberately.


Epinephrine is generic and old; predates FDA regulation.
The branded pen device is patented and they keep making
minor changes to extend the device patent.
Possession of a syringe was, in recent memory, a crime.
That's no longer true.
But hey if you find the pen device handy, it costs more.


Using your own epinephrine and your own syringe sounds fine.
Unless, that is, you're trying to fumble with it in the
middle of an anaphylactic event. Especially if you're a kid.

Fortunately, the public outcry and legislative interest
kicked in and forced that poor, poor corporation to
backtrack a bit.

I do feel sorry for the corporation. Somebody needs to give
it a nice hug, to make it feel better.


There are competitors with similar devices but somehow the
FDA has magically ruled against them repeatedly (safety
first! it's for the children!) despite at least one being an
exact copy of an older expired patent version of EpiPen.
They are available in other countries.

http://www.fiercepharma.com/sales-an...cruise-control

Holy crap! I didn't know the situation had changed.
Somebody is MAGA:

http://nypost.com/2017/06/16/fda-app...ive-to-epipen/

I fully expect you to support this administration for a 2d term!


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #95  
Old October 26th 17, 02:14 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default California's Fires

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 1:40:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:26:01 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 11:25:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:06:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The
fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in
ways that no individuals can hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve
prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways,
but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for
pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's
Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the
medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

What I find interesting that in some countries.... (strangely Thailand
comes to mind :-) the price of certain, perhaps most, pharmaceuticals
is lower, sometimes much lower then in other countries. Sometimes very
near by.

I remember, after I retired and living in Thailand, I visited a
doctor in Singapore and mentioned that I could buy medicines in
Thailand cheaper then in Singapore. The doctor replied that I didn't
need to go all the way to Thailand, "just cross the causeway to
Malaysia".

In the U.S. I read about people crossing the border to Canada or
Mexico to buy medicine.

Granted that the cost of doing business is higher in the U.S., but
still.

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch
the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding
to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it.. They are
spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to
do so, and they want to keep getting that money.


Of course, but no different then any other company. Everybody knows
that Chevrolet is better then a Ford. Says so, right there on the T.V.
:-)

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because
it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to
state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way.

Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited
money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where
drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to
consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As
a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.

The cost of medicine outside of the US isn't any sort of comparison to those sold in the USA where most of the funding for medicine development occurs.

Not to mention that many medications are counterfeited outside of the USA and a great many of them are ineffective. I can tell the difference between my anti-convulsive mediation made by different manufacturers here..

Much of the research is done by foreign drug makers. My wife's drug was developed by Hoffman-LaRoche in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is typically prescribed to patients with Huntington's disease but is also used for other chorea disorders. Drugs purchased from legitimate Canadian pharmacies are typically the same brands available in the US or safe and effective generics from foreign manufacturers. This is not like buying fake Viagra from China via the internet.

There is no reason CMS should pay extortive prices for orphan or branded drugs available in Canada or Europe for a small fraction of the price -- except to pad the pockets of domestic sellers. The tax code already rewards manufacturers and others with depreciating intellectual property. No need to pay twice.

The USA does 43.7% of pharmaceutical research and development. ONE country does this out of 195 countries. And MANY of the drugs that are sold by competing foreign firms were developed in the US and were immediately copied the second that the patents ran out.


The company with the largest R&D budget is Swiss. The fact that a large number of drugs are patented by US companies also does not mean they were in fact developed in the US, particularly with the world-wide operations of most US drug manufacturers. Also, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/

Also, nobody is contending that US companies don't produce a lot of new "NME" (new molecular entities), but that does not mean US drug manufacturers should be allowed to price gouge or that CMS should not be allowed to negotiate prices. The US also makes a lot of cars, but that doesn't mean the GSA shouldn't negotiate the price of fleet vehicles -- or computers or durable medical equipment. Why should drugs be different? WalMart does it. Other health plans do it. Why not Medicare? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/wa...-medicare.html


The largest drug company in the world is Roche and they have the largest R&D budget and almost ALL of their companies are American.

So why are you using an example of a holding company that has gone to a tax haven?


Roche is and always has been a Swiss company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoffmann-La_Roche

It has affiliates and subsidiaries in numerous countries. Their drug (as opposed to diagnostics) are apparently manufactured by Roche in Switzerland and China and Genentech in SF. https://www.roche.com/dam/jcr:4e9d25...fact_sheet.pdf

I don't trust that .pdf. See https://static.roche.com/annual-repo...l_report16.pdf Go to page 2 for dots on a map showing the operations. I wish they had a 10K with all the companies listed, but because its an ADR, no SEC filings.

Anyway, they never fled the US. They just acquired some US companies, and they don't look like reverse mergers or other tax dodges.

-- Jay Beattie.

  #96  
Old October 26th 17, 03:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default California's Fires

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:49:54 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's
billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what
is a
politically viable alternate?


It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a
near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to
affect the election process in ways that no individuals can
hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will
involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly
written in some ways, but the essence is that no state
agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices
negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is
allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems
in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's
amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the
pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated.
Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending
fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money
to do so, and they want to keep getting that money.

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat
it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because
it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their
medications that way.

Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has
unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they
want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed
nations where drug companies can, and do, market
prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell
your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result,
TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.


And as with any other human interaction, you're free to buy
or not buy whatever the hell they're hawking.

For example, I notice a constant series of complaints about
WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been inside
one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?" I just
get a blank stare.



(1) pick a subject, (2) review face book and other "social" nets, (3)
read complaints :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #97  
Old October 26th 17, 03:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default California's Fires

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:49:54 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

For example, I notice a constant series of complaints about
WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been inside
one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?" I just
get a blank stare.


My only complaint about Walmart is that they moved from their
convenient location in Sprawlmart, right on US 30, to a new
development on North Detroit. Detroit Street is exceedingly narrow,
and is the only way to get out of town headed north. It also carries
SR 15.

Short stretches of SR 15 are merely horrible.

Then Aldi moved from Sprawlmart to a new location on Husky Trail, a
county road that's even more crowded than SR 15. And I have to cross
30 to get there.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net




  #98  
Old October 26th 17, 04:04 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default California's Fires

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:59:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/25/2017 8:49 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's
billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what
is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a
near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to
affect the election process in ways that no individuals can
hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will
involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly
written in some ways, but the essence is that no state
agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices
negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is
allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems
in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's
amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the
pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated.
Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending
fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money
to do so, and they want to keep getting that money.

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat
it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because
it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their
medications that way.

Other examples abound.* But when an industry like this has
unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they
want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed
nations where drug companies can, and do, market
prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell
your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result,
TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.


And as with any other human interaction, you're free to buy or not buy
whatever the hell they're hawking.


In some cases, yes. We recently made that decision on one family
member's medicine. The doctor prescribed a time release version that was
exorbitantly expensive, in part because there is no generic for that
version. But there is a generic for the alternative that you must
remember to take twice per day. I phoned the doctor and had him change
to that generic, and there have been no problems.

Trouble is, "free to not buy" has little meaning when the medication in
question is literally necessary for life. One recent example is the
Epi-pen. See
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...oost/89129620/

"Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has written the manufacturer, Mylan,
asking for the reasons behind the price boosts for EpiPen, an epinephine
auto-injector used to treat allergy reactions that has seen its price
rise from $57 in 2007 to about $500 today." As I recall, the ultimate
answer was "We raised the price because we could."

Or more generally, there's this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...-protests.html

There's another medication in the house that costs a bundle and is not
available in generic form. Turns out that in other countries it is a
generic. Here, they've managed to control the patents not because of the
medication, but because of the cute little dispenser. Fortunately, that
med is needed only rarely - but the legal/marketing ploy is pretty
offensive.

Bike analogy: I didn't mind SunTour having a patent preventing other
companies from using a slant parallelogram derailleur. But I would have
been pretty offended if the law said "Bicyclists must use only one rear
cog," or "bicyclists can change from one gear to another only using
their bare hands."

For example, I notice a constant series of complaints about WalMart,
product and policy, but I have never been inside one myself. When I ask,
"So why do you shop there?" I just get a blank stare.


I hear you. I don't shop there, deliberately.


I'm curious. Is EpiPen the only solution?

I ask as when I was in basic training and went through the gas mask
part of the training we were told that in areas where a gas mask was
issued that it contained an Atropine Syrette , basically an
encapsulated needle attached to a tube of stuff that counteracted
nerve gas. You removed a plastic cover for the needle and jammed it
into any part of your body and squeezed the tube. If you did this
within seconds of knowing that you were exposed to nerve gas you
lived. If you hesitated then you didn't.

Morphine syrettes were also included in some military first aid kits.
Same thing. Stab it in and squeeze the tube.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #99  
Old October 26th 17, 04:10 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default California's Fires

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:04:34 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:59:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/25/2017 8:49 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's
billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what
is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a
near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to
affect the election process in ways that no individuals can
hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will
involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly
written in some ways, but the essence is that no state
agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices
negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is
allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems
in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's
amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the
pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated.
Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending
fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money
to do so, and they want to keep getting that money.

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat
it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because
it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their
medications that way.

Other examples abound.* But when an industry like this has
unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they
want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed
nations where drug companies can, and do, market
prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell
your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result,
TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.


And as with any other human interaction, you're free to buy or not buy
whatever the hell they're hawking.


In some cases, yes. We recently made that decision on one family
member's medicine. The doctor prescribed a time release version that was
exorbitantly expensive, in part because there is no generic for that
version. But there is a generic for the alternative that you must
remember to take twice per day. I phoned the doctor and had him change
to that generic, and there have been no problems.

Trouble is, "free to not buy" has little meaning when the medication in
question is literally necessary for life. One recent example is the
Epi-pen. See
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...oost/89129620/

"Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has written the manufacturer, Mylan,
asking for the reasons behind the price boosts for EpiPen, an epinephine
auto-injector used to treat allergy reactions that has seen its price
rise from $57 in 2007 to about $500 today." As I recall, the ultimate
answer was "We raised the price because we could."

Or more generally, there's this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...-protests.html

There's another medication in the house that costs a bundle and is not
available in generic form. Turns out that in other countries it is a
generic. Here, they've managed to control the patents not because of the
medication, but because of the cute little dispenser. Fortunately, that
med is needed only rarely - but the legal/marketing ploy is pretty
offensive.

Bike analogy: I didn't mind SunTour having a patent preventing other
companies from using a slant parallelogram derailleur. But I would have
been pretty offended if the law said "Bicyclists must use only one rear
cog," or "bicyclists can change from one gear to another only using
their bare hands."

For example, I notice a constant series of complaints about WalMart,
product and policy, but I have never been inside one myself. When I ask,
"So why do you shop there?" I just get a blank stare.


I hear you. I don't shop there, deliberately.


I'm curious. Is EpiPen the only solution?

I ask as when I was in basic training and went through the gas mask
part of the training we were told that in areas where a gas mask was
issued that it contained an Atropine Syrette , basically an
encapsulated needle attached to a tube of stuff that counteracted
nerve gas. You removed a plastic cover for the needle and jammed it
into any part of your body and squeezed the tube. If you did this
within seconds of knowing that you were exposed to nerve gas you
lived. If you hesitated then you didn't.

Morphine syrettes were also included in some military first aid kits.
Same thing. Stab it in and squeeze the tube.


P.S. I just came across this on you tube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoQajOum6wA
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #100  
Old October 26th 17, 05:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default California's Fires

On 10/25/2017 5:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2017 3:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/25/2017 1:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2017 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/25/2017 8:49 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's
billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps,
what
is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a
near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have
money to
affect the election process in ways that no individuals
can
hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will
involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly
written in some ways, but the essence is that no state
agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices
negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is
allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical
sytems
in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's
amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the
pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated.
Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are
spending
fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the
money
to do so, and they want to keep getting that money.

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as
"defeat
it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right,
because
it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get
their
medications that way.

Other examples abound.ÂÂ* But when an industry like
this has
unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what
they
want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed
nations where drug companies can, and do, market
prescription medications directly to consumers; as in
"Tell
your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result,
TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription
medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.


And as with any other human interaction, you're free to
buy or not buy whatever the hell they're hawking.

In some cases, yes. We recently made that decision on one
family member's medicine. The doctor prescribed a time
release version that was exorbitantly expensive, in part
because there is no generic for that version. But there is a
generic for the alternative that you must remember to take
twice per day. I phoned the doctor and had him change to
that generic, and there have been no problems.

Trouble is, "free to not buy" has little meaning when the
medication in question is literally necessary for life.Â
One
recent example is the Epi-pen.Â* See
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...oost/89129620/




"Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has written the manufacturer,
Mylan, asking for the reasons behind the price boosts for
EpiPen, an epinephine auto-injector used to treat allergy
reactions that has seen its price rise from $57 in 2007 to
about $500 today."Â* As I recall, the ultimate answer was
"We
raised the price because we could."

Or more generally, there's this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...-protests.html




There's another medication in the house that costs a bundle
and is not available in generic form. Turns out that in
other countries it is a generic. Here, they've managed to
control the patents not because of the medication, but
because of the cute little dispenser. Fortunately, that med
is needed only rarely - but the legal/marketing ploy is
pretty offensive.

Bike analogy: I didn't mind SunTour having a patent
preventing other companies from using a slant parallelogram
derailleur. But I would have been pretty offended if the law
said "Bicyclists must use only one rear cog," or "bicyclists
can change from one gear to another only using their bare
hands."

For example, I notice a constant series of complaints
about WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been
inside one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?"
I just get a blank stare.

I hear you. I don't shop there, deliberately.


Epinephrine is generic and old; predates FDA regulation.
The branded pen device is patented and they keep making
minor changes to extend the device patent.
Possession of a syringe was, in recent memory, a crime.
That's no longer true.
But hey if you find the pen device handy, it costs more.


Using your own epinephrine and your own syringe sounds fine.
Unless, that is, you're trying to fumble with it in the
middle of an anaphylactic event. Especially if you're a kid.

Fortunately, the public outcry and legislative interest
kicked in and forced that poor, poor corporation to
backtrack a bit.

I do feel sorry for the corporation. Somebody needs to give
it a nice hug, to make it feel better.


There are competitors with similar devices but somehow the FDA has
magically ruled against them repeatedly (safety first! it's for the
children!) despite at least one being an exact copy of an older expired
patent version of EpiPen. They are available in other countries.

http://www.fiercepharma.com/sales-an...cruise-control


Holy crap! I didn't know the situation had changed.
Somebody is MAGA:

http://nypost.com/2017/06/16/fda-app...ive-to-epipen/


I fully expect you to support this administration for a 2d term!


From your article: "Mylan, which has US headquarters near Pittsburgh,
launched generic EpiPens last December in an effort to deflect mounting
criticism."

I'll consider supporting the FDA. I don't think this has anything to do
with any elected administration.


--
- Frank Krygowski
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bicycle Fires Frank Krygowski[_3_] Techniques 5 September 13th 12 03:41 AM
California fires raisethe UK 4 October 28th 07 05:34 PM
California fires [email protected] Australia 0 October 25th 07 09:38 PM
Fires around Bright Walrus Australia 17 December 14th 06 09:14 AM
After the fires - a RR Michael Paul Mountain Biking 9 November 11th 03 05:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.