Health care fiasco

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3209822
Making back their money and meeting a profit margin (as every company must do) are two different things. Not to mention the company needs to make enough money to sustain further R&D.
I just read the reduction is from 14 years to 12 years...which isn't so much. It used to be 8 years back in the 80's. When it was changed to an increased amount of years, Pharmasutical companies started doing more research. An example....name a depression medication that was around in the early 80's. Now how many can you name....The increase in years allowed companies to do more costly research to guarantee they recouped their investment, and providing us with more options to treat sicknesses...including mental sicknesses....something we couldn't do before.....I will agree 12 years from 14 isn't that bad of a reduction though...however I would not lower it further or you will hinder the research field greatly....
Right now..their profit margin to total sales is about 18%. The clothing industry experiences and average of 50% if not more....
From what I read with the extension it is 20 years, you file and get the initial patent and then file the extension, if this only drops that to 18 years instead of 20 it isn't so bad but bad just the same for the same reasons.

 

[reefraff]

I love the union lackeys "we negotiated for out health benefits and accepted lower wages because of them"
Well Duh, Everyone who takes a job, the smart ones anyway, look at the pay vs benefits. I can't believe there are too many people that will swallow the line that the unions somehow deserve a special break.

 

[t316]

I found this explanation....
Clinical Trials Impact Length Of Drug Patent
In the United States the patent filed on a drug lasts for 20 years; however, because companies file even before clinical trials, by the time the drug hits the marketplace, the patent may only have between 8 to 10 years left. Once the patent expires, other companies can produce the drug using the same ingredients and bring their version to the market, introducing competition and generally lowering the prices for the drug.
How Pharmaceutical Companies Extend Patents
Pharmaceutical companies employ several methods to extend the life of a drug. For example, a company can attempt to file a patent on improved forms of the drug or specific forms of the drug to start a new patent with the longer timeframe. Companies also rely on exclusivity, a concept that enables a pharmaceutical company to have exclusive rights to marketing the drug. The right of exclusivity does not necessarily have to coincide with the patent restriction—it can extend beyond the patent’s timeline.
When both the patent and the exclusivity rights expire, the original pharmaceutical company no longer has a monopoly on the drug. Generic versions of the original can be produced, and the low cost will drive down the cost of the original, in order for it to compete. The early monopoly allows pharmaceutical companies to recoup some of the enormous cost of developing, researching and testing drugs and encourages them to continue to find more helpful drug combinations to benefit others.

 

[braydonosu]

I try not to rag on pilitics too much, but when something that doesn't quite add up I have to comment.
As far as the Rx drugs patent goes, I had no idea that it had even gone up to 14 years. I do think that they have every right to demand as much $$$ as they do, it's their R&D... a lot of people don't realize that while the Rx drugs do cost a lot, Rx companies are showing a profit margin about half of normal company targets (~ 16% - 18% v. ~35% for a normal target profit). But hey, lets call their execs greedy monsters.
The Cadillac plans for unions are only getting this exemption because the unions are arguing that the workers traded increased wages for better benefits, so if the benefits are slashed they got nothing. I've never worked for a union, but I am of the belief that they had their time (Pre 1950), now they just like to stick it to the man. They have become vessels for uneducated craftsman to make as much money as execs. (Auto unions had people making 6 figures after 4-5 years, I owed 6 figures after that time period for my education)
The bank tax - this is the one that really doesn't make sense. The economics don't line up. The way CNN presented it, Obama's admin does not think that they will recoup all of the money that they gave out to the auto industry/banks, so they are goint to tax the largest banks that received TARP money. They want to make sure that we as tax payers feel no burden from our govt. bailouts. However, there is no way that these banks will not pass the tax onto us the taxpayers through fees and decreased return on our savings. It seems to me the govt is taking out of our back pocket and trying to put it in our front pocket.
My rant for the day.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by braydonosu
http:///forum/post/3209870
I try not to rag on pilitics too much, but when something that doesn't quite add up I have to comment.
As far as the Rx drugs patent goes, I had no idea that it had even gone up to 14 years. I do think that they have every right to demand as much $$$ as they do, it's their R&D... a lot of people don't realize that while the Rx drugs do cost a lot, Rx companies are showing a profit margin about half of normal company targets (~ 16% - 18% v. ~35% for a normal target profit). But hey, lets call theihttps://forums.saltwaterfish.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gifr execs greedy monsters.
The Cadillac plans for unions are only getting this exemption because the unions are arguing that the workers traded increased wages for better benefits, so if the benefits are slashed they got nothing. I've never worked for a union, but I am of the belief that they had their time (Pre 1950), now they just like to stick it to the man. They have become vessels for uneducated craftsman to make as much money as execs. (Auto unions had people making 6 figures after 4-5 years, I owed 6 figures after that time period for my education)
The bank tax - this is the one that really doesn't make sense. The economics don't line up. The way CNN presented it, Obama's admin does not think that they will recoup all of the money that they gave out to the auto industry/banks, so they are goint to tax the largest banks that received TARP money. They want to make sure that we as tax payers feel no burden from our govt. bailouts. However, there is no way that these banks will not pass the tax onto us the taxpayers through fees and decreased return on our savings. It seems to me the govt is taking out of our back pocket and trying to put it in our front pocket.
My rant for the day.
One of the more rational posts on here, hardly a rant. Should join in to more of the political discussions.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by braydonosu
http:///forum/post/3209870
I try not to rag on pilitics too much, but when something that doesn't quite add up I have to comment.
As far as the Rx drugs patent goes, I had no idea that it had even gone up to 14 years. I do think that they have every right to demand as much $$$ as they do, it's their R&D... a lot of people don't realize that while the Rx drugs do cost a lot, Rx companies are showing a profit margin about half of normal company targets (~ 16% - 18% v. ~35% for a normal target profit). But hey, lets call their execs greedy monsters.
The Cadillac plans for unions are only getting this exemption because the unions are arguing that the workers traded increased wages for better benefits, so if the benefits are slashed they got nothing. I've never worked for a union, but I am of the belief that they had their time (Pre 1950), now they just like to stick it to the man. They have become vessels for uneducated craftsman to make as much money as execs. (Auto unions had people making 6 figures after 4-5 years, I owed 6 figures after that time period for my education)
The bank tax - this is the one that really doesn't make sense. The economics don't line up. The way CNN presented it, Obama's admin does not think that they will recoup all of the money that they gave out to the auto industry/banks, so they are goint to tax the largest banks that received TARP money. They want to make sure that we as tax payers feel no burden from our govt. bailouts. However, there is no way that these banks will not pass the tax onto us the taxpayers through fees and decreased return on our savings. It seems to me the govt is taking out of our back pocket and trying to put it in our front pocket.
My rant for the day.
Amen.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by braydonosu
http:///forum/post/3209870
I try not to rag on pilitics too much, but when something that doesn't quite add up I have to comment.
As far as the Rx drugs patent goes, I had no idea that it had even gone up to 14 years. I do think that they have every right to demand as much $$$ as they do, it's their R&D... a lot of people don't realize that while the Rx drugs do cost a lot, Rx companies are showing a profit margin about half of normal company targets (~ 16% - 18% v. ~35% for a normal target profit). But hey, lets call their execs greedy monsters.
The Cadillac plans for unions are only getting this exemption because the unions are arguing that the workers traded increased wages for better benefits, so if the benefits are slashed they got nothing. I've never worked for a union, but I am of the belief that they had their time (Pre 1950), now they just like to stick it to the man. They have become vessels for uneducated craftsman to make as much money as execs. (Auto unions had people making 6 figures after 4-5 years, I owed 6 figures after that time period for my education)
The bank tax - this is the one that really doesn't make sense. The economics don't line up. The way CNN presented it, Obama's admin does not think that they will recoup all of the money that they gave out to the auto industry/banks, so they are goint to tax the largest banks that received TARP money. They want to make sure that we as tax payers feel no burden from our govt. bailouts. However, there is no way that these banks will not pass the tax onto us the taxpayers through fees and decreased return on our savings. It seems to me the govt is taking out of our back pocket and trying to put it in our front pocket.
My rant for the day.
You should rant more often.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by braydonosu
http:///forum/post/3209870
The Cadillac plans for unions are only getting this exemption because the unions are arguing that the workers traded increased wages for better benefits, so if the benefits are slashed they got nothing. I've never worked for a union, but I am of the belief that they had their time (Pre 1950), now they just like to stick it to the man. They have become vessels for uneducated craftsman to make as much money as execs. (Auto unions had people making 6 figures after 4-5 years, I owed 6 figures after that time period for my educatio
My rant for the day.
As a proud member or the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local#839 I cant tell you how offensive this comment is. Just how much of a pompous elitist are you? I will stop right there but i will tell you that all Union members arent uneducated or looking for handouts.
You know the world needs ditch diggers too.

BTW I would love to see Mr. CEO build his own home.Who was it that decided that white collar was more important/valuable or more educated then the blue collar employee?

 

[braydonosu]

I try not to get too involved, because most debates turn into sticky dem v repub arguments where nobody listens to any other point of view - they just spew talking points like "party of no" or "liberal spending" without much to back up the "point of view" that Fox or CNN told them they should have. I'm not just talking about this forum, but all of them... CNN, FOX, Yahoo... they all have some pretty funny stuff being typed.

 

[braydonosu]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3209889
As a proud member or the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local#839 I cant tell you how offensive this comment is. Just how much of a pompous elitist are you? I will stop right there but i will tell you that all Union members arent uneducated or looking for handouts.
You know the world needs ditch diggers too.

BTW I would love to see Mr. CEO build his own home.Who was it that decided that white collar was more important/valuable or more educated then the blue collar employee.

That comment does sound very elitist of me, I'm sorry that I offended you. I understand that many union workers are not uneducated, however I do believe that someone who went to College to further their education should be better off than someone with a highschool education. The problem is not that people are looking for handouts, people today just seem to have an entitlement complex. I'm sure that you can run circles around my arguments, this is just how I feel. If I put 4-5 more years into my education, I should make more money and be better off than someone that did not go to college.
By the way, I was the first male in my family to complete college, I come from a line of union workers and construction workers. They'll help me build my house, I'll help them with their taxes and benefit elections.

 

[braydonosu]

One more thing - I don't think that white collar > Blue collar. I think that the US screwed up big time when they allowed so much blue collar work go overseas, but along your train of thought that "the world needs ditch diggers too," do you think that ditch diggers should be as well off as someone who worked their way all the way to the top of a company? As you can tell, I do subscribe to the idea that there should be a difinitive upper class and that the richest 1% should control 35% of the money or whatever the statistic is that some people use to support their claims that CEO's and execs are bad people. If you try the steal from the rich and give to the poor what incentive do the rich have to work hard?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by braydonosu
http:///forum/post/3209897
That comment does sound very elitist of me, I'm sorry that I offended you. I understand that many union workers are not uneducated, however I do believe that someone who went to College to further their education should be better off than someone with a highschool education. The problem is not that people are looking for handouts, people today just seem to have an entitlement complex. I'm sure that you can run circles around my arguments, this is just how I feel. If I put 4-5 more years into my education, I should make more money and be better off than someone that did not go to college.
By the way, I was the first male in my family to complete college, I come from a line of union workers and construction workers. They'll help me build my house, I'll help them with their taxes and benefit elections.
I wouldn't worry to much about it. Unions have brainwashed him, when it comes to the virtues of unions.

 

[jdl]

what everyone seems to be missing here is proactive vs. reactive.
teach better eating and healthy habits
this will lower health costs since less people will be ill
our system is reactive.....people are sick, lets 'fix' them and not worry about root cause.
Companies that make drugs dont do it because they want to 'cure' people. They do it for $. I worked for one of them, the meetings were never about how to create something to help people, the meetings were always about making drugs faster for more $. The faster the drug hits the market, the more $ they make.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by braydonosu
http:///forum/post/3209897
If I put 4-5 more years into my education, I should make more money and be better off than someone that did not go to college.
I disagree with this statement some. It depends on the field of study. Example, years ago I worked for a company in the metal finishing industry. I started at the bottom and with in 4 years I was made the assistant plant manager. I switched out of that position to the night foreman position (slight increase in pay). My replacement was a guy out of college with a chemistry background. He was hired at a hirer pay scale than I was making. The ironic thing is he didn't understand production and people management. Chemistry sure....but when it came to smoothly running the plant floor..he was at a loss.
Now is his education more valueable than my experience at the time? I would say no, since he was fired within a year and replaced by someone I had trained on the plant floor...
A paid for education only gives you a stepping stone...it does not entitle you to a hirer paying job if you don't have the skills yet.

 

[braydonosu]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3209912
I disagree with this statement some. It depends on the field of study. Example, years ago I worked for a company in the metal finishing industry. I started at the bottom and with in 4 years I was made the assistant plant manager. I switched out of that position to the night foreman position (slight increase in pay). My replacement was a guy out of college with a chemistry background. He was hired at a hirer pay scale than I was making. The ironic thing is he didn't understand production and people management. Chemistry sure....but when it came to smoothly running the plant floor..he was at a loss.
Now is his education more valueable than my experience at the time? I would say no, since he was fired within a year and replaced by someone I had trained on the plant floor...
A paid for education only gives you a stepping stone...it does not entitle you to a hirer paying job if you don't have the skills yet.

I agree with you 100%. That's why they try to preach internships and co-ops when you are in school. An amazing education with no experience is worthless. My argument is focused into an apples and oranges area - something like a line worker for an auto union and a desk jockey at a tech firm. If it came down to the same position (Like you are saying) you absolutely take experience over education - I would rather have someone say "It works, I don't know why it works, but I've tried it that way and several other ways, and this is the way that works" v someone who says "This is the explainations as to why it works, I've never seen it work, but I know that it will"
By the way, I work in a consulting firm as a healthcare consultant - I get weekly updates on the healthcare debate, including the cadillac plan debate. Our update this weeks says that a cadillac plan is any plan that cost $8,500 for single or $23,000 for family, however the thresholds are higher for retirees age 55 and older, employees in high risk occupations, and employees living in 17 high cost states. The senate wants a 40% excise tax on these plans.

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3209889
As a proud member or the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local#839 I cant tell you how offensive this comment is. Just how much of a pompous elitist are you? I will stop right there but i will tell you that all Union members arent uneducated or looking for handouts.
You know the world needs ditch diggers too.

BTW I would love to see Mr. CEO build his own home.Who was it that decided that white collar was more important/valuable or more educated then the blue collar employee?

 

[braydonosu]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3209912
A paid for education only gives you a stepping stone...it does not entitle you to a hirer paying job if you don't have the skills yet.

I didn't read this part... I disagree. A company is making an investment in a person when they hire them. I do think that a quality education entitles you to higher pay, if not, why would anyone want to go to college? Why spend $20,000 a year for 4-5 years only to have the same pay as someone straight out of highschool.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by braydonosu
http:///forum/post/3209903
One more thing - I don't think that white collar > Blue collar. I think that the US screwed up big time when they allowed so much blue collar work go overseas, but along your train of thought that "the world needs ditch diggers too," do you think that ditch diggers should be as well off as someone who worked their way all the way to the top of a company? As you can tell, I do subscribe to the idea that there should be a difinitive upper class and that the richest 1% should control 35% of the money or whatever the statistic is that some people use to support their claims that CEO's and execs are bad people. If you try the steal from the rich and give to the poor what incentive do the rich have to work hard?
My ditch digger comment was me being sarcastic.
Other than the Uneducated Union Worker comment I would agree with most of what you said in that post as well as the one above. Just because i belong to a union dosent mean i support the democratic party because i do not nor do i support any one party blindly.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3209906
I wouldn't worry to much about it. Unions have brainwashed him, when it comes to the virtues of unions.
Heh ehe...not really,ive preached to fellow members for years now that some day we are going to collective bargain ourselves right out of jobs. Every few years when we renegotiate our contract,ive ofter been left speechless of the outrageous increases we ask for and get most of the time.I would be perfectly happy with more modest increases and in some cases no increase at all. However this would only apply to my affiliation in Chicagoland,having been exposed to Florida's Unions it seems more fair for all parties

 

[jdl]

Originally Posted by braydonosu
http:///forum/post/3209924
I do think that a quality education entitles you to higher pay, if not, why would anyone want to go to college? Why spend $20,000 a year for 4-5 years only to have the same pay as someone straight out of highschool.
the young and naive thinking $ is the ultimate goal in life. Wisdom is the ultimate goal in life. Think about it.