Trumpcare

[Brian]

So you have to just give them $30,000? and they dont give it back? and they get interest on it? what a scam.

They'll give you back the $30k when you no longer want to maintain the certification of financial responsibility but they keep the interest.

[MooNiNite]

  

Edited March 16, 2017 by MooNiNite

[Trunk]

Bernie Sanders, "There are people who gain from this legislation ... " (starts at 3m18s)

 

[MooNiNite]

Bernie Sanders, "There are people who gain from this legislation ... " (starts at 3m18s)

 

 

those estimations are always crap. 

[MooNiNite]

Tell me how many people could be given hospital care and treatment with the 38 billion dollars Obama gave Israel. (In order to give money to specific US corporate owners).

[MooNiNite]

"There are people who gain from this legislation ... "

 

wow, you must not realize how people are gaining from Obama care. Whose pockets do you think all the money is going into?

 

People have close to one option, and the premiums go up over 80% each year, and you dont understand why?

[dawei]

Bernie Sanders, "There are people who gain from this legislation ... " (starts at 3m18s)

 

 

1. I thought the numbers are only based on Phase 1 of 3 (they can't factor in the next two as they don't exist yet)... so the numbers seems meaningless on some level.    

 

2. The elderly pay issue doesn't make sense nor add up in my mind.   So that seems another thing too far out there.

 

3. The rich getting the tax break doesn't make sense either.  How can you get a tax break of $50,000 if you only paid say $10,000 for insurance for the year?   Or this that something about their businesses providing employees insurance?   If a person owns a business, aren't they usually going to get insurance through their business?   If so, why would they get a tax break.   I have not read any of it to understand such issues.

[dawei]

Same reason the cost of K-12 education skyrocketed once the Federal Education Department started asserting itself. Same reason the cost of secondary education has skyrocketed since the Feds inserted itself into higher education and especially student financial aid. Disconnect payer & recipient and there is no incentive for stewardship.

 

I guess I'm looking for a '101' explanation maybe based on supply and demand as most seem to suggest that competition will fix this.  I don't see it happening that easy.

 

It is simply my opinion that premiums raised because folks who didn't have insurance now have it and then use it quite a bit, thus insurers were now paying for lots of claims.  

 

When I think to myself, 'why are they losing so much money' (as they claim), I start with a simple accounting perspective: They paid more out than they took in.

 

So I can see the insertion of the government mandating some things to insurers as likely a cause.   But I also have to ask, 'why are costs so high in the medical field' ?   Government insertion didn't cause that, the medical market has been doing that to itself over the last 50 years.  The government insertion simply forced insurance to play out more then before.

 

We must cut costs.    I'm not a fan of runaway costs just because life is moving forward.   And unless we pool our resources as other countries do, we will continue to get take advantage of in certain costs.   We're too dispersed in a sense. 

[Brian]

I guess I'm looking for a '101' explanation maybe based on supply and demand as most seem to suggest that competition will fix this. I don't see it happening that easy.

 

It is simply my opinion that premiums raised because folks who didn't have insurance now have it and then use it quite a bit, thus insurers were now paying for lots of claims.

 

When I think to myself, 'why are they losing so much money' (as they claim), I start with a simple accounting perspective: They paid more out than they took in.

 

So I can see the insertion of the government mandating some things to insurers as likely a cause. But I also have to ask, 'why are costs so high in the medical field' ? Government insertion didn't cause that, the medical market has been doing that to itself over the last 50 years. The government insertion simply forced insurance to play out more then before.

 

We must cut costs. I'm not a fan of runaway costs just because life is moving forward. And unless we pool our resources as other countries do, we will continue to get take advantage of in certain costs. We're too dispersed in a sense.

I'll go into some detail on this tomorrow.

[Trunk]

1. I thought the numbers are only based on Phase 1 of 3 (they can't factor in the next two as they don't exist yet)... so the numbers seems meaningless on some level.   

 

I wouldn't assume any benefit from phases 2, 3 because:

- they haven't been presented yet and

- they haven't been approved.

 

... to hold off evaluation for such thin-air stuff seems very naive to me.

[dawei]

I wouldn't assume any benefit from phases 2, 3 because:

- they haven't been presented yet and

- they haven't been approved.

 

... to hold off evaluation for such thin-air stuff seems very naive to me.

 

But I'm also not assuming no non-benefit. 

 

I can only go by what the plan is but the evaluation is not based on the plan.   So their evaluation seems naive to me.

 

If there is a phase 2 and/or 3, then we'll see.

 

There is actually no choice other than holding off... because even Phase 1 can change... and it will likely change... so what does that say about evaluating Phase 1 before it is set in stone.   

 

I'm not against evaluating based on what we know but it seems a bit careless to make statements about the next decade based on 30% of a plan.

[dawei]

There is actually no choice other than holding off... 

 

To explain some of my position.

 

I work with data every day.   You can only study the data in front of you.  You may know of potential future data coming but then we would be speculating to some degree. 

 

Expressing my opinion vs stating what is shown by data will sometimes cross over as interpretation.  

 

For me to make any interpretation, I hold off till I see a more complete dataset. 

 

My opinion?   Competition is not the solution to fix every issue I see in data.

 

I just saw the President's interview with Carlson where he said reducing costs of medicine is in Phase 3.   That is one of my big points I have raised in this thread...  and so, I need to hold off to see if that happens.

 

I accept that others want to express their opinion in more real-time based on what we  know now.

[Golden Dragon Shining]

No cigarettes , alcohol etc...

 

Good luck with that, dismantle two (plus etc.) profitable industries, highly taxed mind you, requiring greater monitoring and enforcement.

Prohibition was so effective, not to mention the current war on drugs.

 

"lifestyle choices people should be responsible for."

 

If people don't want to follow my plan that is their business, other people won't have to pay for it though.

 

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by Golden Dragon Shining

[cold]

What's your plan for:

jaywalkers whom get hit by the red light runner,

the ditch digger whose employer insists its safe, and yet the trench collapses,

people whom eat fast foods,

people whom get addicted to prescription drugs.

 

Motorcycle and bike riders who choose not to wear a helmet ? 

People who don't use sunscreen?

Don't take recommended daily allowance of vitamins?

 

Are over or underweight?

Choose to wear a pink tutu? 

[Brian]

What's your plan for:

jaywalkers whom get hit by the red light runner,

the ditch digger whose employer insists its safe, and yet the trench collapses,

people whom eat fast foods,

people whom get addicted to prescription drugs.

 

Motorcycle and bike riders who choose not to wear a helmet ? 

People who don't use sunscreen?

Don't take recommended daily allowance of vitamins?

 

Are over or underweight?

Choose to wear a pink tutu?

What are their plans?

[cold]

I asked Ruby in the pink tutu what her plans were she replied she's currently in the market for a neon pink one, any leads?

[MooNiNite]

But I also have to ask, 'why are costs so high in the medical field' ?   Government insertion didn't cause that, the medical market has been doing that to itself over the last 50 years.  

 

Government DID cause that. 

 

https://mises.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive

[MooNiNite]

[MooNiNite]

Why didn't the Congressional Budget Office predict Obama losing 10 trillion dollars?

 

Oh yeah, because they can't predict anything accurately.

 

I'm also seriously concerned with whatever "experts" predicted that Hillary's economic plan was going to be successful. 

[Brian]

I guess I'm looking for a '101' explanation maybe based on supply and demand as most seem to suggest that competition will fix this. I don't see it happening that easy.

 

It is simply my opinion that premiums raised because folks who didn't have insurance now have it and then use it quite a bit, thus insurers were now paying for lots of claims.

 

When I think to myself, 'why are they losing so much money' (as they claim), I start with a simple accounting perspective: They paid more out than they took in.

 

So I can see the insertion of the government mandating some things to insurers as likely a cause. But I also have to ask, 'why are costs so high in the medical field' ? Government insertion didn't cause that, the medical market has been doing that to itself over the last 50 years. The government insertion simply forced insurance to play out more then before.

 

We must cut costs. I'm not a fan of runaway costs just because life is moving forward. And unless we pool our resources as other countries do, we will continue to get take advantage of in certain costs. We're too dispersed in a sense.

Imagine you and I both produce & sell snow cones.

 

We are in competition with each other to produce snow cones the public wishes to buy and to do so at a cost, and price them such that, we find it worthwhile to continue this venture. We both have to make judgement calls regarding the ingredients we use, the vendors we choose, the flavors we offer, the equipment we purchase, where to set price-points to maximize revenues, whether/when to hire employees and what to pay them. We have to make choices about marketing strategies and sales strategies -- where do we advertise? Do we use a "food truck" or a push cart or a brick-and-mortar store front? Do we lease or buy? We've got production questions to answer, including things like how much product we can reasonably expect to sell, which products seem most attractive, what market fluctuations we should anticipate, etc.

 

Through all this, we are watching the market and the economy, the weather, the competition (both direct (like other snow cone vendors) and indirect (like those dreaded FroYo vendors!)), the supply-chain, the news, the government, etc. And we are constantly looking for opportunities to produce a better product, or produce it more cost-effectively or more efficiently or more quickly, or to tweak our product line, or any of several dozen other variables which impact our business models and therefore our businesses.

 

After all, people don't have to buy snow cones and even those who want to buy snow cones don't have to buy them from us -- and even those who want to buy them from us have to make complex decisions about their own buying patterns so these aren't​ guaranteed sales, either.

 

Don't forget, of course, that our livelihoods -- and the well-beings of our families -- depend on our success.

 

Now let's suppose that the leaders of local government decide they know how the frozen snack/dessert industry should operate, or they feel that the public is being taken advantage of by unscrupulous marketers or whatever, and they establish a City Department of Frozen Snacks & Desserts to inspect, regulate and subsidize the private industry "for the good of the people." At first, it seems like some "common sense" requirements -- using quality ingredients, not "price gouging" and stuff like that. Soon, however, the intrusions grow more onerous and less reasonable -- including things like mandatory "preferred suppliers" selected by "the Department" and standardized menus with required production levels. Create a level playing field, protect the consumer, etc., etc.

 

Good thing you have the option to pick up and move your business to another city just a few miles down the road, right? I mean, the same sorts of competition between snow cone vendors, and between different specialists in the frozen snacks & desserts family of business, and between all discretionary spending options, also plays out between competing cities, too. This helps to promote innovation and improve products and foster market efficiencies and the entire economy gains as a result.

 

Except one day the central government decides it needs to insert itself in the frozen snacks & desserts industry...

 

As on the local level, the insertion starts painlessly and fairly innocuously. The newly formed Agency for Frozen Dessert & Snack Consumer Protection and Affordability Assurance (henceforth called AFDSCPAA, for convenience) begins to grow larger and more assertive. Fixed product offerings, standardized supply-chains, AFDSCPAA-mandated labor & production requirements, and industrywide pricing specifications are only the beginning. Soon, the government begins a "fairness program" intended to ensure everyone is treated equally by the industry. A subsidy program is implemented to provide free snow cones to the indigent and a stiff tax is imposed upon those who can afford to do their fair share.

 

The producers notice, however that the burdens imposed by AFDSCPAA mandates have not only cut into their profit margins but have made it impossible to break even given the mandatory pricing levels and some start to go out of business. Additionally, many of those citizens who can afford all the snow cones they want realize they are paying for other people's snow cones, too, and they stop coming by so often. The government responds by declaring a universal right to frozen snacks and desserts, establishing a public-private partnership program to oversee the FDS industry, and forming a family of NGO agencies to protect the consumer from the predatory snow cone corporations (like you...)

 

Since the consumer is no longer directly purchasing FDS products (we all have FDS purchasing allotments assigned to us according to AFDSCPAA guidelines and managed by the NGOs), the American Snack & Dessert Alliance for Responsible Enjoyment (the ASDARE being the now rich & powerful public-private partnership which oversees the black-hearted profiteers like you and makes recommendations for new regulations to the unelected bureaucrats in the AFDSCPAA) can increase the price points on the mandatory product offerings guidelines. This allows the vendors to increase their prices, generates additional revenues for the percentage-based-funding ASDARE, and drives more money into the annual budget of the AFDSCPAA (which uses part of that budget for universal snow cone entitlement programs, part of it for staffing a new FDS monitoring & enforcement sub-agency, and part of it for community enrichment programs which provide fact-based information to schools and the media about the merits of government-controlled snack & dessert programs as well as the nutritional value of daily consumption by school-age children of standardized FDS products).

 

Now that the consumer is no longer the primary payer, and the manufacturers no longer respond to dynamic market forces, AND an entire governmentally linked corporate structure has emerged surrounding the marketplace, prices are decoupled from the market itself. $3 for a snow cone? $100 for a snow cone? $1000 for a snow cone? Who cares?!? You aren't actually paying for it! The government is!

 

Obviously, this isn't intended to be a corollary to the healthcare industry or the education industry but I think the savvy reader will see some recognizable themes here...

 

As to the point you make about how "...the medical market has been doing that to itself for 50 years..." Indeed. It is perhaps worth recognizing, however, that the Federal government really injected itself into the private health insurance industry during WWII and into private healthcare delivery in the 1960s. On a non-insurance-related/regulatory note, the FDA was formed in 1906 but really didn't grow teeth until FDR signed the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act in 1938. The "prescription drug" industry was born out of the Durham-Humphrey Amendment in 1951. The modern pharmaceutical development model grew out of the thalidomide crisis in the late '50s ("never let a crisis go to waste," right?) which resulted in the FDA being given tremendously expanded authority in 1962. The FDA is only one Federal agency having significant impact on the private healthcare industry and I mention it only as an example, but it is worth pointing out that it has over 14,000 employees and an annual budget of over $4B. Did I mention that they have armed agents and their own SWAT-team capabilities?

 

(I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for 13 years...)

Edited March 17, 2017 by Brian

[rene]

Brilliant, Brian. Thank you.

[blackstar212]

Imagine you and I both produce & sell snow cones.

 

We are in competition with each other to produce snow cones the public wishes to buy and to do so at a cost, and price them such that, we find it worthwhile to continue this venture. We both have to make judgement calls regarding the ingredients we use, the vendors we choose, the flavors we offer, the equipment we purchase, where to set price-points to maximize revenues, whether/when to hire employees and what to pay them. We have to make choices about marketing strategies and sales strategies -- where do we advertise? Do we use a "food truck" or a push cart or a brick-and-mortar store front? Do we lease or buy? We've got production questions to answer, including things like how much product we can reasonably expect to sell, which products seem most attractive, what market fluctuations we should anticipate, etc.

 

Through all this, we are watching the market and the economy, the weather, the competition (both direct (like other snow cone vendors) and indirect (like those dreaded FroYo vendors!)), the supply-chain, the news, the government, etc. And we are constantly looking for opportunities to produce a better product, or produce it more cost-effectively or more efficiently or more quickly, or to tweak our product line, or any of several dozen other variables which impact our business models and therefore our businesses.

 

After all, people don't have to buy snow cones and even those who want to buy snow cones don't have to buy them from us -- and even those who want to buy them from us have to make complex decisions about their own buying patterns so these aren't​ guaranteed sales, either.

 

Don't forget, of course, that our livelihoods -- and the well-beings of our families -- depend on our success.

 

Now let's suppose that the leaders of local government decide they know how the frozen snack/dessert industry should operate, or they feel that the public is being taken advantage of by unscrupulous marketers or whatever, and they establish a City Department of Frozen Snacks & Desserts to inspect, regulate and subsidize the private industry "for the good of the people." At first, it seems like some "common sense" requirements -- using quality ingredients, not "price gouging" and stuff like that. Soon, however, the intrusions grow more onerous and less reasonable -- including things like mandatory "preferred suppliers" selected by "the Department" and standardized menus with required production levels. Create a level playing field, protect the consumer, etc., etc.

 

Good thing you have the option to pick up and move your business to another city just a few miles down the road, right? I mean, the same sorts of competition between snow cone vendors, and between different specialists in the frozen snacks & desserts family of business, and between all discretionary spending options, also plays out between competing cities, too. This helps to promote innovation and improve products and foster market efficiencies and the entire economy gains as a result.

 

Except one day the central government decides it needs to insert itself in the frozen snacks & desserts industry...

 

As on the local level, the insertion starts painlessly and fairly innocuously. The newly formed Agency for Frozen Dessert & Snack Consumer Protection and Affordability Assurance (henceforth called AFDSCPAA, for convenience) begins to grow larger and more assertive. Fixed product offerings, standardized supply-chains, AFDSCPAA-mandated labor & production requirements, and industrywide pricing specifications are only the beginning. Soon, the government begins a "fairness program" intended to ensure everyone is treated equally by the industry. A subsidy program is implemented to provide free snow cones to the indigent and a stiff tax is imposed upon those who can afford to do their fair share.

 

The producers notice, however that the burdens imposed by AFDSCPAA mandates have not only cut into their profit margins but have made it impossible to break even given the mandatory pricing levels and some start to go out of business. Additionally, many of those citizens who can afford all the snow cones they want realize they are paying for other people's snow cones, too, and they stop coming by so often. The government responds by declaring a universal right to frozen snacks and desserts, establishing a public-private partnership program to oversee the FDS industry, and forming a family of NGO agencies to protect the consumer from the predatory snow cone corporations (like you...)

 

Since the consumer is no longer directly purchasing FDS products (we all have FDS purchasing allotments assigned to us according to AFDSCPAA guidelines and managed by the NGOs), the American Snack & Dessert Alliance for Responsible Enjoyment (the ASDARE being the now rich & powerful public-private partnership which oversees the black-hearted profiteers like you and makes recommendations for new regulations to the unelected bureaucrats in the AFDSCPAA) can increase the price points on the mandatory product offerings guidelines. This allows the vendors to increase their prices, generates additional revenues for the percentage-based-funding ASDARE, and drives more money into the annual budget of the AFDSCPAA (which uses part of that budget for universal snow cone entitlement programs, part of it for staffing a new FDS monitoring & enforcement sub-agency, and part of it for community enrichment programs which provide fact-based information to schools and the media about the merits of government-controlled snack & dessert programs as well as the nutritional value of daily consumption by school-age children of standardized FDS products).

 

Now that the consumer is no longer the primary payer, and the manufacturers no longer respond to dynamic market forces, AND an entire governmentally linked corporate structure has emerged surrounding the marketplace, prices are decoupled from the market itself. $3 for a snow cone? $100 for a snow cone? $1000 for a snow cone? Who cares?!? You aren't actually paying for it! The government is!

 

Obviously, this isn't intended to be a corollary to the healthcare industry or the education industry but I think the savvy reader will see some recognizable themes here...

 

As to the point you make about how "...the medical market has been doing that to itself for 50 years..." Indeed. It is perhaps worth recognizing, however, that the Federal government really injected itself into the private health insurance industry during WWII and into private healthcare delivery in the 1960s. On a non-insurance-related/regulatory note, the FDA was formed in 1906 but really didn't grow teeth until FDR signed the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act in 1938. The "prescription drug" industry was born out of the Durham-Humphrey Amendment in 1951. The modern pharmaceutical development model grew out of the thalidomide crisis in the late '50s ("never let a crisis go to waste," right?) which resulted in the FDA being given tremendously expanded authority in 1962. The FDA is only one Federal agency having significant impact on the private healthcare industry and I mention it only as an example, but it is worth pointing out that it has over 14,000 employees and an annual budget of over $4B. Did I mention that they have armed agents and their own SWAT-team capabilities?

 

(I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for 13 years...)

A few improvements to the story. While trying to make a profit you notice that using poor water and chemicals bad for health make for more profits so you use them. OF course you issue a study from your scientists about how great those items really are for you...........etc.

[ralis]

Imagine you and I both produce & sell snow cones.

 

We are in competition with each other to produce snow cones the public wishes to buy and to do so at a cost, and price them such that, we find it worthwhile to continue this venture. We both have to make judgement calls regarding the ingredients we use, the vendors we choose, the flavors we offer, the equipment we purchase, where to set price-points to maximize revenues, whether/when to hire employees and what to pay them. We have to make choices about marketing strategies and sales strategies -- where do we advertise? Do we use a "food truck" or a push cart or a brick-and-mortar store front? Do we lease or buy? We've got production questions to answer, including things like how much product we can reasonably expect to sell, which products seem most attractive, what market fluctuations we should anticipate, etc.

 

Through all this, we are watching the market and the economy, the weather, the competition (both direct (like other snow cone vendors) and indirect (like those dreaded FroYo vendors!)), the supply-chain, the news, the government, etc. And we are constantly looking for opportunities to produce a better product, or produce it more cost-effectively or more efficiently or more quickly, or to tweak our product line, or any of several dozen other variables which impact our business models and therefore our businesses.

 

After all, people don't have to buy snow cones and even those who want to buy snow cones don't have to buy them from us -- and even those who want to buy them from us have to make complex decisions about their own buying patterns so these aren't​ guaranteed sales, either.

 

Don't forget, of course, that our livelihoods -- and the well-beings of our families -- depend on our success.

 

Now let's suppose that the leaders of local government decide they know how the frozen snack/dessert industry should operate, or they feel that the public is being taken advantage of by unscrupulous marketers or whatever, and they establish a City Department of Frozen Snacks & Desserts to inspect, regulate and subsidize the private industry "for the good of the people." At first, it seems like some "common sense" requirements -- using quality ingredients, not "price gouging" and stuff like that. Soon, however, the intrusions grow more onerous and less reasonable -- including things like mandatory "preferred suppliers" selected by "the Department" and standardized menus with required production levels. Create a level playing field, protect the consumer, etc., etc.

 

Good thing you have the option to pick up and move your business to another city just a few miles down the road, right? I mean, the same sorts of competition between snow cone vendors, and between different specialists in the frozen snacks & desserts family of business, and between all discretionary spending options, also plays out between competing cities, too. This helps to promote innovation and improve products and foster market efficiencies and the entire economy gains as a result.

 

Except one day the central government decides it needs to insert itself in the frozen snacks & desserts industry...

 

As on the local level, the insertion starts painlessly and fairly innocuously. The newly formed Agency for Frozen Dessert & Snack Consumer Protection and Affordability Assurance (henceforth called AFDSCPAA, for convenience) begins to grow larger and more assertive. Fixed product offerings, standardized supply-chains, AFDSCPAA-mandated labor & production requirements, and industrywide pricing specifications are only the beginning. Soon, the government begins a "fairness program" intended to ensure everyone is treated equally by the industry. A subsidy program is implemented to provide free snow cones to the indigent and a stiff tax is imposed upon those who can afford to do their fair share.

 

The producers notice, however that the burdens imposed by AFDSCPAA mandates have not only cut into their profit margins but have made it impossible to break even given the mandatory pricing levels and some start to go out of business. Additionally, many of those citizens who can afford all the snow cones they want realize they are paying for other people's snow cones, too, and they stop coming by so often. The government responds by declaring a universal right to frozen snacks and desserts, establishing a public-private partnership program to oversee the FDS industry, and forming a family of NGO agencies to protect the consumer from the predatory snow cone corporations (like you...)

 

Since the consumer is no longer directly purchasing FDS products (we all have FDS purchasing allotments assigned to us according to AFDSCPAA guidelines and managed by the NGOs), the American Snack & Dessert Alliance for Responsible Enjoyment (the ASDARE being the now rich & powerful public-private partnership which oversees the black-hearted profiteers like you and makes recommendations for new regulations to the unelected bureaucrats in the AFDSCPAA) can increase the price points on the mandatory product offerings guidelines. This allows the vendors to increase their prices, generates additional revenues for the percentage-based-funding ASDARE, and drives more money into the annual budget of the AFDSCPAA (which uses part of that budget for universal snow cone entitlement programs, part of it for staffing a new FDS monitoring & enforcement sub-agency, and part of it for community enrichment programs which provide fact-based information to schools and the media about the merits of government-controlled snack & dessert programs as well as the nutritional value of daily consumption by school-age children of standardized FDS products).

 

Now that the consumer is no longer the primary payer, and the manufacturers no longer respond to dynamic market forces, AND an entire governmentally linked corporate structure has emerged surrounding the marketplace, prices are decoupled from the market itself. $3 for a snow cone? $100 for a snow cone? $1000 for a snow cone? Who cares?!? You aren't actually paying for it! The government is!

 

Obviously, this isn't intended to be a corollary to the healthcare industry or the education industry but I think the savvy reader will see some recognizable themes here...

 

As to the point you make about how "...the medical market has been doing that to itself for 50 years..." Indeed. It is perhaps worth recognizing, however, that the Federal government really injected itself into the private health insurance industry during WWII and into private healthcare delivery in the 1960s. On a non-insurance-related/regulatory note, the FDA was formed in 1906 but really didn't grow teeth until FDR signed the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act in 1938. The "prescription drug" industry was born out of the Durham-Humphrey Amendment in 1951. The modern pharmaceutical development model grew out of the thalidomide crisis in the late '50s ("never let a crisis go to waste," right?) which resulted in the FDA being given tremendously expanded authority in 1962. The FDA is only one Federal agency having significant impact on the private healthcare industry and I mention it only as an example, but it is worth pointing out that it has over 14,000 employees and an annual budget of over $4B. Did I mention that they have armed agents and their own SWAT-team capabilities?

 

(I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for 13 years...)

 

 

I will read your post later. In what capacity were you employed?

[ralis]

A few improvements to the story. While trying to make a profit you notice that using poor water and chemicals bad for health make for more profits so you use them. OF course you issue a study from your scientists about how great those items really are for you...........etc.

 

 

Excellent point in that the neoliberals only care about deregulation and not about the potential harm ensued. It is an erroneous belief that corporations are somehow benevolent entities that care deeply for their consumers. Nothing can be further from the truth.

[Brian]

A few improvements to the story. While trying to make a profit you notice that using poor water and chemicals bad for health make for more profits so you use them. OF course you issue a study from your scientists about how great those items really are for you...........etc.

Perhaps you do... Edited March 17, 2017 by Brian