Soma online sales. Soma online next day….

There’s no cost benefit, they are merely a drain on the system at that point in their life.

Once confiscation of your income to the government stops (at retirement), so does your heartbeat.

Can we expect to see this future headline…
Obamacare: Women and minorities hardest hit.

thomasaur on July 12, 2009

Giving those up won’t make you live longer, it’ll just seem that way.

The government is always quantity over quality.

sara in va on July 12, 2009 at 12:10 PM

The problem is, as soon as quality is gotten rid of, then quantity is removed as well.

sara in va on July 12, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Not enough smart women like you here in NJ. Ever think about moving? :)

Save your “wows” for someone who’s interested in your opinion. “Basic research” is clearly a term of art in the sciences referring to research, often of a generic nature, that may or may not end up leading to a breakthrough further down the line.

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that research made by private entities always lead to breakthroughs? Seems to me just about everyone is involved in basic research unless it’s not really research (i.e. they already know the destination and how to get there)

And if any of those were efficacious over the long term, that’d be great. Unfortunately, they aren’t. If they were, the Soviet Union would still exist.

Funny, but we seem to have had a nice mix so far, since we have a publicly founded space program AND we still exist.

Insurance companies don’t fund drug research, but drug research is undertaken with certain assumptions about what reimbursement levels by the insurance companies will be. Since the drug companies would essentially be at the mercy of the negotiating power of any “public option” plan, their reimbursement assumptions would have to go down when building their “rate of return” models.

As far as your point about “people that could afford it” paying for that research, have you ever heard of “economies of scale”? If there are only a few buyers of a certain drug, the price needs to be much higher to cover fixed costs at a low volume than the price would need to be at higher volume.

The reimbursement you are talking about is only a product of people paying the insurance company who in turns pays the drug manufacturers. The public plan might not cover those drugs but,

1- people can still buy them on their own
2- insurance company might not cover them either

Why would there be fewers buyers after an Obama plan? In the current system, it’s people that end up paying for those drugs. Insurance companies pass down the costs of all these drugs to customers. They don’t have a magic wand with respect to the cost they incur and the ones they have to pass down, right?

…

Will ObamaCare threaten medical innovation?

Of course it will.

And to Obama, Nancy, Reid and company that is a feature – not a bug. Get the non-productive portions of society out of the way sooner.

Just talk to any specializing doctor. The neurosurgeon we’ve dealt with for nearly 15 years is going to quit if this is implemented.

Half the specialized doctors I deal with for my son are leaving the field of medicine completely.

The only doctors left will be the substandard ‘barely passed the exam’ dunderheads that do pretty much nothing but throw pills at you and can’t diagnose so much as a pimple accurately.

Researchers? Forget it. Nobody is interested in working for minimum wage, and once a discovery is made it’d be handed over to the government doctors for ‘the greater good’ and government profit, meanwhile the researcher gets diddly, and the company employing the researchers spend less and less on research because there will be no incentive to do so.

enjoy your cancer.

Basic research?

Did you just put space program and basic research in the same sentence. Wow.

Save your “wows” for someone who’s interested in your opinion. “Basic research” is clearly a term of art in the sciences referring to research, often of a generic nature, that may or may not end up leading to a breakthrough further down the line.

Why? Why is this likely. Space exploration can have other motives than just profit. Profit is one reason to get things done, but there are others, such as national security, or collective pride, or collective good, etc.

And if any of those were efficacious over the long term, that’d be great. Unfortunately, they aren’t. If they were, the Soviet Union would still exist.

And I know what point the article is making, but I fail to see how insurance company are more likely to fund such experiments. And if it’s not insurance companies (and not the government either) then it’s company thinking there is a market for that research. Obama so far has not gone in the direction of public-only system. People that could afford it could stilll fund such research (by being willing to pay for those services).

Insurance companies don’t fund drug research, but drug research is undertaken with certain assumptions about what reimbursement levels by the insurance companies will be. Since the drug companies would essentially be at the mercy of the negotiating power of any “public option” plan, their reimbursement assumptions would have to go down when building their “rate of return” models.

As far as your point about “people that could afford it” paying for that research, have you ever heard of “economies of scale”? If there are only a few buyers of a certain drug, the price needs to be much higher to cover fixed costs at a low volume than the price would need to be at higher volume.

If I could have just one wish, it would be that you people have to live in the world that reflects the obvious outcome of your ill-thought out plans and I could live in my free market world. It is seriously like we are different species.

-Dave