Obama's Really Pizzing Off the Wrong People.....Just Sayin'

[Ms Tree]

On reviewing the posting chronology: You are correct, and I sincerely apologize for my unwarranted insult through suggesting dishonesty on your part there.

Umm..Still waiting for anyone's even remotely possible explanation of how obmacare and/or reducing any profit motive will benefit research and development though. Anyone wish to take a try at that? 😉

Appology accepted. Please dont make me do that again. It was a lot of work. Lol

Im not adverse to the idea of a profit motive for research. I tbink we need to figure out a way to minimize the cost that is passed to the consumer.

Where I do not see a justification for profit is on the care side. I see that as a dirrect conflict of interest.

Someone described the CA versikn to me and if I recall correctly the facilities are state owned. They are run independantly and are non profit. They have no shortage of care givers. The end result seems to be a much more eficient system than what we have here in the US.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Appology accepted. Please dont make me do that again. It was a lot of work. Lol

Im not adverse to the idea of a profit motive for research. I tbink we need to figure out a way to minimize the cost that is passed to the consumer.

Where I do not see a justification for profit is on the care side. I see that as a dirrect conflict of interest.

Someone described the CA versikn to me and if I recall correctly the facilities are state owned. They are run independantly and are non profit. They have no shortage of care givers. The end result seems to be a much more eficient system than what we have here in the US.

That is why I like grants to well known, highly respected, health care providers and universities. It allows them to take a higher risk on research that may or may not have any guarantee of ROI.

 

[southwind]

Seriously, did you seek help for your anger yet. Statistically, more people with PH.D.'s are Dems, Homer.

Sorry....Phd's in liberalism don't count! Nice try though!

 

[EastUS1]

By upholding President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul, the U.S. Supreme Court set the stage for several key changes to drug development, industry executives and observers agreed in interviews.
Craig A. Dionne, Ph.D., president and CEO of GenSpera, told GEN that biopharma startups won’t win the funding they need without showing investors solid results earlier in development. Those companies, he said, must offer investors clear evidence that their new drugs offer “clearly superior” efficacy than existing products, or else risk reduced reimbursement from government and private insurance programs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

But to see the biggest benefit, companies will have to balance their desire to grow their pipelines and advance drugs with the law’s likely reality that investors will limit already-scarce dollars to treatments showing the best results.

"Those companies, he said, must offer investors clear evidence that their new drugs offer “clearly superior” efficacy than existing products, or else risk reduced reimbursement from government and private insurance programs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

And just how many current drugs and therapeutic applications that are now considered as "miracles" (for even other conditions than they were first intended for) could've offered "investors clear evidence that their new drugs offer “clearly superior” efficacy than existing products," in early development and trials?

I rest my case.