"Prove it."? How "cute". "That US medical research was ranked low for starters." Was directly pulled from a post of yours, and with that; we're definitely done now.
Obama's Really Pizzing Off the Wrong People.....Just Sayin'
- Thread starter EastUS1
- Start date
"Prove it."? How "cute". "That US medical research was ranked low for starters." Was directly pulled from a post of yours, and with that; we're definitely done now.
PS: Seriously though, and all chuckles aside: We could perhaps just cut to the chase and see how well even the feds' enrollment website works, as just "maybe" serving as some slight indicator of how well the grand program will:
http://online.wsj.co...119740283413018
"The website is troubled by coding problems and flaws in the architecture of the system, according to insurance-industry advisers, technical experts and people close to the development of the marketplace.
Among the technical problems thwarting consumers, according to some of those people, is the system to confirm the identities of enrollees."
But hey! No worries anyone!: "We can do better and we are working around the clock to do so," said Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services." ANY commercial enterprise that was, given full knowledge of their intended launch date for a new product or service, so pathetically F'd up and clearly incompetent, wouldn't long-prove sustainable in the marketplace...BUT...since it's the government, well....who cares right? It reminds me a bit of Lois L. saying that "The IRS would like to apologize for that."...before even getting around to giving her infamous 5th Ammendant "defense". 🙂
Is it just me, or does anyone else notice the patterned and COMPLETE lack of even a half thimble's worth of accountability here?
Why so angry all the time? Did you seek help yet? There is a cure, don't watch Faux news anymore.
I'm no ardent fan of ANY supposed "news" network, and sadly, the only apparent, real "cure" for any of this would be in magically finding some way to significantly raise IQ's of people that can't so much as imagine or ever produce anything approaching actual, much less independent thought of any kind. 😉
"Have...a...nice...day" Forrest. 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOHr85z9k64
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
It was in response to asking what you misrepresented in my statements. I even quoted your post that I was reponding to.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
And as a pre existing condition it would be covered under ACA.
Seriously, did you seek help for your anger yet. Statistically, more people with PH.D.'s are Dems, Homer.
That's actually reasonable, since it's far simpler to entrench one's self in a life of safe academia than be much at all usefull in the real world. 😉 The only threatening issues being "publish or perish" and tenure.
I can only assume you've a PhD yourself in order to offer that, or is this just more demonstration of the standard liberal fantasy that everyone's indeed equal, and all should get trophies for merely existing?
Leroy,
Yale Professor's Surprising Discovery: Tea Party Supporters More Scientifically Literate
Yale Law professor Dan M. Kahan was conducting an analysis of the scientific comprehension of various political groups when he ran into a shocking discovery: tea party supporters are slightly more scientifically literate than the non-tea party population.
https://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/87474-yale-professors-surprising-discovery-tea-party-supporters-scientifically-literate/
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
What I cannot figure out is if you are intentionally lying about what I have posted or if you just did not follow along with the conversation.
Post #177
Two separate issues. I mentioned ranking in relation to our quality of health care. I mentioned Israel and the fact that they had universal health care and still managed to be very innovative in the medical field.
Post #181
This was in response to my claim that Israel had 'a whole lot' of innovations.
Post #182
Me telling you to look it up your self. I still never mentioned anything about US research.
This is where you go off on your own.
post #184
You did not find anything contradicting the research because I never made that claim. You some how jumped from me talking about two separate issues and combined the parts that you wanted in to one.
Post #185
Which is exactly what I told you here and you chose to ignore it.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
post #188
You seem to acknowledge that I did not make the claim you asserted here.
You made an assumption about what I was saying. I never said Israeli research was a basis for dismantling the US system. I think the failure of the US system to provide affordable health care to all people in the US is the basis for dismantaling it or at the least an extensive over haul.
Post #195
Me telling you I did not say something.
Post #197
Post #199
This is the only time I said what you claim I said. Only problem is, I was telling you I did not say it.
Post #200
And this is where your failure to read go you into trouble. All you say was my reply and never even bothered to realize that is was in response to your post, not a claim I was making.
Post #202
You going off about something that I have already told you several times that I did not say but you continue to ignore.
You seem to acknowledge that I did not make the claim you asserted here.
You made an assumption about what I was saying. I never said Israeli research was a basis for dismantling the US system. I think the failure of the US system to provide affordable health care to all people in the US is the basis for dismantaling it or at the least an extensive over haul.
Post #195
Me telling you I did not say something.
Post #197
Post #199
This is the only time I said what you claim I said. Only problem is, I was telling you I did not say it.
Post #200
And this is where your failure to read go you into trouble. All you say was my reply and never even bothered to realize that is was in response to your post, not a claim I was making.
Post #202
You going off about something that I have already told you several times that I did not say but you continue to ignore.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
Post #205
You latching on like a Pit Bull to something that I told you several times I did not say. The highlighted portion was the response I gave you when you asked for an example of what you were misrepresenting. I'm detecting a trend here.
Again the links I provided were showing that health care in the US was ranked poor. Had nothign to do with research since as I have told you countless times.... I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT US RESEARCH. YOU DID.
Post #207
You still not reading a damn thing I have posted because you are still insisting I said something which I have told you over and over again I did not say. Again the highlighted portion was a response to your request for an example, I did not make the claim.
Post #211
And yet again you are still chewing on a statement I never made. The highlighted portion was a response to you (post #199) for a claim you made, not a statement I made.
You latching on like a Pit Bull to something that I told you several times I did not say. The highlighted portion was the response I gave you when you asked for an example of what you were misrepresenting. I'm detecting a trend here.
Again the links I provided were showing that health care in the US was ranked poor. Had nothign to do with research since as I have told you countless times.... I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT US RESEARCH. YOU DID.
Post #207
You still not reading a damn thing I have posted because you are still insisting I said something which I have told you over and over again I did not say. Again the highlighted portion was a response to your request for an example, I did not make the claim.
Post #211
And yet again you are still chewing on a statement I never made. The highlighted portion was a response to you (post #199) for a claim you made, not a statement I made.
You do that just like Ifly2.
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? 😉
Insight&Intelligence™
More »
Jul 5, 2012
R&D Changes Foreseen After Supreme Court Obamacare Decision
Innovative drugs that offer clear superiority over existing products likely among beneficiaries of overhaul.
Industry mostly favors President Obama’s healthcare overhaul, though biopharma does chafe at some provisions. [© XtravaganT - Fotolia.com]
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.
“We have to develop drugs that are very highly and clear differentiated in such a way that they can command premium pricing, and command reimbursement,” Dr. Dionne said. “In oncology, which is our world, that could be something as simple as no effect on the bone marrow, so you no longer need all those supportive cares and all those other expenses that come with a drug with that kind of side effect profile.”
“Companies won’t even get started unless they can start making that argument. And they’re not going to get continued funding unless they can make that argument for premium pricing in the future,” Dr. Dionne added.
Richard Garr, CEO of Neuralstem, told GEN the law will aid drug R&D through its extension of insurance to 32 million more people, and its prohibition on insurers rejecting patients for pre-existing conditions. The latter, he said, should help kickstart research and product development of genetic diagnostics, and for rare disease therapy developers like his company.
“You can’t overstate the importance of this act with respect to the impact it will have on people saying, ‘If we think we have something that’s worth pursuing here on the science side, now we have a much higher comfort level on the business side also,” Garr said. “I would think you will see a flood of genomic companies and testing. I think people will be much more responsive than they ever had been to that, now that they don’t have to worry about their insurance being canceled because they know.”
The healthcare law incorporated the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation (BPCI) Act of 2009, which mandates creation of an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed biological reference product.
Among companies interested in BPCI are Quintessence Biosciences, a developer of anti-cancer, protein-based therapeutics.
Laura E. Strong, Ph.D., Quintessence’s president and COO, told GEN BPCI’s 12-year data exclusivity period is especially welcome by her company, which envisions itself a reference drug developer for future biosimilars.
“One of the issues that’s really important when you think about investment in innovation in biotech and pharma is, What’s the return on investment going to be? Having a more certain marketplace is definitely an improvement,” Dr. Strong said.
Action on biosimilars, however, will have to await FDA approval of final guidances for implementing BPCI; the agency issued three draft guidances on February 9.
FDA isn’t the only Washington hurdle for biosimilars. Obama’s administration wants to shrink exclusivity to seven years, claiming it would save $4 billion over 10 years; Congressional committees have sided with industry. “Our expectation is that the administration would continue those efforts, and we believe that would be certainly problematic,” Todd Gillenwater, svp, public policy with the California Healthcare Institute, told GEN.
He said industry will also continue fighting the law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board focused on cutting Medicaid costs. Biopharma groups say quality of care would be sacrificed, adding the board of 15 unelected presidential appointees requires more oversight.
Industry is also waiting for the states to establish the law’s insurance exchanges. “States continue to feel a lot of budgetary pressure, and there are other factors that may contribute to them not being able to move forward as quickly as they’d like with implementation,” Christie Bloomquist, a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Hogan Lovells, told GEN. One such factor surfaced in recent days, as officials in Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin said they may join Florida, where Gov. Rick Scott said Sunday he would not permit Medicaid expansion. All seven states are led by Republicans.
While biopharmas chafe at some provisions, industry mostly favors the healthcare overhaul. 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.
Similar threads
