Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View More Government Waste
2 years ago  ::  May 08, 2012 - 3:31PM #11
Bodean
Posts: 9,593

May 8, 2012 -- 2:57PM, Unworthyone wrote:


So the PO is not a money making proposition.


Neither is the space program under NASA.  They just did all the heavy lifting for GPS systems, Telecommunications, weather reports, etc.


Nor is the National Institutes of Health.  They only finance about half of all the medical and pharmaceutical research in the world.


Centers for Disease Control is a loser, too. What a waste preventing epidemics.


Not to mention the VA.  Lord knows the vets are a major drain on our resources.


Hoover Dam was a hugely expensive project that lost millions.


We wouldn't even have an Internet if it were not for a program called DARPA, an expensive money losing Pentagon  project.


Bottom line is this:  Some things need to be done, even if there is no profit realized by the government.  Deal with it.




Some of the stuff you mention has a long term payoff to the public. ... as you've already mentioned.


OTOH ... the NIH .. funding 1/2 of medical and phama research .... just proves how ignorant you are.  They do not fund a dime of Pharmaceutical Research.  The entire NIH Budget is only 30 Billion.  In 2010 alone, Pharma spent 68 Billion on research, that was down 2 Billion from the 70 Billion spent in 2009.


In fact, not only does Pharma fund ALL of its own research in house, Pharma also doles out more pharma research grants to the University System than NIH ever dreamed of.  While NIH this year will have a 30 Billion Budget, you have to remember that only a small fraction of that goes to any one department.  While it does fund a lot of abstract ideas, graduate studies ... and buys a bunch of equipment [the primary use of NIH money], it does little to cure disease.


This one is just your politics speaking, which hates the Pharma industry.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 08, 2012 - 6:06PM #12
amcolph
Posts: 17,692

May 8, 2012 -- 3:09PM, Bodean wrote:


May 8, 2012 -- 2:37PM, amcolph wrote:


May 8, 2012 -- 2:11PM, Bodean wrote:


May 8, 2012 -- 11:50AM, arielg wrote:


The PO is running into trouble because the service they are offering is no longer as vital as it was sometime ego.  Too  much money to  pay for too little.


Government can spend that  money to solve  more pressing problems.





True ariel ... but that is only a cause.  Since the PO can't adjust to the changing market, thanks to Union Negotiated perks, they are not being able to solve the problem on their own.




Even you could eliminate the postal workers' union (which I'm sure you would be glad to do whether it helped the Postal Service or not) there would still be Congressionally mandated rules which are also standing in the way of adapting to the current market.






There may be some congressional hurdles as well .... but the Union hurdles could be eliminated today, and it would make a huge difference.




Except that they haven't got a free hand with it.  Where are the Conservatives in Congress?  As much as they hate unions I would think they would be giving the USPS some help.




 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 08, 2012 - 9:29PM #13
Bodean
Posts: 9,593

May 8, 2012 -- 6:06PM, amcolph wrote:


 


Except that they haven't got a free hand with it.  Where are the Conservatives in Congress?  As much as they hate unions I would think they would be giving the USPS some help.




 




So .. let me get this straight.  You want the Conservatives to step in and force the Union out of the USPS??


Really??  Did you not see the fiasco that leftist made of the Scott Walker thingy??


BUT .. personally, I agree!! Where are the Conservatives in Congress ... OH .. that's right .. they don't own the Senate, and anything and everything they say is shot down.  They also don't own the POTUS .. so it won't matter, as Obama will veto it.  Of course, I guess they could attach it to something ... like, funding for Obamacare.  LOL.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 1:54AM #14
Unworthyone
Posts: 2,946

May 8, 2012 -- 3:31PM, Bodean wrote:

OTOH ... the NIH .. funding 1/2 of medical and phama research .... just proves how ignorant you are.  They do not fund a dime of Pharmaceutical Research.  The entire NIH Budget is only 30 Billion.  In 2010 alone, Pharma spent 68 Billion on research, that was down 2 Billion from the 70 Billion spent in 2009.


In fact, not only does Pharma fund ALL of its own research in house, Pharma also doles out more pharma research grants to the University System than NIH ever dreamed of.  While NIH this year will have a 30 Billion Budget, you have to remember that only a small fraction of that goes to any one department.  While it does fund a lot of abstract ideas, graduate studies ... and buys a bunch of equipment [the primary use of NIH money], it does little to cure disease.


This one is just your politics speaking, which hates the Pharma industry.




Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but you are mistaken.


NIH (and other government entities) do indeed fund pharmaceutical research. 


According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, government was responsible for about 33% of biomedical research as recently as 2007.  That includes drugs as well as medical devices.


Even the Defense Department is funding pharmaceutical research.


I was in the pharma industry a while back.  I know for a fact that at least one of my products was funded by NIH money, as were several products in the pipeline.

I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.  Thomas Jefferson

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein

You can get anything you want out of life if you will just help enough other people get what they want. Zig Ziglar

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 9:34AM #15
Bodean
Posts: 9,593

May 9, 2012 -- 1:54AM, Unworthyone wrote:


May 8, 2012 -- 3:31PM, Bodean wrote:

OTOH ... the NIH .. funding 1/2 of medical and phama research .... just proves how ignorant you are.  They do not fund a dime of Pharmaceutical Research.  The entire NIH Budget is only 30 Billion.  In 2010 alone, Pharma spent 68 Billion on research, that was down 2 Billion from the 70 Billion spent in 2009.


In fact, not only does Pharma fund ALL of its own research in house, Pharma also doles out more pharma research grants to the University System than NIH ever dreamed of.  While NIH this year will have a 30 Billion Budget, you have to remember that only a small fraction of that goes to any one department.  While it does fund a lot of abstract ideas, graduate studies ... and buys a bunch of equipment [the primary use of NIH money], it does little to cure disease.


This one is just your politics speaking, which hates the Pharma industry.




Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but you are mistaken.


NIH (and other government entities) do indeed fund pharmaceutical research. 


According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, government was responsible for about 33% of biomedical research as recently as 2007.  That includes drugs as well as medical devices.


Even the Defense Department is funding pharmaceutical research.


I was in the pharma industry a while back.  I know for a fact that at least one of my products was funded by NIH money, as were several products in the pipeline.





Well hate to bust your bubble dude .... lumping all useless biomedical research into being that of Pharma Research, is the typical liberal way of lying and deceiving people such as yourself.


JAMA is a decidedly anti-Pharma rag, and most doctors have shunned it [with the exception of the liberal academics in Med Schools, who are also anti-pharma].  The AMA is another one of those self serving special interest groups that cozys up to Liberals so they can have relevance in the world.  Do you know how JAMA gets their 33% figure??? .... they lump the entire NIH budget into the Total Research Dollars, and then make some claim that NIH has funded 33% of Biomedical Research.  For example, NIH, does fund a high percentage of the "human trials" of new medicines .. .and rightfully so, as these studies are required by Government for approval.  But even here, Pharma co. more and more are going to Europe to conduct these studies because their system of drug discovery and approval is light years ahead of our agenda driven, greedy system.  The other place where NIH comes in handy is funding politically expedient projects, like reseach on AIDS, or low return investments like Cancer Reserach.  The final frontier of NIH grants is the "Start up" funds for new labs.  The coveted RO1 grant from NIH is used in University labs to buy equipment that sets the stage for future research in a Professors Lab.


So .. while you were likely a "rep" in the pharma industry .. i'm in research, and I know for a fact that NIH does not fund nearly 33% of the relevant research, and funds even less in the private labs [again , some small start up funds for new labs, but none for the big guys].  NIH is relegated to the grants issued to the University System ... for just about any tom, dick, or harry idea that remotely pertains to a sector of research interests in human health.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 9:46AM #16
catboxer
Posts: 14,012

The greatest waste by far is the perpetual war, which soaks up untold billions.


It's also the subject conservatives refuse to address or even acknowledge.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 9:57AM #17
Unworthyone
Posts: 2,946

May 9, 2012 -- 9:34AM, Bodean wrote:

Well hate to bust your bubble dude .... lumping all useless biomedical research into being that of Pharma Research, is the typical liberal way of lying and deceiving people such as yourself.


JAMA is a decidedly anti-Pharma rag, and most doctors have shunned it [with the exception of the liberal academics in Med Schools, who are also anti-pharma].  The AMA is another one of those self serving special interest groups that cozys up to Liberals so they can have relevance in the world.  Do you know how JAMA gets their 33% figure??? .... they lump the entire NIH budget into the Total Research Dollars, and then make some claim that NIH has funded 33% of Biomedical Research.  For example, NIH, does fund a high percentage of the "human trials" of new medicines .. .and rightfully so, as these studies are required by Government for approval.  But even here, Pharma co. more and more are going to Europe to conduct these studies because their system of drug discovery and approval is light years ahead of our agenda driven, greedy system.  The other place where NIH comes in handy is funding politically expedient projects, like reseach on AIDS, or low return investments like Cancer Reserach.  The final frontier of NIH grants is the "Start up" funds for new labs.  The coveted RO1 grant from NIH is used in University labs to buy equipment that sets the stage for future research in a Professors Lab.


So .. while you were likely a "rep" in the pharma industry .. i'm in research, and I know for a fact that NIH does not fund nearly 33% of the relevant research, and funds even less in the private labs [again , some small start up funds for new labs, but none for the big guys].  NIH is relegated to the grants issued to the University System ... for just about any tom, dick, or harry idea that remotely pertains to a sector of research interests in human health.




OK, you are splitting hairs now.  Just because NIH does not hand millions of dollars directly to pharmaceutical companies, you are saying that pharmaceutical companies research is all self-funding.  That's nonsense.  The grants are given to universities and medical centers and sometimes to researchers not affiliated directly with the patent holders (because of their independence) where the studies are conducted.


If this were not the case, these research centers would be reluctant to conduct this research, pharma shareholders don't want bear the heavy lifting, (due to the fact that less than one in one hundred patents ever make it to market) and the world would go without.   All phases of pharmaceutical research are eligible for NIH funding.


And re: JAMA is an anti-pharma rag?  Really?  If you are in research you know that drug companies are dependent on JAMA and other peer-reviewed publications to pass FDA approvals, and JAMA is dependent on the researchers to produce publishable results.  It is a symbiotic relationship, not an adversarial one.

I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.  Thomas Jefferson

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein

You can get anything you want out of life if you will just help enough other people get what they want. Zig Ziglar

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 09, 2012 - 12:02PM #18
Bodean
Posts: 9,593

May 9, 2012 -- 9:57AM, Unworthyone wrote:


OK, you are splitting hairs now.  Just because NIH does not hand millions of dollars directly to pharmaceutical companies, you are saying that pharmaceutical companies research is all self-funding.  That's nonsense.  The grants are given to universities and medical centers and sometimes to researchers not affiliated directly with the patent holders (because of their independence) where the studies are conducted.


If this were not the case, these research centers would be reluctant to conduct this research, pharma shareholders don't want bear the heavy lifting, (due to the fact that less than one in one hundred patents ever make it to market) and the world would go without.   All phases of pharmaceutical research are eligible for NIH funding.


And re: JAMA is an anti-pharma rag?  Really?  If you are in research you know that drug companies are dependent on JAMA and other peer-reviewed publications to pass FDA approvals, and JAMA is dependent on the researchers to produce publishable results.  It is a symbiotic relationship, not an adversarial one.




Without splitting the hairs, you allow a party to convey a falsehood. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the NIH .. my grad work was funded in part by the NIH ... and a few grants from the evil Pharma Industry. But I don't agree with the perspective put out by the Pharma Haters, that without the NIH, we'd still be in the stone ages of Medicine.  That is simply not true, and is a perspective to garner negative opinion about my industry.  I hold the opposite position .. all of the do-gooder, Academic Doctors and Med Schools .. wouldn't be SQUAT without Pharma and the Medical Device Companies.  They are the one's who'd still be prescribing herbs and what not, and using crude instruments for detailed surgeries.  Quite Frankly, it pisses me off to no end when I hear Doctors bashing Pharma.  I'm like, FINE .. stop using our products .. you fricken hypocrits [and watch your patient base dry up].


JAMA is the primary publishing site of Liberal Academics in Med Schools, and is intended to forward an agenda.  I've read enough of it ... and can't stand the rag. The more reputable Journals are specific to their trade.  Journal of Neuroscience, Cancer, Diabetes, etc.  JAMA is right up there with Nature and Science .. both of which are a disgrace. ... little more than editorial journalism.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook