Park Life

Agee with Stevie these threads clog up the place.

The coke was probably uncut.

Depends on the drug.

Rafa's last game?

A hard pill to swallow Why U.S. drug prices are so high Pills spilling out of a bottle of prescription medicine. Drug prices, especially for brand names, are sky high and rising in the United States. According to a couple of University experts, the steep price of drugs depends on many factors--like the shielding of insured consumers from the true prices of drugs, patent laws, and the byzantine structure of an industry whose practices are all but impossible to track. by Deane Morrison From M, spring 2004 The last thing Marie, a University employee, thinks about when she reaches for her asthma medication is its cost. Thanks to her Health Partners coverage, she pays only $20 for a three-month supply of Advair. If Marie paid cash at the Nicollet Mall Walgreen's in Minneapolis, she would pay $151.59 for a one-month supply. If she were buying online from Canada, the price would be about $99 a month, and if a generic form of the drug were on the market, the price would probably be slightly lower than the Canadian price. Marie is getting a good deal with her HMO coverage, but her situation illustrates one reason why drug prices, especially for brand names, are sky high and rising in the United States. According to a couple of University experts, the steep price of drugs depends on many factors--like the shielding of insured consumers from the true prices of drugs, patent laws, and the byzantine structure of an industry whose practices are all but impossible to track. Consumer price insulation One simple factor in high drug costs is that the doctor who chooses a drug doesn't pay for it and may have no idea of its price; therefore, he or she may pick a high-priced brand name over a generic version of the drug without a second thought. Doctors get much of their information about drugs from the manufacturers, who send "detail" people to doctors' offices--complete with free samples--to extol the virtues of the latest brand-name drugs. Ads aimed at consumers also tout brand names, increasing the demand for more expensive drugs. If an HMO or other health plan is paying, that's good for the consumer but not for prices. "Suppose each refill costs you a flat $10 to $20 co-pay, whether it's a $50 brand-name drug or a $30 generic," says Roger Feldman, a University professor of health services research and policy. "Demand for the drug would be insensitive to price." Such arrangements help insulate consumers like Marie from the true cost of their medications, so they have no incentive to shop around. But an insurance policy that requires the consumer to pay a certain percentage of all costs would introduce some price sensitivity, and encourage both consumer and insurer to seek better bargains. Both Stephen Schondelmeyer and Roger Feldman scoff at companies' claims that anti-reimportation laws serve to ensure the safety of drugs from Canada. "Anti-reimportation laws have little to do with safety and everything to do with profit," says Feldman. Oh, Canada U.S. prices got so high in the first place partly because, in the 1970s and 1980s, companies began pricing according to a percentage of a country's median income, says Stephen Schondelmeyer, head of the University's PRIME Institute, which monitors the pharmaceutical industry. Drug prices in Canada run about 50 to 60 percent of the U.S. figure; in Europe it's about 40 to 50 percent. But the U.S. has huge income disparities; affluent people tend to have HMO or other coverage, and those who don't have any coverage tend to be the poor or elderly.

Saw a progreamme about it healthcareboy.

The same drugs cost x5 or more in the U.S. as to what they cost in Europe.

A complete backdown by the Uncle Tom president.

Not sure it's backed up by facts but I always had an idea that one of the factors in the German and Japanese post WWII economic strength was that they didn't have to spend billions on defence. Yup and the huge rebuild ones economy one time bonus.

...and as a result you'll stop liking it so much Correct.

It will be massive.

It's not about Obama. It's about the failing of a system.

I've noticed the way the other managers talk about us it's as if we're Barca.

The majority of ex-players are basically too thick.

"Socialised medicine"....

This is the problem, in a nutshell. The reason the U.S. manufacturers can't get their collective shit together is because they keep trying to out-China China. There's been a massive push to create equipment and tooling that does all of the thinking for the worker to the point where an average third grader could run about 90% of the processes in the plant I work in. This is so the companies can hire less skilled workers which of course, they can pay less, which lets them charge less for their particular product in an attempt to compete with China's super low cost products. It's a losing proposition, but nobody seems to get it. The government gets involved by allowing states (like Indiana) to create these "Right to Work" laws which basically let a company fire you for any reason whatsoever without any kind of advanced notice or warning (and in most cases, a week's severance for every year worked), which attracts companies to the region. It's how we ended up with a Toyota plant (and their suppliers, i.e. my company) here. This creates new jobs, but they're, for the most part, average paying jobs. They pay enough to live on, and pay just a little more than the other manufacturer's in the area, which keeps people on the straight and narrow at work, but not enough to really cut into the bottom line for these companies. Maybe I'm just a communist in American clothing, but it seems like if there are less jobs around, you've got a much more compliant workforce. I'm a prime example- I've never put up with the shit (hours, job expectations, wage and raise freezes, etc.) like I have at this job, but what else is there? The national unemployment rate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% and my wife's expecting our first kid. I'd love to tell my boss to eat me, that I've been taken for granted, and I'm moving on, but there's nowhere to move on to. I feel more sorry for the poor bastards coming out of college today. Four year degree and no jobs- deferment only works for about 6 months- then it's time to start paying on the loans. No jobs = compliant workforce = mo' money for the companies, which bringsssssss ussssss baaaaaaaaack to do, do, do, do, do. Some good insight there, cheers. The U.S. and Europe can't compete with labour costs as found in India and China, end of story. The dream always has been that we are going to out hi-tech the cunts, but that is expensive and returns on new tech and all the research involved is at least 5 years and sometimes a decade - shareholders aren't so patient not are greedy execs. Japan and HK and a few other rising far tiger economies can match us in most areas bar weapons in hi tech anyway and if silicon valley weren't busying themselves with misslile guidance (as are BA and Racal) they would be at deaths door as well. America has one of the most overprotected and subsidesed econonomies on earth with state bailouts, grants and import duties keeping a lot of shit alive across the country, remove those tariffs and all those things from wheat to alu/steel would be decimated. There are no easy ans here, but one thing is for sure the American economy and the dollar are looking down the barrel. The way the world works and the interactions and needs between countries needs to change, excess value needs to be re-invested and not go into the pockets of the super-rich. The dark empire will fall. Quicker the better.

25 secs.

What he could not have done is gone round the world touting how good our system of financial regulation was, while enjoying billions upon billions in corporate and income tax on the back of it. Now the government are angry and chasing after their pound of flesh. It's been one distraction after another from Numbers 10 and 11. First it was Fred the Shred and now its the stage-managed barney over bonus taxes which, in the long run will probably all even out anyway. It all pales into insignificance when you consider that the real story is that the financial system upon which we have become thoroughly dependent has proved unsustainable and inherently flawed. That's a bit of a trickier issue to deal with than stopping a greasy bond trader going home with an extra fat wedge. They should stop playing the headlines game and start thinking about what we actually want our economy to look like in 10 years time. It is unsustainable and has been for two decades. The markets keep making up new scams and new financial instruments to patch it up, but that road is about to run out.

One of the most astounding facts about the US economy i ever read (in Tim Harford's first book) was that since something like the beginning of the 1970s, the US economy has last just under 300 million jobs. In that same period, it created just over 300 million jobs. I'll have to check the book to get the exact figures. As Krugman says, Clinton created 20 million jobs in 7 years. The state of panic around the impossibility of the task seems to be perpetuated (like the war, swine flu and Mike Ashley's impending bankrupcy ) to keep us throwing money at the wealthiest people that fucked up in the first place. If you don't keep the wealthy onside you don't win the election.

That's the crux for me - I read that Darling was trying to shift the emphasis back to manufacturing etc away from finance. I would welcome that shift but the question is whether the horse has bolted - since Thatcher we've been told its Services or bust but as I said on that other thread, other countries still seem to have a better mix than us. I think Brown's mistake ( I don't really blame him for not regulating) was talking up the City as if it was the answer to everything in perpetuity. Fair enough the government did make a shit load out of them when times were "good" but I can't believe that there weren't people who knew how much quicksand it was all built on - whether of course anybody with the courage to speak up would have been listened to is another matter. manufacture what and at what labour costs and for whom?

Not much Govt can do these days. The money markets won't let them anyway and if it comes to push and shove they will simply crash the markets.

Theres not a goverment on earth which could conceivably regulate the global economic markets, and that is precisely why we are in recession. In this country people can blame Gordon Brown until they are blue in the face but in reality theres fuck all he or anyone else could've done. Yup. Markets have been running on various scams that have led to massive losses and junk status paper holdings. It's pretty much over. It will take a decade to revover from this mess.

They aren't desparate or wild or gambles if they know full well there's a government safety net ready to catch them though. Govt is running out of money as well. It's why Obama pulled back on the healthcare reforms. The U.S. is running catastrophic debts it's leaking $3m a day in Iraq, unemployment is near an all time high...etc etc..

It's too late for regulating, don't you see the desperate wild gambles the investment banks have been taking. They have run out of tricks.

It's not really Obama or the advisors or Goldman Sachs, they are clingling desperately to a model that is going through systemic failure. I forsee the collapse of the dollar within 18 months.