BF2S Forums Supreme Court begins review of health-care law

if you knew how much money is wasted by these biomed companies you would delete all your posts saying the private sector is better in this regard.  the same job title i have right now will have a salary of about 30-40K a year working for the government.  right now the job title i have now on average probably clears about 50K to 60K a year in most private companies.

not to mention the unbelieveable amount of money some of these companies are willing to throw around.  like paying for 1st class tickets and 5 star hotels when that shit is really not necessary.

Macbeth wrote:

What is your job?

clinical research assistant/associate working part time for my mom who is a senior CRA.

I just don't understand why people think expanding the governments role in any business sector is a good solution. We all hate taxes, we all hate politicians, we all hate bureaucrats, we hate standing in line, and yet people think the government will swoop in and save the day. Are the military, the TSA, the VA or any of the thousand other bureaucracies efficient or cheaper than their private equivalents? Any time taxpayer money is involved there will be massive corruption and overbilling. It's a given. It's not the bureaucrats money so they have no incentive to keep costs down. It's no different from public sector unions bankrolling the political campaigns of the guy that's supposed to fight them over their next contract. It doesn't work. What we'll get is hospitals and doctors unions and pharma companies continuously going to Congress and asking for increases in their payment rates (this happens now already with Medicaid and Medicare). Are those politicians going to say no? Of course not.

I'm not opposed to paying taxes on some philosophical level, I understand that roads need to be built and schools need to be maintained etc. But I despise government expansion because it means that more people get to fuck around with money that isn't theirs. Look at the difference between a small company operating on a shoestring budget and a giant conglomerate corporation. That small company is going to watch every penny that goes in and out because it has to stretch its budget. That large corporation pays someone $80 an hour to sit on their ass reading emails.

no, have the time that small company is going to try and nickle and dime their employees because they dont have the money to back up the contract.  ive seen the extreme on the other end where the contracting company didnt pay what was owed for nearly a year which required my employer to not work for them any more which means all the work done towards whatever clinical trial, perhaps a few years of research will have to be redone because of the shitty company that got the contract for the cheap couldnt afford to play their employees

Jay wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

not to mention the unbelieveable amount of money some of these companies are willing to throw around.  like paying for 1st class tickets and 5 star hotels when that shit is really not necessary.

Most of that has to do with being an ultra-regulated industry. You understand this right? The barriers to entry are so high for the pharmaceutical industry that there's what? 5 major companies controlling the entire market? Of course they have a ton of money to throw around, they have a government subsidized monopoly. Every heavily regulated industry is the same. Regulations are supposedly about protecting the consumer but they're all written to entrench monopolies instead (because competition is bad, it leads to instability).

a japanese bio tech company paying 10 thousand dollar expenses for a 5 day business trip has nothing to do with regulation.  that same business trip would have cost about 1500 if it was done on a budget.  no, regulation has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the amount of money wastes in this industry.  please I dont make any attempt to speak on engineering because i lack a thorough knowledge of that industry.  before you make assumptions why dont you just ask.

Jay wrote:

If Merck put out a drug that was killing people you don't think people would stop buying Merck products?

Stop and think about what you just said for a little while.

they've already put out drugs that are dangerous despite going through trials and regulations

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

If Merck put out a drug that was killing people you don't think people would stop buying Merck products?

Stop and think about what you just said for a little while.

i don't like the whole "put out a drug that was killing people" deal.  That's not a company or industry regulating itself.

Jay wrote:

I'm well aware.

Then what is your point?

but the fact remains - in regards to new drugs, the companies don't regulate themselves, the industry doesn't regulate itself and in some cases, government regulation isn't comprehensive enough. So why do you think the company would regulate itself (as opposed to your original argument in favor, which was that the consumers would regulate the industry, not the industry, company or government).

you're doing a poor job arguing your case.

Jay wrote:

People are not stupid,

Jay wrote:

Yes, some will,

i think you have a syntax problem.

Government regulations don't change any of that. In the case of the '08 bubble and crash, government interference magnified the damage. You can't legislate away all danger from your life. Drunk driving laws don't stop people from getting killed by drunk drivers.