“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

[newhaul]

Like I said its more often than not all about the money not the facts.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the monies from the fees being wasted is not just a third world issue . Wasting money is all to rampant in my state of Washington .

That is the understatement of the day !

You should have seen the nasty look I got from the permit office babe when, after applying for a minor project I asked,

"What benefit do I get for my $450.00 permit fee?"

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

That is the understatement of the day !

You should have seen the nasty look I got from the permit office babe when, after applying for a minor project I asked,

"What benefit do I get for my $450.00 permit fee?"

careful or that " benefit will be a right cross from the wife

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

I couldn't properly apportion the costs involved in the prescription drug market, nor attempt to explain the nuances of other markets, so couldn't knowledgeably agree or disagree...

Insulin and many other drugs cost less in Canada, thanks to the (Canadian) Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, a federal agency that establishes the maximum price that can be charged for patented drugs.
Right now, insulin isn't available as a generic drug in the U.S., because pharmaceutical companies have made small changes* (improvements?) to insulin over the years, to keep it under patent. The companies are free to charge what they will.
While there are programs that exist for people over 65 or low-income families, the only other options in the U.S. are coverage through work, or to buy it out of pocket.

* Why People with Diabetes Can't Buy Generic Insulin
Drug companies’ incremental changes keep drugs patented, costly, Johns Hopkins study shows.
☞ https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news...eneric_insulin

* Jeremy A. Greene, Kevin R. Riggs. Why Is There No Generic Insulin? Historical Origins of a Modern Problem. New England Journal of Medicine, 2015; 372 (12): 1171 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMms1411398
☞ https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMms1411398

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

..."What benefit do I get for my $450.00 permit fee?"

Here's a thought experiment from political theory (egghead side, not partisan side):

Suppose you live in a community with 100 people. 2 people are boaters. Suppose the community spends $10/year from the general fund to support the activities of the boaters. Suppose the community decides to charge each of the two boaters $3 each such that the $6 revenue from the boaters doesn't cover the full $10 that the society pays to support the activity of the boaters. In this example, each boater only pays the $3 special fee plus 10 cents to the general fund to support the boating activity but the larger community has to pay the additional $2.80.

Is it fair that the non-boaters in the community should gripe "why am I paying 10 cents to this boating activity...what do I get for it!??"

So of course, the two boaters respond: "We boaters protect the coast, provide trade that ultimately provides a return on investment for the 10 cent contribution that we're asking, etc, etc, etc."
---
You can repeat this thought experiment across every function supported by the general fund. In nearly every instance the individuals being supported by the general fund will spin their own yarn justifying their expenditures. If all the tales were true, then the community would be the richest on earth. If the same community of 100 is hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, in nearly every instance the individuals in the different functions will blame the others for causing the debt.

I really don't think cruisers ultimately want to have the societal resources used by the cruising community to be paid for 100% from the cruising community. Is this what you want? From my perspective...as uncomfortable as it is...one should look at the $450 fee as an economically unsustainable bargain and pay it without much gripe. Gripe just enough to not be the path of least resistance for more revenue...don't gripe so much that you draw attention to the underlying economics.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Here's a thought experiment from political theory (egghead side, not partisan side):

Suppose you live in a community with 100 people. 2 people are boaters. Suppose the community spends $10/year from the general fund to support the activities of the boaters. Suppose the community decides to charge each of the two boaters $3 each such that the $6 revenue from the boaters doesn't cover the full $10 that the society pays to support the activity of the boaters. In this example, each boater only pays the $3 special fee plus 10 cents to the general fund to support the boating activity but the larger community has to pay the additional $2.80.

Is it fair that the non-boaters in the community should gripe "why am I paying 10 cents to this boating activity...what do I get for it!??"

So of course, the two boaters respond: "We boaters protect the coast, provide trade that ultimately provides a return on investment for the 10 cent contribution that we're asking, etc, etc, etc."
---
You can repeat this thought experiment across every function supported by the general fund. In nearly every instance the individuals being supported by the general fund will spin their own yarn justifying their expenditures. If all the tales were true, then the community would be the richest on earth. If the same community of 100 is hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, in nearly every instance the individuals in the different functions will blame the others for causing the debt.

I really don't think cruisers ultimately want to have the societal resources used by the cruising community to be paid for 100% from the cruising community. Is this what you want? From my perspective...as uncomfortable as it is...one should look at the $450 fee as an economically unsustainable bargain and pay it without much gripe. Gripe just enough to not be the path of least resistance for more revenue...don't gripe so much that you draw attention to the underlying economics.

except that the fee was for a permit to build a small structure on his own property .
It was not to benefit anybody except the governing body .

On another front here we pay a fee as part of our annual vessel registration fee to assist with the cost of removal of derelict vessels . The caveat here is the fact that the governing body removes the offending vessel then collects the cost of said removal from the last registered owner of said vessel . So a classic case of government double dipping

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by newhaul

So a classic case of government double dipping

Per the debtclock calculator website, Washington has something like 7.6 million residents while the state currently carries 93.9 billion dollars in debt.

How much of the budget deficit would you attribute to government corruption vs how much do you attribute to black market economics? What relative percentages?

[transmitterdan]

The biggest factor in creating debt loads by US government entities is economic policy. The governments (federal & state) believe they are “investing” for the future economic benefit of all by pushing cash into the economy. They care way less what they spend it on than they should. If they made hard business decisions governed by actuarial feedback tables when spending via debt there should be very little waste or corruption and decent ROI.

I guess a very small percentage of the public debt was handed to corrupt people. Most of the government waste is due to ineptness or attempts to curry voter favor. You can argue that currying favor with voters is a kind of “good feedback” but many voters will readily vote against the common good because they don’t understand civics or don’t care (probably both). They tend to vote to protect their own selfish interests.

Think about the federal reserve bank mandate to push cash into the economy to hold inflation at 2%+ and maintain a modest GDP growth rate. There is no consideration for what the money is used. They just hand out money to prevent deflation. They hand the money to the US treasury and banks. They then control how the money is spent. That is the source of a huge percentage of the present debt load. In other words, we owe the money to ourselves.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Per the debtclock calculator website, Washington has something like 7.6 million residents while the state currently carries 93.9 billion dollars in debt.

How much of the budget deficit would you attribute to government corruption vs how much do you attribute to black market economics? What relative percentages?

unfortunately I would have to attribute 90% to government waste.
17 years ago we had a 40 or so billion surplus of money . Then Christine Gregoire got elected and we went broke she gave all gov employees a big pay raise that has at least partly caused the budget deficit .

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by newhaul

except that the fee was for a permit to build a small structure on his own property .
It was not to benefit anybody except the governing body .

On another front here we pay a fee as part of our annual vessel registration fee to assist with the cost of removal of derelict vessels . The caveat here is the fact that the governing body removes the offending vessel then collects the cost of said removal from the last registered owner of said vessel . So a classic case of government double dipping

To put a fine point on the project, it was to sleeve four creosote pilings on my dock, drive them below the oxygen layer in the bottom, fill inside and seal with mortar til full, and cap them with a vinyl topper. This effectively removes a known carcinogen and pollution source from the water column.

In my opinion, the government should have PAID me to do it !
It had the same environmental impact as launching a fiberglass boat.



When we called for an inspection, the guy showed up unannounced, took one look at them from 50 feet away, checked them off and left.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

To put a fine point on the project, it was to sleeve four creosote pilings on my dock, drive them below the oxygen layer in the bottom, fill inside and seal with mortar til full, and cap them with a vinyl topper. This effectively removes a known carcinogen and pollution source from the water column.

In my opinion, the government should have PAID me to do it !
It had the same environmental impact as launching a fiberglass boat.



When we called for an inspection, the guy showed up unannounced, took one look at them from 50 feet away, checked them off and left.

dude can I have the inside spot on the dock? Across from that pos trimaran

[Exile]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

To put a fine point on the project, it was to sleeve four creosote pilings on my dock, drive them below the oxygen layer in the bottom, fill inside and seal with mortar til full, and cap them with a vinyl topper. This effectively removes a known carcinogen and pollution source from the water column.

In my opinion, the government should have PAID me to do it !
It had the same environmental impact as launching a fiberglass boat.



When we called for an inspection, the guy showed up unannounced, took one look at them from 50 feet away, checked them off and left.

Nice digs Senor!

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Insulin and many other drugs cost less in Canada, thanks to the (Canadian) Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, a federal agency that establishes the maximum price that can be charged for patented drugs.
Right now, insulin isn't available as a generic drug in the U.S., because pharmaceutical companies have made small changes* (improvements?) to insulin over the years, to keep it under patent. The companies are free to charge what they will.
While there are programs that exist for people over 65 or low-income families, the only other options in the U.S. are coverage through work, or to buy it out of pocket.

* Why People with Diabetes Can't Buy Generic Insulin
Drug companies’ incremental changes keep drugs patented, costly, Johns Hopkins study shows.
☞ https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news...eneric_insulin

* Jeremy A. Greene, Kevin R. Riggs. Why Is There No Generic Insulin? Historical Origins of a Modern Problem. New England Journal of Medicine, 2015; 372 (12): 1171 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMms1411398
☞ https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMms1411398

The fact is that there is no real competition in health care or pharmaceuticals in the U.S. It's not really a market-based system.

Why would pharmaceuticals be allowed to advertise prescription drugs to patients? Patients don't prescribe drugs, physicians do.

We have a nonsensical system, where nobody knows what anything costs, so there's no consumer input, and the people choosing services or medications aren't the ones paying for them.

Either the government should control prices, or they should insist on transparency and consumer input. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that, as big pharma owns Congress.

Don't let doctors off the hook, either, as they maintain a complete monopoly over a big part of health care. We should absolutely be making bigger use of nurse practitioners in certain areas, but doctors really don't want to give up any control.

Also, don't even get started on lawsuits, which should absolutely have some limits to prevent abuse of the system, and even higher prices that ultimately get passed onto all of the consumers.

[senormechanico]

Yeah, 22 years in the same place will do that. Notice the two year supply of firewood. Woodstove starts effortless every time. Firewood loads street side, empties from the water side with a dock cart to the covered area by the door next to the wood stove in the living room.
All rainwater is collected and dumped be low the low tide line under the ramp so no erosion. So far, water isn't an issue in the PacificNorthWet, at least on Whidbey Island.


I'm 73, still working but at least it's at home. I'm the sewing machine guy that everyone comes to for a lot of Western Washington. Crappy weather, I'm busy. Summer comes and I go sailing for a couple months. They all wait for me.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Insulin and many other drugs cost less in Canada, thanks to the (Canadian) Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, a federal agency that establishes the maximum price that can be charged for patented drugs.
Right now, insulin isn't available as a generic drug in the U.S., because pharmaceutical companies have made small changes* (improvements?) to insulin over the years, to keep it under patent. The companies are free to charge what they will.
While there are programs that exist for people over 65 or low-income families, the only other options in the U.S. are coverage through work, or to buy it out of pocket.

* Why People with Diabetes Can't Buy Generic Insulin
Drug companies’ incremental changes keep drugs patented, costly, Johns Hopkins study shows.
☞ https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news...eneric_insulin

* Jeremy A. Greene, Kevin R. Riggs. Why Is There No Generic Insulin? Historical Origins of a Modern Problem. New England Journal of Medicine, 2015; 372 (12): 1171 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMms1411398
☞ https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMms1411398

Could very well be the reason for the high costs of insulin in the US, but it'd be prudent to hear what the pharma cos. have to say before reaching a definitive conclusion. I also suspect patent rules have protections against such alleged abuses, and would want to know why the patent office was apparently convinced the improvements justified renewed protections. Maybe answers to some of these questions are in your links which I have not read.

The upside to the regulatory policies of the Canadian patent board are obvious for consumers. The potential downside is it lessens the incentive for pharma cos. to expend the capital to research & introduce new drugs and/or improve existing ones. So, as in most complex areas, it requires a well considered balancing.