Include all the failed, rejected, and pulled/banned drugs into the price of the successful ones and you will find yourself much closer to the former number than the latter.
My own company has developed what appears to be a cure for prostate cancer. We are proceeding with animal trials, but it will be many, MANY years before it hits the market, and many, MANY millions of dollars. Even with help from Armed Forces research funds.
Not sure if your whole post was snark or not, but I don't see why insurance companies wouldn't fund it. It is probably significantly cheaper than prosthetics, and the associated medical costs that come from loss of limb.
What do you think the people who receive said benefits do? Hell, which is more likely for them to do? Invest them money in stocks? Or buy cigarettes?
There is nothing that can not be done by the government that private enterprise can't do better. Except waste purchasing power, and oppress and murder brown people worldwide, of course.
Or Eritrea, with 47.8%, or Zimbabwe, with 97.8%, or Libya, with 43%, or Angola, with 41.6%.
But hey, you feel free to misrepresent my argument, that it is as bad as "some" (quite different from "all") African nations.
Also funny that you seem to think that we have somehow bought better healthcare with our spending, or that our education system isn't a laughing stock, or bought a better university system than we had twenty years ago, rather than a worldwide war machine that kills millions of people for no real reason, other than to feed the military-industrial complex.
Also funny that you think that the level of civilization in the US in 1910 was less than than that of those nations you mention. As if less government spending is the same as civil war. Who is being disingenuous here?
I might add that corporations HATE libertarianism. If they didn't, libertarians would be a much larger part of the existing parties, or their own party would be a major one. Indeed, many libertarians, including myself, call for the eradication of the corporate form, as it is an artifice created by government intervention in the markets (ie it forbids those wronged by a corporation from suing shareholders of said corporation, even if they knew what the company they owned was doing--legalized, even MANDATED sociopathy). But hey, if your ideology is so weak that you have to hide behind lies, then so be it. Just know that you and your party of choice are in fact slaves to your corporate masters.
Uhhh, never. But he has been a congressman for decades. Idiot.
And if you didn't get my meaning, it is that Ron Paul is not like other Republicans, especially pretentious windbags like Palin. But then, you, like most of the libtrolls I have ever met, are so arrogant you just can't get over yourself, and feel the need to talk down to anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with you. Even if they are agreeing with you on many points.
Nice link. Funny thing is that you think that their staff of 890 somehow plans their whole economy.
Basically all they do is fund the building infrastructure and energy projects, like a combination of the DoT and the DoE, but with far, FAR fewer employees.
You can judge the true extent of the central planning of any given economy directly by looking at the percentage of GDP that the government consumes. China is twenty. Not great, but not bad either. Prior to the opening of the Federal Reserve, the US fluctuated between 2 and 5%. Today, it's greater than 40%. That is as bad as many African nations.
Ron Paul never acted differently in power than what he said he would do. You don't know what you are talking about. Literally no idea. He has decades of voting records, many of which have had him as the ONLY dissenting vote. He is widely renowned on both the left and the right, as well as by impartial 3rd parties, as being the single most principled man in Washington.
You should take your slander, and shove it up your ass. Or Sarah Palin's, for that matter. Lying bitch.
Funny, since the word is English, and not an American creation.
You are blathering on about people making Simpsons references when the reference made is germane to the discussion.
Funny how you try your absolute best to be an abrasive asshole, but I still agree with you. Yes, the soldiers that signed up to be slaves to the Feds deserve what they get. I'm not sure how you can possibly claim that innocent bystanders being murdered is funny. Perhaps that is a symptom of your own moral decay, decay which will lead to your own death. And we will laugh, and laugh hearty at that, you over-emotional butthurt faggot.
The point is that the two party system is broken, and has been for decades. I never vote for R OR D. Only 3rd party, or nothing. Ron Paul is my only exception.
Yeah, shutting down our industries will save us trillions, but it will cost us quadrillions. You know, sort of like how you can save money by not eating, but at the expense of not being able to go to work and earn a living.
Shutting off oil imports doesn't save us money. It raises energy costs for everyone in the country that adopts that crazy, suicidal policy. Are you willing to pay ten times as much for the goods you buy, including food? You willing to pay fifty times the current price for gas?
I suggest you take economics 101 before trying to claim that cutting off the primary energy source for a country won't harm the economy, but will somehow save money.
Economies of scale are amazing things. You can take a technology that is totally inefficient when used by a single person, and produce basically free energy when it is used by everyone, thanks to the efficiencies of scale that come from mass production.
Really? Because all I hear is "this is settled science". As a scientist, that pisses me off. There is no such thing as "settled science". There is only "we have tested the theory's predictions this this and this way, and it has proven to be this accurate".
I'm still waiting for island nations to disappear, and for the emergence of climate refugees from that event, which was predicted to have started last year.
Normalcy bias is standard, but it can be deadly. We have a cultural memory stretching back a few hundred years, and think that things have always been like that. SURPRISE! They haven't. Grapes once grew in both Canada and England. Our culture doesn't remember that, though it persists in names in England.
Uhhh, yeah. They couldn't go to Gen II, because the regulatory burden for changing ANYTHING was too high. Yes, greed played a role. But that's not the problem. Greed is a given when you are working with humans. The problem is the system. The system set greed against safety, rather than aligning their interests. If they dropped all government regulation save that they would require FULL insurance against nuclear meltdown, these problems would have been fixed inside of a year, in the pursuit of lower insurance premiums.
And yes, they did have incompetent people in charge of the system, again, something that insurance agencies would ferret out.
Cleanup pays for itself if you use a thorium reactor to burn the waste for useful fuel. Insurance gets cheaper when you a, distribute the insurance premium around the world, and b, give cheaper rates for safer designs. Dismantling is tough, but really only for older designs. Newer ones don't have to be dismantled, rather they can simply be entombed in concrete if needed.
Actually, what we did is much, MUCH worse. From fear of nuclear power, we have halted all progress in nuclear technology, leaving ancient reactor designs in deployment, while new, safe designs sit on the drawing board.
In a real way, fear of nuclear power caused Fukushima. That plant should have been decommissioned a decade ago in favor of one of the new generation of power plants, maybe even one that burns thorium, meaning they could have gotten rid of all that waste they instead stuffed into the attic hoping no-one would ever find out.
Funny, all that money we have been giving to the banks tells me otherwise.
Socialism for the rich is still socialism. We haven't had capitalism in the United States since the Federal Reserve was founded in 1913. PERIOD. We have coasted since then, as they have allowed government to grow and grow and grow. Prior to the installation of the Federal Reserve, the US spent between 2 and 5% of GDP on government. Now it is 40%. That is TWICE the amount spent by China! A supposedly socialist country!
Boy, you'd best stop lying. You clearly don't know shit about Africa. I guess you've never heard of the government sponsored rape squads that not only rape women and children, but cut off their hands so they can't resist in the future. "Government that governs least" my ass. You can take those kinds of fucking lies and shove them up your ass.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they gave me a pill and it makes me pay a lot more
Include all the failed, rejected, and pulled/banned drugs into the price of the successful ones and you will find yourself much closer to the former number than the latter.
My own company has developed what appears to be a cure for prostate cancer. We are proceeding with animal trials, but it will be many, MANY years before it hits the market, and many, MANY millions of dollars. Even with help from Armed Forces research funds.
Not sure if your whole post was snark or not, but I don't see why insurance companies wouldn't fund it. It is probably significantly cheaper than prosthetics, and the associated medical costs that come from loss of limb.
What do you think the people who receive said benefits do? Hell, which is more likely for them to do? Invest them money in stocks? Or buy cigarettes?
There is nothing that can not be done by the government that private enterprise can't do better. Except waste purchasing power, and oppress and murder brown people worldwide, of course.
Or Eritrea, with 47.8%, or Zimbabwe, with 97.8%, or Libya, with 43%, or Angola, with 41.6%.
But hey, you feel free to misrepresent my argument, that it is as bad as "some" (quite different from "all") African nations.
Also funny that you seem to think that we have somehow bought better healthcare with our spending, or that our education system isn't a laughing stock, or bought a better university system than we had twenty years ago, rather than a worldwide war machine that kills millions of people for no real reason, other than to feed the military-industrial complex.
Also funny that you think that the level of civilization in the US in 1910 was less than than that of those nations you mention. As if less government spending is the same as civil war. Who is being disingenuous here?
I might add that corporations HATE libertarianism. If they didn't, libertarians would be a much larger part of the existing parties, or their own party would be a major one. Indeed, many libertarians, including myself, call for the eradication of the corporate form, as it is an artifice created by government intervention in the markets (ie it forbids those wronged by a corporation from suing shareholders of said corporation, even if they knew what the company they owned was doing--legalized, even MANDATED sociopathy). But hey, if your ideology is so weak that you have to hide behind lies, then so be it. Just know that you and your party of choice are in fact slaves to your corporate masters.
Uhhh, never. But he has been a congressman for decades. Idiot.
And if you didn't get my meaning, it is that Ron Paul is not like other Republicans, especially pretentious windbags like Palin. But then, you, like most of the libtrolls I have ever met, are so arrogant you just can't get over yourself, and feel the need to talk down to anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with you. Even if they are agreeing with you on many points.
Also, it's spelled "hypocrite", schmuck.
No he didn't, he just moved. Now he lives in Bernanke's basement.
Nice link. Funny thing is that you think that their staff of 890 somehow plans their whole economy.
Basically all they do is fund the building infrastructure and energy projects, like a combination of the DoT and the DoE, but with far, FAR fewer employees.
You can judge the true extent of the central planning of any given economy directly by looking at the percentage of GDP that the government consumes. China is twenty. Not great, but not bad either. Prior to the opening of the Federal Reserve, the US fluctuated between 2 and 5%. Today, it's greater than 40%. That is as bad as many African nations.
Ron Paul never acted differently in power than what he said he would do. You don't know what you are talking about. Literally no idea. He has decades of voting records, many of which have had him as the ONLY dissenting vote. He is widely renowned on both the left and the right, as well as by impartial 3rd parties, as being the single most principled man in Washington.
You should take your slander, and shove it up your ass. Or Sarah Palin's, for that matter. Lying bitch.
Funny, since the word is English, and not an American creation.
You are blathering on about people making Simpsons references when the reference made is germane to the discussion.
Funny how you try your absolute best to be an abrasive asshole, but I still agree with you. Yes, the soldiers that signed up to be slaves to the Feds deserve what they get. I'm not sure how you can possibly claim that innocent bystanders being murdered is funny. Perhaps that is a symptom of your own moral decay, decay which will lead to your own death. And we will laugh, and laugh hearty at that, you over-emotional butthurt faggot.
A distinction without a difference. Both parties pursue the same policies when in office, namely getting more power for themselves.
This has GOT to stop.
Cry more, faggot.
The point is that the two party system is broken, and has been for decades. I never vote for R OR D. Only 3rd party, or nothing. Ron Paul is my only exception.
Yeah, shutting down our industries will save us trillions, but it will cost us quadrillions. You know, sort of like how you can save money by not eating, but at the expense of not being able to go to work and earn a living.
Shutting off oil imports doesn't save us money. It raises energy costs for everyone in the country that adopts that crazy, suicidal policy. Are you willing to pay ten times as much for the goods you buy, including food? You willing to pay fifty times the current price for gas?
I suggest you take economics 101 before trying to claim that cutting off the primary energy source for a country won't harm the economy, but will somehow save money.
Or until something better comes along.
Economies of scale are amazing things. You can take a technology that is totally inefficient when used by a single person, and produce basically free energy when it is used by everyone, thanks to the efficiencies of scale that come from mass production.
Really? Because all I hear is "this is settled science". As a scientist, that pisses me off. There is no such thing as "settled science". There is only "we have tested the theory's predictions this this and this way, and it has proven to be this accurate".
I'm still waiting for island nations to disappear, and for the emergence of climate refugees from that event, which was predicted to have started last year.
Stability is death.
Normalcy bias is standard, but it can be deadly. We have a cultural memory stretching back a few hundred years, and think that things have always been like that. SURPRISE! They haven't. Grapes once grew in both Canada and England. Our culture doesn't remember that, though it persists in names in England.
Right, so having your home flooded and all your belongings ruined is the rain's fault, rather than yours for not putting a roof on your house?
This was foreseeable. The engineers who designed the plant foresaw it, but were silenced.
Uhhh, yeah. They couldn't go to Gen II, because the regulatory burden for changing ANYTHING was too high. Yes, greed played a role. But that's not the problem. Greed is a given when you are working with humans. The problem is the system. The system set greed against safety, rather than aligning their interests. If they dropped all government regulation save that they would require FULL insurance against nuclear meltdown, these problems would have been fixed inside of a year, in the pursuit of lower insurance premiums.
And yes, they did have incompetent people in charge of the system, again, something that insurance agencies would ferret out.
Put the nuclear power station on a 50 acre campus, use the other 374,950 for farming.
Simple, no?
Cleanup pays for itself if you use a thorium reactor to burn the waste for useful fuel. Insurance gets cheaper when you a, distribute the insurance premium around the world, and b, give cheaper rates for safer designs. Dismantling is tough, but really only for older designs. Newer ones don't have to be dismantled, rather they can simply be entombed in concrete if needed.
Actually, what we did is much, MUCH worse. From fear of nuclear power, we have halted all progress in nuclear technology, leaving ancient reactor designs in deployment, while new, safe designs sit on the drawing board.
In a real way, fear of nuclear power caused Fukushima. That plant should have been decommissioned a decade ago in favor of one of the new generation of power plants, maybe even one that burns thorium, meaning they could have gotten rid of all that waste they instead stuffed into the attic hoping no-one would ever find out.
Libya.
Oh wait...
Funny, all that money we have been giving to the banks tells me otherwise.
Socialism for the rich is still socialism. We haven't had capitalism in the United States since the Federal Reserve was founded in 1913. PERIOD. We have coasted since then, as they have allowed government to grow and grow and grow. Prior to the installation of the Federal Reserve, the US spent between 2 and 5% of GDP on government. Now it is 40%. That is TWICE the amount spent by China! A supposedly socialist country!
Boy, you'd best stop lying. You clearly don't know shit about Africa. I guess you've never heard of the government sponsored rape squads that not only rape women and children, but cut off their hands so they can't resist in the future. "Government that governs least" my ass. You can take those kinds of fucking lies and shove them up your ass.
Still designed. It's just god didn't get a degree in engineering. Explains a lot, actually.