• About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives
Angry Bear
Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
« Back

Open thread July 12, 2016

Dan Crawford | July 12, 2016 6:56 am

Tags: open thread Comments (9) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
9 Comments
  • Lyle says:
    July 12, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    Currently gun violence costs the US 2 billion in medical bills. What if we were to tax bullets to pay for this say $1 per bullet? Dedicate the tax to pay medical expenses both uninsured and insured due to gun violence (excepting suicides) (possibly also funeral expenses for homicide vicitims of guns). This would also make accumulating 1000s of rounds of ammunition more expensive (bullets today are said to go for about .25/bullet). This would make gun users pay for the effect of guns on society as a whole. (If you don’t fire the gun you don’t pay much tax either), as well as relieve society as a whole of these costs.

  • J.Goodwin says:
    July 13, 2016 at 11:32 am

    Oi oi oi.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-stavridis-is-being-vetted-to-be-hillary-clintons-vp/

  • Denis Drew says:
    July 13, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    Wonkblog
    One striking chart shows why pharma companies are fighting legal marijuana By Christopher Ingraham July 13
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/one-striking-chart-shows-why-pharma-companies-are-fighting-legal-marijuana/

    ” They found that, in the 17 states with a medical-marijuana law in place by 2013, prescriptions for painkillers and other classes of drugs fell sharply compared with states that did not have a medical-marijuana law. The drops were quite significant: In medical-marijuana states, the average doctor prescribed 265 fewer doses of antidepressants each year, 486 fewer doses of seizure medication, 541 fewer anti-nausea doses and 562 fewer doses of anti-anxiety medication.

    ” But most strikingly, the typical physician in a medical-marijuana state prescribed 1,826 fewer doses of painkillers in a given year. ”

    ” … pharmaceutical companies … have long been at the forefront of opposition to marijuana reform, funding research by anti-pot academics and funneling dollars to groups, such as the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, that oppose marijuana legalization. “

  • Denis Drew says:
    July 13, 2016 at 12:25 pm

    Oi indeed. Just what it takes to chase Bernie supporters out of reach of Hillary.

  • Denis Drew says:
    July 13, 2016 at 12:55 pm

    “The amazing thing about Epclusa is that it treats all five types of the hepatitis C virus β€” the first drug to do that β€” and cures more than 95 percent of patients with hepatitis C.”

    For $75,000 — Gilead again.
    http://www.marinij.com/article/NO/20160710/FEATURES/160719994

    While Gilead ducks $10 billion in taxes.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/maker-of-84000-drug-avoided-10-billion-in-u-s-taxes-report-says/

  • Denis Drew says:
    July 13, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    Talking to myself here — but I talk to myself at home — may as well on the net.

    At $75,000 a treatment, Epclusa, Gileads new Hepatitis drug which miraculously cures all forms of Hepatitis, A, B, C, D, E, could cost about $500 billion to treat all 7 million Americans afflicted from some form of Hepatitis. Which would cost Gilead in the neighborhood of $5 billion to manufacture. (Don’t have exact population figures in front of me but that that is what I call “close enough.”)

    To justify that cost by the research funding needs Gilead would have us believe they and others spend in the neighborhood of $495 billion on research on the average to develop a new drug.

    But wait; there’s more — as the Popeil TV ads used to say.

    Worldwide there are more like 300 million with chronic Hepatitis. Let’s see: $300 million X 1,000 = $300 billion X 75 = $22,500 billion or $22.5 trillion on research.

    Yeah, sure. πŸ™‚

  • J.Goodwin says:
    July 13, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    From my perspective, decriminalization and medical marijuana in Massachusetts seem to have increased public and recreational use of marijuana (I notice it all the time now).

    That combined with the knowledge that the people backing “marijuana regulation” in Mass are useful idiots working for big tobacco (now big marijuana, revealed in the question by language prohibiting the prohibition of inorganic cultivation methods) will have me voting no on 4 this fall (despite the fig leaf of $100 fine for public consumption).

    There probably is no rolling the clock back on what is already passed, and this will probably pass with or without my vote, but at least my annoyance will be recorded.

  • Lyle says:
    July 13, 2016 at 6:25 pm

    A link to an article in the Washington Post comparing today to 1968:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/12/reddit-remembers-the-1960s-we-probably-dont-have-to-kill-all-of-them-just-the-agitators/
    The article squares with my recollections of 1968 (I was 18 at the time) that things were far worse. Living in Wayne Co Mi I recall the entire county being under Curfew as Detroit burned for a second and third time in a year. I did see real marches against the war at college a couple of years later. I do recall the admin at Michigan State did a very smart thing. Kent State happened and the admin cancelled classes the following Friday so most in state students went home for the weekend and the cooling off period worked.
    As Hilliary said this am our problems pale in comparison to those Lincoln faced when he took office, or those after Dec 7, or during the war of 1812 when Washington burned.
    (I guess also time does give one more perspective on life the view of the world at 18 is different than at 65.

  • Denis Drew says:
    July 14, 2016 at 9:27 am

    CORRECTION: I should have said manufacturing Epclusa for all 7 million US Hepatitis A,B,C,D,E patients would cost about $1 billion, not $5 billion — figuring $150 a treatment like Sovaldi manufacture.

    Leaving $499 billion to be explained away as necessary to support research.

    Gilead did not actually do any of the research on Sovaldi — bought it for $11 billion on speculation from Pharmasset who was planning to cash in for $350 a pill. Original research was supported by government grants until the lab smelled money; then got private support together for the kill. Original chief researcher was working 7/8ths of the time for the VA — the 1/8th paid off $446 million for him personally.
    http://www.disabledveterans.org/2015/12/03/va-doctor-invented-hepatitis-c-cure-sold-it-for-400-million-profit/

Featured Stories

Macron Bypasses Parliament With ‘Nuclear Option’ on Retirement Age Hike

Angry Bear

All Electric comes to Heavy Equipment

Daniel Becker

Medicare Plan Commissions May Steer Beneficiaries to Wrong Coverage

run75441

Thoughts on Silicon Valley Bank: Why the FDIC plan isn’t (but also is) a Bailout

NewDealdemocrat

Contributors

Dan Crawford
Robert Waldmann
Barkley Rosser
Eric Kramer
ProGrowth Liberal
Daniel Becker
Ken Houghton
Linda Beale
Mike Kimel
Steve Roth
Michael Smith
Bill Haskell
NewDealdemocrat
Ken Melvin
Sandwichman
Peter Dorman
Kenneth Thomas
Bruce Webb
Rebecca Wilder
Spencer England
Beverly Mann
Joel Eissenberg

Subscribe

Blogs of note

    • Naked Capitalism
    • Atrios (Eschaton)
    • Crooks and Liars
    • Wash. Monthly
    • CEPR
    • Econospeak
    • EPI
    • Hullabaloo
    • Talking Points
    • Calculated Risk
    • Infidel753
    • ACA Signups
    • The one-handed economist
Angry Bear
Copyright © 2023 Angry Bear Blog

Topics

  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics

Pages

  • About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives