Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

mattstoller.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 595 posts

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#581

Post by dwaltrip »

jpadkins wrote: post #505
din-9 wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be fairer to compare by wealth, where the USA is at 30.2% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wea...

if you use wealth, we are a back at why americans spend more on per captia than any other countries: because they can (because they are wealthier). Healthcare, especially in older population, starts to behave like a luxury good at upper ends of cost / care.

US healthcare costs are similar to other developed countries once normalized by per capita GDP?

I thought they were still higher.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#582

Post by throwaway4220 »

jjk166 wrote: post #555
throwaway4220 wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, sign a notarized document saying you, your family or the DA won't sue because you were (a) lost to follow-up, (b) developed a medical condition as you grew older, (c) got a side effect because of long term medical use. Then, don't waste ER time if you have a stroke or heart attack because government can't tell me not to eat trans fats. And, by the way, if you have an accountant, you should check in more than…

If we could sue hospitals into paying out because we developed medical conditions as we aged, there wouldn't be any hospitals. You have to qualify your statement with "if you have an accountant" because I don't have to have an accountant, it is an optional service I can seek if I want. In my case, I do my own taxes, and if I don't get as big a tax return as I could've back, it hurts nobody but me. The requirement for…

Thanks for your response. I think I was unfairly attacking you after a rough day. I'll just say that preventative care is very important and you have a right to receive the proper medication.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#583

Post by throwaway4220 »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #563
throwaway4220 wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen 200k+ salaries as standard here. Look up salaries of primary care physicians. Then add on the 50k+/year MD debt, and any undergrad debt.

That's not a normal range for most of the country doing SWE. If you know where to get that type of job let me know. I've done blind, sent out tons of applications, whatever. Hurts to know I'm potentially screwing myself out of tens of thousands of dollars, but nobody is contacting me back. My professional contacts have told me I'm doing senior level work but nobody will respond even for positions below that.

Haha greener grass and all I guess. I've seen those numbers on glassdoor and a couple threads here.

Edit: sorry it was site https://www.levels.fyi/company/Google/salaries/Software-Engi.... No idea how real it is.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#584

Post by NicoJuicy »

herbst wrote: post #576
NicoJuicy wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why is every covid vaccine ouside the US, if other countries are "free-riding" the US R&D?

Is that a thing? Any source on that?

It was one of the parents comment, that every other country is doing that.

Ofc bs...

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#585

Post by silexia »

cloverich wrote: post #561
silexia wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The true root cause of high pharmaceutical costs in the United States is our competition crushing patent system. If we eliminate patents, we open up the market completely to competition. More competition will bring extremely low prices. Innovation will not be harmed as most innovation is done in universities and is government funded, in the private innovation will happen anyways as the first mover advantage in these…

it’s been a long while but i remember it takes ~15 years and 500 million to push a major drug through fda testing. The argument was who would do that if a competitor could just copy it at the end? has that situation changed? What other changes would need to be included with removing patents to alleviate that issue. genuine question, even 10 or more years since i read up on this.

Do we really need the FDA? What if we created a agency that simply does independent testing but leaves it up to the consumer to make their own choices?

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#586

Post by mlindner »

542354234235 wrote: post #501
mlindner wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * Encourages the FTC to restore Net Neutrality rules undone by the prior administration. This is the worst thing in the list. The politicians still don't seem to understand how the internet works and how different service types cost differently and have different effects on the network. A new Netflix-like service is a very different thing than a new social-network-like service.

You don’t seem to understand. If I have 100 mbps down speed, my ISP should have no say in how I use it. If it is Netflix of Facebook, it doesn’t matter. It’s my 100 mbps. That is like saying that my electric provider should have a say on what I use my electricity for. That if I use a GE brand washer it costs less per kwh than a Samsung, or that electricity for a computer is more expensive per kwh than electricity for…

Net neutrality never was about you though, it's about the companies sending content to you.

Electricity has absolutely no comparison to network traffic. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how networks work. A packet coming from the other side of the world costs, fundamentally, a very different amount from a packet coming from nearby.

You're the one who seems to not understand.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#587

Post by coolgeek »

silexia wrote: post #585
cloverich wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it’s been a long while but i remember it takes ~15 years and 500 million to push a major drug through fda testing. The argument was who would do that if a competitor could just copy it at the end? has that situation changed? What other changes would need to be included with removing patents to alleviate that issue. genuine question, even 10 or more years since i read up on this.

Do we really need the FDA? What if we created a agency that simply does independent testing but leaves it up to the consumer to make their own choices?

How does the Oxycontin debacle fit into your theory here?

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#588

Post by 542354234235 »

mlindner wrote: post #586
542354234235 wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t seem to understand. If I have 100 mbps down speed, my ISP should have no say in how I use it. If it is Netflix of Facebook, it doesn’t matter. It’s my 100 mbps. That is like saying that my electric provider should have a say on what I use my electricity for. That if I use a GE brand washer it costs less per kwh than a Samsung, or that electricity for a computer is more expensive per kwh than electricity for…

Net neutrality never was about you though, it's about the companies sending content to you. Electricity has absolutely no comparison to network traffic. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how networks work. A packet coming from the other side of the world costs, fundamentally, a very different amount from a packet coming from nearby. You're the one who seems to not understand.

> A packet coming from the other side of the world costs, fundamentally, a very different amount from a packet coming from nearby.

But you were not talking about the distance a packet travels. You specifically said “A new Netflix-like service is a very different thing than a new social-network-like service” which, other things like location being equal, is not true. Getting 100 mbps of “Netflix like” traffic is not different than getting 100 mbps of “social network” traffic. The content doesn’t matter.

I was wrong about you not understanding. Clearly you do understand and are arguing in bad faith and attempting to misrepresent the issue. Since “packet distance” has never been part of the issue of ISPs trying to be able to discriminate based on content, either the company providing it (Netflix vs Hulu vs Prime Video) or based on the category of content (music vs social media vs messaging). None of those have anything to do with packet distances, which you clearly understood when you were originally were speaking about content categories. But you then tried to use a more technical and pedantic, but irrelevant, issue to obfuscate the actual argument.

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#589

Post by mnowicki »

coolgeek wrote: post #587
silexia wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we really need the FDA? What if we created a agency that simply does independent testing but leaves it up to the consumer to make their own choices?

How does the Oxycontin debacle fit into your theory here?

can't end worse than it did in our current system

Re: Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

#590

Post by mnowicki »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #527
m12k wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But to be fair, the US pharma sector spends roughly as much on marketing as it does on R&D. And a huge chunk of that R&D budget goes into analogue drugs to either sidestep patents from rivals or maintain profit margins when their own patents expire (they can then use that huge marketing budget to get the newly patented drug to take over for the old one with the nearly-expired patent, despite small or non-existent ben…

> But to be fair, the US pharma sector spends roughly as much on marketing as it does on R&D. Spending money on marketing lowers prices by increasing volumes. If you spend a billion dollars on R&D and then spend nothing on marketing and sell to 200,000 customers, they would each have to pay $5000 to fund the R&D. If you spend a billion dollars on R&D and two billion dollars on marketing and sell to a million customer…

Spending money on marketing MIGHT lower prices when looking at a single company.

For a market like pharmaceuticals where patients are prescribed by Dr's and are going to be subscribed one thing or another regardless, the lack of any marketing wouldn't really reduce the amount of volume in the industry as a whole, might just switch around which drugs/companies it goes to.

Post reply on HN