Saturday, July 30, 2016

Hillary needs to angry-up


Voters want candidates to fight 1% bullying — both the Bern’s and the D’ump’s voters. They want somebody to be mad, angry for them — even if they don’t know exactly, precisely who they want them to be mad at and why.

Big demeanor problem for Hill (and O) is their happy, happy faces. What are they so happy about? I asked about that once at Angry Bear and Beverly Mann explained that Hill had a rep for being icy and was trying to counteract that. Good enough — for then; not anymore.

We the people (sound familiar?) are anything but happy — or hopeful. Hopeful?!

Don’t offers us palliatives to ease the pain we are feeling Hill: higher minimum wage, tuition relief, extended paid health care — assuming you could deliver them. What we need is an angry candidate to go after our skilled and determined oppressors — win or lose. Nothing else would give us real hope, Hill — or give you Bernie’s and the D’ump’s voters — whether you can deliver them to the guillotine or not.
* * * * * * * * * *


" The NLRB declined yesterday to review the decision to unionize of workers at Trump International Hotel, Las Vegas. Roughly 500 Trump International Hotel workers voted and narrowly approved joining the Culinary Workers Union last December, but Trump International Hotel did not recognize the election, arguing that the election was 'anything but free and fair.' "
https://onlabor.org/2016/07/29/todays-news-commentary-july-29-2016/
* * * * * * * * * *


Making union busting a felony ranks with me with women or non-rich men getting the right to vote — or any other civil right you can think of. Union busting is a federal offense — punished by undoing the harm you did to a particular organizer (gets job back until majority fired for “something else” within a year — having no union protection).

The greater harm — the harm of depriving the the entire workplace of any free market bargaining weight (or political forum power) — goes totally unpunished.

Meanwhile don’t take a chance undermining the free market by taking a movie in the movies. Just read in Dean Baker’s Beat the Press:
” In some cases the TPP is directly protectionist. It would strengthen copyright and patent protections, even requiring that member countries have criminal sanctions for copyright protection. ”
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/greg-mankiw-argues-that-protectionism-is-likely-to-become-increasingly-dominate-as-more-people-take-his-economics-classes
* * * * * * * * * *


 [snip]
As long as nobody else talks about re-unionization (as the beginning and the end of re-constituting the American dream) — nobody thinks it is possible to talk about …
… or something.

Easy as pie to make union busting a felony in our most progressive states f(WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) — and then get out of the way as the first 2000 people in the many telephone directories re-define our future.
 [snip]

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Did Gilead's new Hepatitis drug Epclusa truly take $22.5 TRILLION to research?

 
At $75,000 a treatment, Epclusa, Gilead's 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 $1 billion to manufacture (figuring about $150 each for 7 million US patients -- if same as Sovaldi -- don’t have exact population figures in front of me but that that is what I call “close enough.”)
 http://www.marinij.com/article/NO/20160710/FEATURES/160719994

To justify that cost by the need to support research Gilead would have us believe they and others spend in the neighborhood of $499 billion on research on the average for each new drug that successfully comes to market.

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 $75,000 = $22.5 trillion (with a "t") supposedly needed for research on average to bring one new drug (minus the 1/5 of one percent manufacturing costs -- let's be fair)?
 * * * * * * * * * * 
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/
 * * * * * * * * * *
Meantime back at the big pharma ranch:  

One striking chart shows why pharma companies are fighting legal marijuana         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. "