Nayas Admits Errors, Promises to Be Honest Going Forward, Switches to Verizon

Nonsense. I've worked with all the major drug companies, and their people just don't think and act that way.

Bullshit.

ALL??? Another job for Superman? Your experience differs from that of many insiders who've written about the industry.

Insiders? Name them and the jobs they held.

As Director of Technical Services for Cambridge Computer Corporation, I designed and implemented the Drug Distribution Data (DDD) system (now part of IMS Health) for tracking of all major ethical pharmaceuticals, for which all of the major manufacturers were clients. And you? ;)

So, you didn't work with all the major drug companies, as you initially claimed. Thanks for the verification. And as a Director for CCC, you would have neither designed nor implemented anything. Although I find it interesting that you are hanging your hat on a 30+ year old project. I'm sure nothing has changed since then.

If you're going to live in the past, try to have at least one thing that the new generation was alive to see.

Most people in the USA agree that the cost of healthcare is out of hand, but I've seen precious little evidence that those same people think "the culprit" is that doctors are spending too much time with patients. On the contrary, I believe many people are dissatisfied with the impersonal revolving-door treatment that they often get, which is a great contrast to how it was, say 30 years ago.

If your experience with government-run healthcare is with the British system, I hope you know what a sterling reputation it has compared to similiar programs in other countries. :-)

I think one of the main stumbling blocks in many western societies these days about selling a single-payer healthcare system is that the now very-strongly-entrenched "me" mentality (which is a natural side-effect of capitalism) makes it very difficult for people to accept that as a society there must be certain value judgements made about who is a more rightful recipient of certain extremely expensive treatment regimens, ie a 16-year-old kid with their whole life ahead of them, or a 90-something senior who has been mostly non-cognitive for the last 10 years. Until some sort of solution to this is offered that satisfies the moral issues that many have with such value-decisions, it will be an uphill battle instituting such programs in societies which currently have minimal limits on the level of care that can be dispensed based on "need".

The current system in the US implies that there is no natural limit, but in practice the average citizen will never have access to the resources necessary to pay for such care, and as a result they either get denied anyway (by the insurance companies who have their own profit motive) or the rest of society ends up bearing the cost anyway due to the patient's medical insolvency. The fact that the latter is not so easily quantified as a dollar-and-cents monthly surcharge to each of us (like, say the fee the BBC charges to watch TV in the UK), makes it easier to swallow than a national health-care system that is telling us that they won't pay for our nose jobs or to keep our vegetative centenarians breathing.

Much research done by the industry itself has shown just how susceptible people are to clever advertising, or else it would be rather pointless to spend so many billions of dollars a year on it, especially when many of the products advertised are patently inferior to other commonly-available alternatives.

I would disagree on that point, but I fear to go into even more detail on that narrow sliver of a sub-thread crosses even the already high bar of being completely off-topic here.

I don't consider any action "exemplary" when the end- result is thousands of massively deformed infants. It may interest you to know that while Thalidomide was available in around 50 countries around the world, it was NOT approved for sale in the USA.

From the Wikipedia:

Richardson-Merrell applied to the Food and Drug Administration for approval to sell the drug under the brand name Kevadon. This approval was not expected to be controversial, and the case was given to the agency's newest reviewer, Frances Oldham Kelsey. Kelsey had previously done animal toxicity research (including effects in pregnancy), and refused to clear thalidomide for sale until she obtained better documentation of its effects, especially in light of some unusual neurological side effects being reported in Britain. In fact, the testing had not been performed adequately, and satisfactory documentation was not forthcoming.

In December 1961, Dr. William McBride, an Australian gynaecologist and obstetrictrician, published a letter in The Lancet in which he noted a large number of birth defects in the children of patients who were prescribed thalidomide.

Despite increasing pressure from Richardson-Merrell to have Kevadon cleared for sale, Kelsey held out for more toxicity data before coming to a decision. The decision was pre-empted by births throughout the world giving evidence of thalidomide's effect on the embryo, and the manufacturers quickly withdrew their application. Kelsey's delay probably prevented thousands of deformities in the US, and made her a national hero. In August 1962, Kelsey was awarded the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service (at the time, the highest civilian award in the US) by President John F. Kennedy.

(Actually I mis-spelled it, should be "Fen-Phen".)

Basically another pharmaceutical (combination) marketed as a vanity product (weight loss) to a particularly impressionable demographic (women who want to lose weight), which turns out to cause permanent damage to the heart valves and probably causes other cardiac problems. It's another product which really never needed to be (appealing to people looking for an "easy fix" to their perceived problem of being overweight), a market which, like the one Viagra tapped-into, is potentially very lucrative because it does less to solve a "medical problem" and more to appeal to the shame and vanity of potential patients. (and actually, contrary to your earlier assertions about how direct-to-consumer advertising "helps patients to discuss the problem with their doctor", in this case such a drug probably encourages potential users to _avoid_ addressing the root factors that cause the perceived problem, rather than actually helping patients deal with the real issue.)

Well the highly litigious environment is one big damping factor. And at the moment it's just starting to become apparent to the public at large just what a stranglehold the pharma companies have on research, the medical journals and other medical debate in this country. I'm not sure the mood is moving in a particularly positive direction for the pharmaceutical industry right now.

So you're in the medical field I presume.

Unless they do a great job of damage-control. This is where the advertising, PR, legal and lobbying budgets come in extremely handy. :-)

As they say, the devil is in the details. It should be emphasized that there are great people working for all sorts of evil organizations. The simple fact of pointing out that some great people work for some particular organization does not "sanitize" such an organization of ultimate responsibility for the results of their total endeavors. Google is almost unique amongst large companies with their "do no evil" mantra. This comes as no surprise to many of us who would never have been so pollyannish to believe that a significant percentage of the corporate class truly adhered to such high principles consistently. One might even say that (even in Google's case), no public company can actually make such a claim with any sort of credibility whatsoever.

See above. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, and I re-emphasize that this has to be looked at in the larger sense, as we will always find at the individual level, many admirable views. Some even have the strength of character to admit that they initially supported what they came to view as ultimately an evil cause:

I made one mistake in my life when I signed that letter to President Roosevelt advocating that the atomic bomb should be built. But perhaps I can be forgiven because we all felt that there was a high probability that the Germans were working on this problem and would use the atomic bomb to become the master race.

--Albert Einstein

I've said no such thing. At least have enough integrity not to fabricate false quotes.

False. WalMart is actually increasing wages when everyone is taken into account (not just those working at higher paying jobs). Otherwise, WalMart wouldn't get so many applications.

I'm not to dignify your nasty remarks with a response.

It's actually a very good way to get into the job market. These folks don't have your kind of resume.

On the contrary -- it's very much in the interest of WalMart to improve the productivity of its workers. You don't seem to understand business economics.

Yep.

In fact welfare reform has proven to be a success.

Question all you want, but you're flying in the face of simply logic.

As I've written several times, if there were better jobs, then they would take them. That they apply at WalMart in droves makes it clear that better jobs don't exist.

Either (a) there is no other alternative, in which case they are damn lucky to have WalMart; or (b) there are other alternatives, in which case WalMart is clearly better.

Nonsense. WalMart is only a small fraction of the overall job market. If you really doubt that, look at the numbers.

Welfare isn't coming out of sales taxes.

It's also true in practice.

Because they aren't qualified for something better. It's nonetheless mutual agreement.

Because they can't get what they want at the price they're willing to pay. It's nonetheless mutual agreement.

High pay isn't a civil right.

Those are the choices of individual businesses, not a consequence of a free market.

Nonsense. Most businesses act responsibly.

Most businesses see direct and indirect benefits from being social entities.

A contention that simply isn't true.

Not really.

Fairness isn't special consideration.

Actually it is -- you're just denying the inevitable consequence of what you're advocating. On the one hand you decry government intrusions. Then you turn right around and advocate more intrusions.

I strongly disagree. I think people have the essential right to be informed and to make their own decisions about their own health. There's nothing in the Constitution that makes doctors into gatekeepers, and there's considerable evidence that health providers often make decisions that aren't in the best interests of patients.

You're kidding, right? Because it's overwhelmingly clear that any such attempts at damage control are terribly ineffective.

It actually should be emphasized that there are very few "evil" organizations.

Really? Then let's have it.

Because you don't really have that evidence. ;)

Current health care is likewise a great contrast to how it was, say 30 years ago. You can't separate the two.

Those would be? Canada (the not so long ago darling of single payer advocates)? See "Canadian Health Care In Crisis" :

Proof?

Nonsense.

No need, because it's not true. Feel free to prove me wrong with real facts, rather than the usual vague charges.

It's actually discounting the point of view of those that haven't actually even looked through a telescope.

This is but snippet of numerous examples of "truthiness" posted by JN on this topic.

Indian Railways is run by the government, but is considered a utility, not part of the government.

WalMart has a substantial percentage of part-time employees. Indian Railways is primarily a full-time employer.

"The Indian railway network with nearly 1.6 million employees is the world's largest employer"

"Want a Wal-Mart job? Join the crowd 11,000 apply for 400 openings at retailer's new Oakland store"

Stephen Levy, an economist for the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, said the pent-up demand for work reflects the Bay Area's slow recovery from the dot-com crash.

"There's still a lot of people who were put out of work in the last four years who still don't have a job," Levy said. The unemployment rate in Alameda and Contra Costa counties climbed to 5.1 percent in June, up from 4.6 percent the month before but still below the state's unemployment rate of 5.4 percent, according to the latest statistics from the California Employment Development Department.

Nonsense. You're being selective. WalMart wages are clearly competitive in its industry. Again, if they weren't, then people wouldn't be lining up to work there.

WalMart's rebuttal:

Fact: Our health care plan insures full-time and part-time associates once eligible. Wal-Mart provides insurance to more than 1 million people and offers up to 18 different plans. Coverage is available for as little as $11 per month for individuals and 30 cents per day for children - no matter how many children an associate has.

Unlike many plans, after the first year, the Wal-Mart medical plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin.

Associates enrolled in the Associates? Medical Plan also have access to world class health care at the Mayo Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University Hospital and many other health care facilities, all without insurance approval.

Fact: Wal-Mart does not encourage our associates to apply for public assistance. We will be the first to acknowledge that health care is a tough issue... for us and for the country. Wal-Mart has helped 160,000 Americans leave the ranks of the uninsured. A survey of Wal-Mart associates showed more than 30% did not have health insurance before coming to work at Wal-Mart.

We work hard to keep our associate premiums affordable and think we are doing a pretty good job. Wal-Mart provides insurance to more than 1 million people and offers up to 18 different plans. Coverage is available for individuals for as little as $11 per month and 30 cents per day for children - no matter how many children an associate has.

"Want a Wal-Mart job? Join the crowd 11,000 apply for 400 openings at retailer's new Oakland store"