South Carolina Making Obamacare a Crime ...

[Novaheart]

So in this case you just make up your own.

No, there is no statistic for the point I am making. There is factual basis, but not statistics. You can't have statistics unless you can agree where the line is drawn. There is no line which delineates "important drugs" from "silly drugs" from "recycled drugs" from "basic drugs." At least, there is none that I am aware of.

This article comes close:

A group of researchers from Boston University, the NIH and the Norwegian Radium Hospital Research Foundation set out to quantify the contribution of PSRIs toward development of drugs and vaccines that have been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The task required them to spend a great deal of time with the FDA’s Orange Book, which details the patent history of all new drug applications that were ultimately approved. They also scoured news reports and company announcements and surveyed academic technology licensing officers to catch any other drugs they might have missed.

Altogether, they gave 75 PSRIs credit for inventing 153 new drugs that won FDA approval from 1970 to 2009. The NIH was responsible for 22 of the drugs on that list, and the University of California system came in second with 11. Rounding out the top five PSRIs were Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York with eight, Emory University in Atlanta with seven, and Yale University in New Haven, Conn., with six. Virtually half of the new drugs were developed for treating cancer or infectious disease.

And these weren’t just run-of-the-mill drugs – they were important ones. For instance, 46% of the drugs developed by PSRIs got priority reviews from the FDA (an indication that they offered a substantial improvement over existing treatments), compared with 20% of the drugs from the private sector.

In addition, the researchers wrote, “Virtually all the important, innovative vaccines that have been introduced during the past 25 years have been created by PSRIs.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb...ayers-20110210

[txradioguy]

You can't separate healthcare into state and federal at this point.

And that's where you're wrong. The Feds did just that in the original bill when they put it on the states to set up the exchanges.

That little blunder...that's so far been not been amended...put the option of whether to implement Obamacare squarely on each individual state.

[RobJohnson]

No, there is no statistic for the point I am making. There is factual basis, but not statistics. You can't have statistics unless you can agree where the line is drawn. There is no line which delineates "important drugs" from "silly drugs" from "recycled drugs" from "basic drugs." At least, there is none that I am aware of.

Viagra is actually used in heart patients. 95% of the other patients pay cash for the drug. Unless you are able to get Medicaid or Workman's comp to pay for it. Rogaine is over the counter with plenty of generics. Toe nail fungus medication is pretty important if you do not want to have a toe amputated or end up with a really bad infection the prevents you from wearing shoes.

Of course states paying for sex change operations will be very important.

[Odysseus]

This is truly a case where statistics are too generic and thus irrelevant. I don't give a rat's patoot who invented Viagra or Rogaine or a host of various pills for such important things as toenail fungus. Also, a great many of the patents issued in a given year for "new drugs" are simply new formulations for old brand name drugs whose patents are about to expire.

Private pharma firms also hold patents on formulations for drugs that they did not invent or develop. The may have done the end work (clinical trials) but didn't actually save the tenth monkey with brain cancer.

All drugs are not created equal. Thus a figure that private industry invented or parented to patent a given number of drugs is without meaning. Moreover, you still can't separate the money. If Glaxo participates in a development at a research university that is funded by state dollars, and they all are, then you can't say, "Well the lights were paid for by the state on Tuesday and by Glaxo on Monday."

This is a case where your arguments have been blown out of the water, so you reject the quantifiable data.

Stick around Washington a bit longer and maybe you'll be there for another battle of the base closures.

Been there, done that. When I arrived here, our offices were shut down in the BRAC and we were relocated to FT Belvoir. But what does my personal experience with BRAC have to do with your arguments? Nada.

No, there is no statistic for the point I am making. There is factual basis, but not statistics. You can't have statistics unless you can agree where the line is drawn. There is no line which delineates "important drugs" from "silly drugs" from "recycled drugs" from "basic drugs." At least, there is none that I am aware of.

This article comes close:

A group of researchers from Boston University, the NIH and the Norwegian Radium Hospital Research Foundation set out to quantify the contribution of PSRIs toward development of drugs and vaccines that have been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The task required them to spend a great deal of time with the FDA’s Orange Book, which details the patent history of all new drug applications that were ultimately approved. They also scoured news reports and company announcements and surveyed academic technology licensing officers to catch any other drugs they might have missed.

Altogether, they gave 75 PSRIs credit for inventing 153 new drugs that won FDA approval from 1970 to 2009. The NIH was responsible for 22 of the drugs on that list, and the University of California system came in second with 11. Rounding out the top five PSRIs were Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York with eight, Emory University in Atlanta with seven, and Yale University in New Haven, Conn., with six. Virtually half of the new drugs were developed for treating cancer or infectious disease.

And these weren’t just run-of-the-mill drugs – they were important ones. For instance, 46% of the drugs developed by PSRIs got priority reviews from the FDA (an indication that they offered a substantial improvement over existing treatments), compared with 20% of the drugs from the private sector.

In addition, the researchers wrote, “Virtually all the important, innovative vaccines that have been introduced during the past 25 years have been created by PSRIs.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb...ayers-20110210

So, the subsidized researchers at Boston University, in collusion with the National Institute of Health (a PSRI) and the Norwegian Radium Hospital Research Foundation (another heavily subsidized foundation, if not an outright PSRI) did an analysis of PSRIs and found that they were undervalued by the facts, and the pro-Obamacare LAT found this newsworthy? Who'd have thought it?