PATENT WOES THREATENING DRUG FIRMS

In a March 6, 2011 report in the New York Times by Duff Wilson he writes about the pending problems for pharmaceutical companies with expiring patents.   He cites reasons like lack of new breakthroughs, pressure to hold down prices, and regulatory hurdles.

What he fails to put into context is how this issue fits in with the entire Health Care Cost problem.   As I wrote in my overview report, the reason these companies were able to produce all these great drugs was that we had a system that encouraged unlimited spending on new technologies because whatever was invented could be sold at any price, since the people paying for it like the government and employers, were not the people using it.  

If I were writing this story, I would not only mention the pressures to hold down prices, but I would explain how companies like Pfizer benefited from years of a system that gave them a blank check for R&D and how that helped create the great medical technologies that are now available.  I would also convey how these great products contributed to the unaffordable health care system we have today.   Thus, as a result of incredible products that became unaffordable, those paying for medical care like the government and employers were forced to put in place benefit and control systems that increase the risk for companies to spend money on R&D.  Drug companies don’t have many new products and advances that improve medical care will slow down.

However, I do believe that sensible reform legislation as I recommended in my overview to bring transparency and free market forces into the health care system will be better for all of us, including the medical industry, and result in better care and products.

RESTAURANT BOOTHS, LIMOUSINES, AND MICHIGAN LEFTS

3 subjects where I find I am in a small minority of people:

RESTAURANT BOOTHS

For some reason a large majority of people like to sit in a booth.   When being seated in a restaurant the host or hostess always seems caught off guard when I refuse a booth in favor of a table.   Why is a booth better for so many people?   In a booth you have to frequently crawl in.  The height of the seating in relation to the table is frequently improperly designed.  You are stuck with whatever distance they have established between the bench and the table, which is usually too tight or too far away.   Though I don’t mind helping the server, it’s always awkward for them to place dishes and clear – given the distances they must reach.  And in most cases it seems you are crowded too closely together on the bench.    I am aware that some like the intimacy of a booth and I will occassionally be compelled to test it out first and make sure the other factors don’t tip the balance – which they usually do.

On the other hand, a table  usually isn’t so crowding.  And if 4 people are seated around a table it’s easier to talk to each other.   You don’t have to do any crawling.  The server has better access to most areas of the table.  The chair/table height relationship is usually better.  You can actually adjust the distance of the chair to the table.   And now that I think about it, you don’t have to wonder what’s down there in the dark spaces!   

So for me it’s a mystery as to why people like to sit in a booth.

LIMOUSINES

Some years ago a customer invited my son and I to go skiing near Lake Tahoe.   He had a car pick us up at the airport.  It was a very long limousine.   The two of us felt so silly sitting so far back in that car by ourselves.   When we had to return to the airport, I asked our host if they could arrange a regular car and he seemed surprised that I didn’t like the limousine.  What is it about long limousines that attracts people to notice them and feel special to be driven in them?

Usually people use these services when they are going in groups and are typically dressed in suits or formal wear.   But the car doesn’t have regular doors.   You get all dressed up.  Take your date or wife out for the night, and then have to crawl around inside the car to get to the seat.   Why is that a good thing?   A limo-van seems so much more practical!

MICHIGAN LEFTS

Many people outside of Michigan know about our left turn system and seem to laugh about the Michigan Lefts as they call them.   Busy streets typically have boulevards.  To turn left onto these streets you  turn right first, then turn left into the boulevard turnaround and make your left turn.    This way you turn right onto a one-way street, and then turn left onto a one-way street.  

The alternative is a typical intersection in Southern Florida where 12 lanes come together into a huge intersection loaded with traffic lights.  You wait and wait until it’s your turn to enter the intersection and make your left turn.   I prefer the Michigan system!

Liberals Do Not Understand From Where Jobs Come

Listening to Obama recently complain about all the money that large corporations were holding when they should be using it to create jobs, I was reminded of something I heard many years ago. 

I live in the Detroit area and can compare the national discussion about jobs, to what Detroit experienced.   When businesses fled the crime and unskilled labor in the 70’s and 80’s many Detroit leaders claimed it was due to racism.   I heard Susan Watson, a reporter for the Detroit Free Press, speak to a largely sympathetic suburban community where I recall her blaming those in the audience for moving businesses to the suburbs.  She blamed large auto companies for not creating enough jobs.   She complained about having to drive to the suburbs to shop for clothes and other products.

I realized at that time that she  (like Obama and many in his administration now) clearly don’t understand how jobs come about in the first place – which is important knowledge if you are responsible for increasing employment. 

Did she really think that people who worked their whole lives building a small business would go through all the expense and trouble of moving it elsewhere if they were safe, felt their investment was secure, and were profitable — because they were racist?

Did she really think that big corporations are there to create jobs and not make profits?

Did she think jobs just fall out of the sky?

I remember wondering if she knew that stores are created because someone thought there was a need in the area for a store, and then worked hard to invest and build their business.  I wondered if she really believed her neighborhood needed more shops and she thought it was such a secure investment, why she or her neighbors didn’t take the risk instead of attacking those of us in the audience.

I ended up concluding that she didn’t understand our economic system, how and why businesses develop, and thus how jobs are created.   Specifically, to create jobs governments have to create a safe environment, an educated population, and taxes and regulations that will encourage investment.

Similarly, when I hear the President and people in his party complain about how others are not investing their money to create jobs, I’m convinced they don’t understand it either.  How ironic and sad that the leader of the country with the strongest capitalistic free market economy in the world doesn’t know how it works.  Maybe the solution is for all those complaining about how others are investing their money to just hire someone themselves.

The Bankrupting of America

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315404575250610059801620.html?KEYWORDS=zuckerman

Great article about the biggest problems facing Western economies.  Note recent articles about Governor Schwarzenegger unable to reduce costs because courts continue to uphold extortionary labor agreements.

This problem is due to a defect in labor laws whereby people are expected to vote to reduce their own wages and benefits when economic conditions dictate the need.

Also, there is no system or solution to ‘bankrupt’ schools, cities, towns, States to solve these problems or prevent them from getting this bad.

JEWISH IDENTITY

WHY JEWS ARE OFTEN CONFUSED ABOUT THEIR IDENTITY

Most Jews are confused about their identity and have a difficult time defining or describing themselves, since the term Jewish is used to define both the establishment religion and the people.  That’s why when someone says they are Jewish it’s not clear if they are talking about their religious beliefs or their ethnicity.  Others don’t have this problem. You can be Chinese and Buddhist, or Chinese and Confucianist.  But being Jewish and Jewish is confusing.   Besides, throughout history, there have always been a multitude of belief systems among the Jewish people, as there are now.

CONSEQUENCES OF THIS CONFUSION

Since many Jews are not taught how to explain or articulate their personal philosophy of life, they frequently will answer a question about their identity by explaining what they are not.  They will say “I’m Jewish, but not religious.”  Or “I’m Jewish but just culturally”.  But that last statement would be largely meaningless since among Jews there are many cultures and ethnicities, including Sephardim, Persians, Ethiopians, and Ashkenazim.  In reality, being Jewish means being part of the Jewish people or nation – or an “Am” as the Bible describes it.  

Thus, it is no surprise that Orthodox Jews do not require a belief test to be Jewish.  For them you are Jewish by matrilineal descent - a national or ethnic test.

IDENTIFICATION CATEGORIES

There are many ways to identify oneself.  Surveys frequently mix up ethnicity and religion, and rarely have the correct choices.  So here is my solution as it applies to me:

1.         Race                                 I am white.

2.         Citizenship                    I am a U.S. citizen. (And love my country)

3.         Ethnic Background     I am an Ashkenazic  Jew*. (Though I particularly enjoy and appreciate Anglo-Saxon culture)

4.         Nationality                    I am part of the Jewish people or Jewish nation.

5.         Philosophy                    I am a Secular Humanistic Jew. www.shj.org

CONCLUSION

So instead of defining myself by what I am not, I define my Judaism by who I am and what I do believe.  Specifically, I am part of the Jewish people.  I have strong beliefs including that the power to solve problems comes from people and not the supernatural world.  I believe that truth about the world is discovered using evidence and reason, not faith.  So I am a Secular-Humanistic Jew.  Others may define themselves as Orthodox Jews, Conservative Orthodox Jews, Reform Orthodox Jews, etc.   In fact, the first Christians were mostly Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah.  Similarly, there are Lubavitch Jews who believe that Menachem Mendel Schneerson was/is the Messiah. 

I hope this helps others better articulate their identity and beliefs. The key point is to recognize that there are many categories of personal identification, and philosophy or ideology are not necessarily the same for everyone within an ethnic group or nationality.

*Definition: Jews who came from Eastern Europe and Russia are called Ashkenazim. 

The name Ashkenaz was first used in the Middle Ages for Jews living along the Rhine River in northern France and western Germany. Many of these Jews later migrated eastward and formed communities in Germany, Poland, Austria, Eastern Europe and Russia between the 10th and 19th centuries. Ashkenazic Jews developed their own language, Yiddish, by combining Hebrew with German. Likewise, they developed a distinct culture by combining Jewish culture with the culture of the countries in which they lived. 

The great majority of North American Jews today are Ashkenazic Jews.  (From about.com)

TIMES SQUARE CAR BOMB

I never understand the news.

It was revealed that there was an amteurish attempt to create and detonate a car bomb in Time Square recently.  The failed attempt resulted in some smoke emanating from the car and some street vendors notifying the police.

All reports suggest that due to the faulty design it could not have detonated.  Additionally we all know that car bombs don’t sit around smoking as a warning.  They ignite immediately and those standing around do not have much time to call for assistance or report a problem.

Yet much of the political news lately has been about the importance of noticing your surroundings and politicians praising those people who notified authorities and ‘saved hundreds of lives’, and calling them heroes.

Do you get this?

IMMIGRATION REFORM

The big news lately is the Arizona legislation to try and deal with cost and security issues related to the number of illegal immigrants in the State, or at least get the Federal Government’s attention to do their job to maintain secure borders.

This has been a 24 hour/day story and constantly in the paper.  But I haven’t read anything yet about the one thing that comes to my mind.  Specifically, didn’t we ‘fix’ this problem under Reagan?  So I looked it up, and sure enough found the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and Reagan’s statement upon signing:

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/110686b.htm

The most relevant sections are these:

“The act provides these three essential components. The employer sanctions program is the keystone and major element. It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here. We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.”

“The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.”

I believe  that the bi-partisan legislation that Bush attempted to get through Congress was similar to this 1986 act in many respects.  It was defeated by union leaders on the left and conservatives on the right.   

Before passing an entire new bill, it seems that an analysis should take place on what failed in the 1986 Reagan legislation and deal with that issue first.  From what I can tell, the only real failure was the plan to regain control of the borders.   If that had been successful we wouldn’t have the conflict and issues we face today.  Therefore,  those who say we need to fix that problem first are correct.  There is no reason to have confidence in new legislation unless the problems of the prior legislation are fixed first. 

Once the commitment of secured borders is fulfilled, it will be easier to get bi-partisan legislation on the issues that arose as a result of the defects in the prior legislation relative to secure borders.

It certainly seems that if a small country like Israel with 6 million people can secure hundreds of miles of borders, the U.S. with over 300 million people should be able to do the same.

Thinking about the immigration issue makes me recall similar Presidential statements about Social Security and Health Care.  Check these statements made by Presdient Carter that confirm my recollections:

HEALTH REFORM

I’m glad that in 1977 we solved the problem of fraud in government administered health plans. 

“This bill will go a long way to eliminating fraud in the administration of the health care programs of our country. It will shift to heavier penalties for those who are convicted of false claims, kickbacks–changing these from misdemeanors to felonies–and also prohibiting those who are convicted of this crime from delivering any services in the future.”

SOCIAL SECURITY

Similarly, I’m glad we solved the Social Security funding problems later that year:

“The most important thing, of course, is that without this legislation, the social security reserve funds would have begun to be bankrupt in just a year or two, by 1979. Now this legislation will guarantee that from 1980 to the year 2030, the social security funds will be sound.”

ACLU, Court Decisions, and Card Check

Do journalists and reporters ever read court decisions before reporting on them?   I’ve learned never to voice an opinion about a court decision until I read it myself.  

One of the most famous was the Bakke case where the Supreme Court found that the University of Michigan had denied Bakke equal protection of the law by the use of a ‘two-track’ program that  allowed Blacks to gain admission with lower scores and grades than Whites.   How did this case ever become seen as a victory for proponents of Affirmative Action, which the University of Michigan used to justify their later admissions policy that replaced the “two-track” program with a single program based on points.   Under the new program Blacks got 20 extra points for being Black.  For comparison, I believe that 8 points were awarded for perfect scores on your SAT’s.

I read the Bakke case and discovered that Justice Powell, in his concurring critical 5th vote for Bakke, talked about the importance of diversity, and as far as I could tell, basically said that discrimination is OK to promote diversity if all else is equal.  (Sounds like 1 point to me, not 20)

How that came to justify giving Blacks or some other minority students enough extra points to almost guarantee admission over others, I don’t know.  I didn’t read the opinion in Gratz v. Bollinger where the University of Michigan was again found to be in violation of the law.  But I imagine it had something to do with upholding Bakke, despite it being proclaimed as a basis for points, quotas, preferences, etc.

This brings me to the recent Citizen’s United case, where the Supreme Court found that restrictions on corporations spending their own money for political campaign advertising violated the First Amendment free speech clause.   This is the case that Obama used to admonish the Justices during his State of the Union address. 

I was invited to a lecture last night given by a Constitutional Law Professor from Wayne State Univeristy dealing with this case.  So, of course I thought it would be a good idea to read it.  Despite this decision being severely criticized by the left, including the President, I discovered several things:

1.  The President made a number of factual errors during his speech.  In fact, while reading the opinion I realized that every claim he made about the decision was wrong.    As a professor of Constitutional Law himself, you’d think he would also know the importance of reading something before commenting on it;  particularly on national television during a major speech.  I was going to write about it here, but in doing some research to support my recollections, I found this very thorough web link that explains his errors in more detail than I would. 

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/28/the-truth-about-president-obama-and-citizens-united/

2.  There was also a lot of discussion in the news as to how the Supreme Court could possibly consider a corporation a citizen, entitled to Free Speech under the First Amendment.  Well, I re-read the First Amendment and it doesn’t say anything about free speech only applying to persons or citizens.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It just says that Congress can’t pass laws that abridge free speech.  How do these absurd discussions even start?

3.  It’s interesting that the left objected to an opinion that protects free speech.  Particularly when you consider that the ACLU filed a brief in favor of the winner of this case.  It seems to be further proof that the left has moved further and further away from the free speech days of Berkley.  With protestors at Columbia University prohibiting border defenders in Arizona from speaking,  protestors on other college campuses prohibiting conservative speakers from speaking, and now the left not supporting  the rights of corporations to exercise free speech, it seems that they only support free speech that they like.

Which brings me to the Card Check issue.  If you don’t know what this is I will explain.  In order to organize a union, the employees must first sign cards asking for a vote.   Then the vote is done by secret ballot.  The purpose is obvious — so that fellow empl0yees or the employer don’t know how someone is voting and thus be able to threaten or influence them.  

You would think that protecting access to a secret ballot would be important to everyone — particularly those on the left who protect rights, and even create rights where none exist.   I assumed the ACLU would be all over this case to make sure that secret ballots were protected.  I found that these are their policies regarding their own national elections:

Effective elections shall include but not be limited to the following elements:

1) Open and fair nominating process;

2) Secret ballots, honestly counted;

3) Restrictions on staff campaigning;

4) Prohibitions on the use of union funds on behalf of a particular slate or individual nominees;

5) Full and equal access to union publications and other means of reaching the membership;

6) The absence of coercion;

7) Sufficient time for the internal democratic process to be implemented and to provide assurances to the membership that elections will be fair, honest and free of coercion.

But the ACLU is not fighting supporters of Card Check legislation.  Why should secret ballots be the policy for electing union representatives, but not for deciding if you want union representation in the first place? 

In researching the ACLU’s involvement with the Citizen’s United case I found an interesting piece in the NYSUN by Joseph Goldstein.

He writes:

Debate on the question of money and politics has been percolating within the ACLU for years, long before the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United. “It is difficult to think of an issue that has generated more internal controversy,” an internal ACLU memo states.

Well, I imagine the Card Check debate has to be percolating also.    Even George McGovern is against this legislation.

http://www.nrtw.org/blog/liberal-icon-george-mcgovern-08082008

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124165379013293871.html

Amber Alert

During the Masters Tournament this weekend, there was an Amber alert posted from a nearby city.   What was fascinating was that they described the clothing the child was wearing, the type and color of the vehicle he was placed in, what was in the back of the pickup truck, the size and weight of the suspect, and on and on.   But nowhere did they mention the race of the child or suspect they wanted us to watch for.  Asian?  Hispanic?  Black? White?

I don’t know how the police do their job with such absurdly incomplete information.  It reminds me of a newspaper story a few years ago about a nearby crime.   The story mentioned witnesses put together a sketch of the suspect.  The article asked all people to be alert for the suspect.  But the paper failed to include the sketch of the suspect for whom we were supposed to be searching.

Myth – and the Importance of Defining Terms

There is contention in a Knoxville  school regarding a book that refers to the creation story as a myth.  The news commentators interviewed the complaining parent without any discussion about the definition of the word ‘myth’.   A good definition of a myth is merely a ‘traditional story’.     And typically the characters in the stories are gods.   So being that a myth is a story of a god or gods, certainly the story of god creating the world, fits the definition of a myth. 

It’s a weird comment on our education system when a parent (who doesn’t know the meaning of the word myth) wants to change something in a book that is already correct.  Then he appears on TV and the commentators don’t seem to understand it either.