I am so, so proud of my country, my home state of Florida, and my current homestead of Maryland, among other states, for last night. I knew we could do it, and while it was a nail-biter to the very end, my faith in our citizens has been restored.
Last night, we stood up for equality. We stood up for justice. We stood up for the rich AND for the poor, for men AND for women, for straight people and gay people and transgender people and everyone in between, for those of all races and creeds and affiliations.
We stood up for AMERICA.
It was my birthday yesterday, and it kicked off with a walk to our polling place -- the elementary school where our child will eventually go -- at 6:30 in the morning to wait in line to cast our ballots. We had our "cheat sheets" from our research the week before that listed all of our stances, some warm clothes in case we had to stand in the cold, and the camaraderie of other voters who were actually excited about this election, even while lacking coffee and much-needed sleep.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="299"]
With my birthday voting gear on. ;)[/caption]It ended with me and Matt staying up until about midnight last night with our containers of take-out Chinese food and the company of our neighbor friends, debating the coverage, covering our ears at times, and staring at each other in disbelief when Ohio was called for President Obama. We were stunned... it all happened so quickly! An election that we were sure was going to result in court cases, an electronic version of "hanging chads", and just an all-out mess... decided well before midnight!
We were happily surprised, though we sure didn't expect Ohio to call it! In fact, we were refreshing the stats on CNN every few minutes to check on Florida, who even still remains undecided. We fully expected the results from Miami-Dade county to come in before Cuyahoga county, and what a surprise when they finally called it and projected Obama as the winner!
Last night's election, both nationally and statewide, showed something amazing happening in this country: A shift from a cis-gendered straight white Christian male majority to a majority made up of women, people of color, immigrants, the youth, non-Christians, and every other group you can dream up. It resulted in the re-election of a black president who stood for each of those groups and, among other victories, a call for equality for gay couples around the nation.
This shift just proves that the breed of homophobic, radical, Bible-beating haters is coming to an end -- perhaps a painful one for them, but a very welcome (and much awaited!) one for us. It does my heart well to see that so many people standing up for others, for recognizing that they deserve every bit of happiness and privilege as anyone else does.
Even if you voted for Mitt Romney, even if you were against many of the social and economic policies that ended up winning out, I am still proud of you. Not only was I happy to witness history regarding our election results, I was also happy to see so many people passionate about their causes, about their futures, about their everyday lives by going out and exercising their rights by VOTING.
I just hope that, in the future, those passions turn from an inward "what's best for me is best for me" outlook to one that believes "what's best for ALL is best for me". Those passions are incredibly strong, incredibly powerful, and would do such great things if applied to meet the needs and wants of others in this country.
So yup, America, I sure am proud. For every vote cast, I personally considered it a "Happy Birthday!" card in my honor. :) And the re-election of President Barack Obama, the passing of the Dream Act, and the recognition of and support for my gay family, friends, and complete strangers in love and marriage...
Well, one's birthday can't get any better than that!
AND THE RESULTS ARE IN!
If you'd like to share the stats from your own states, please do so! I'm focusing on the national elections, Florida, and Maryland. :)
OTHER NEWS...
This election proved victorious not only presidentially-speaking, but also in regards to same-sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana, among others. Below are some noteworthy articles that highlight some of the country's victories.
- Maryland, Maine, Washington approve same-sex marriage; 2 state legalize pot
- Election results raise questions about Christian right's influence
- DNC chair expects Obama to carry Florida
SPEECHES!
LOVE IT!! VERY WELL SAID. xo
ReplyDeleteI just want to comment on something you said:
ReplyDeleteI just hope that, in the future, those passions turn from an inward “what’s best for me is best for me” outlook to one that believes “what’s best for ALL is best for me”. Those passions are incredibly strong, incredibly powerful, and would do such great things if applied to meet the needs and wants of others in this country.
Here's the problem with your way of thinking. I DID vote for ALL. Not just for me. I fear for this country's future. It's all well and good that we'll have our civil liberties (which you know I stand for too) while we're sitting around with an astronomical unemployment rate and a continously increasing national debt. A future with no space program, no biotech companies (do you not understand that under Obama's plan my husband can easily wind up without a job?), people denied medicare (my in-laws will lose their medicare coverage in a couple of years under Obama's plan.
So, yeah. Fine. Think I'm narrow minded and self-centered because I voted for Romney because it's ALL ABOUT ME all you want.
You've completely lost me as a blog follower, Steph. I care about you and your child as a friend but dude, I've never read anything so offensive in my life.
I can't edit a comment, but did make a mistake in mine - "no biotech companies" wasn't exactly what I meant, I typed too fast because I was upset. What I am referring to is the reduction in innovating new life saving therapies, which is what my husband does. Just wanted to clear that up.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it obviously wasn't meant as a personal attack towards anyone. So to take it personally, while I understand it, doesn't mean that I should be vilified for believing that Romney's ideas for this country don't align with mine.
ReplyDeleteSecond, that's great! I'm glad you voted for your idea of the country's future, even if those ideas are different from mine. There are many who voted for Romney, though, not because they have a firm grasp of the unemployment rate or the economy (by the way, both of which have improved under Obama's presidency, and that's four years' worth of fixing eight years of a presidency that basically left both in the shitter), but because they ARE self-centered and narrow-minded, who prefer to think "Fuck you, I got mine" and leave the rest of the nation in the dust while vilifying public assistance programs and grinding the country to a halt.
And of course I understand what each presidency brings to the table, but allow me to clarify. Either presidential candidate was going to extend the space program, but in different ways (in fact, Romney's plan to bring a good chunk of it to the private industry would possibly leave MY husband, who works for NASA and whose gov't department is the most vilified despite the fact that its budget is a fraction of the overall budget, without a job); biotech companies aren't going to go away under Obama, but instead will shift in focus to one that benefits the environment as well (and more research! Always more research!); and Medicare? Please. South Florida, an area practically saturated with retirees who are currently on or will soon be on Medicare, understands that Romney's stance on Medicare was to do a VOUCHER program. I doubt anyone would believe a senior, who has a difficult time operating Microsoft Word, would have the wherewithal to choose his or her own insurance program and to use such a voucher.
This post is NOT about you, again, but it's your choice whether to take it personally. If it means losing you as a blog follower, then so be it, but I admit I'd be disappointed not because your views are different, but because you regard this as "offensive".
"What I am referring to is the reduction in innovating new life saving therapies"
ReplyDeleteIs it sad that I actually have no idea what your husband does, considering this? When I think "biotech", I think natural gas and other similar industries. Biomaterials.
Thanks, Trish! And thanks for going out to vote. :D
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, I know that your post wasn't directed AT ME, but it IS offensive to Romney supporters. As one, I'm offended by it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this:
there are many who voted for Romney, though, not because they have a firm grasp of the unemployment rate or the economy but because they ARE self-centered and narrow-minded, who prefer to think “Fuck you, I got mine” and leave the rest of the nation in the dust while vilifying public assistance programs and grinding the country to a halt.
Is totally 100% hypocritical (maybe not of you specifically, but in the Democrat vs. Republican, Liberal vs. Conservative debate). Democrats get PISSED at the (STUPID) Republicans who make comments like "all welfare people are lazy" but you, right there, start spouting that crap. I don't know a single Republican who actually feels the way you wrote right there. Does that mean they don't exist? Of course not. But it is NOT the majority. Most of us want to help the less fortunate, but we don't want to be taken advantage of. We're not sitting back saying "I got mine, so fuck y'all." Just like liberals aren't all sitting back living off the system.
How offended would you be if I wrote back to that part of your comment with "yep, and there are individuals who voted for Obama because they like free shit and feel other people should pay for them." Don't tell me you could read that and NOT get pissed off by it.
And no, biotech that I'm referring to are the drug companies. "Big Pharma" (who actually supported Obamacare, confusingly). Not only does it hinder the research you're referring to but a government run healthcare system allows the government to set the price on drugs. The company Brad works for has NEVER denied a patient a drug if they could not afford it. The paying patients pay what they can and the company supplements elsewhere to get the less fortunate patient that drug. If the government sets the price, it becomes a negative to produce that drug. No product = no revenue. Will this happen? Maybe not, but it's more possible under a government run healthcare system than a privately run one. It is absolutely valid to be concerned about it.
If this makes me selfish because yes, I'm concerned about these things, so be it. I can't honestly sit back and say that it's ok if Brad loses his job or his parents lose their current Medicare coverage, because we have our civil liberties. Let's all join hands and sing "Kumbaya."
Fair enough, I can see how I was wrong for that comment, and for that, I apologize. I am limiting it to "many", though, because from what I've read and heard from Republican acquaintances, that IS the case. NOT with everyone, but certainly with select few, and their voices are oftentimes the absolute loudest. I may be getting more exposure to those who say such things, but I'll never say that ALL Republicans think that way.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I've actually come across that comment before ("Obama supporters like free shit" and blah blah), and while my feathers were ruffled, my response was always a debate rather than getting personally offended, as I know that's not who I am.
Ah, I gotcha. I was thinking oil rather than pharmaceuticals. I don't understand the concern, though: Obama's stance is to allow for generic versions of biotech drugs to be created and to remove the patent loophole where one small change in the drug could protect the name brand for a longer period, both of which would lower the costs of medication across the board. America spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country in the world, with Norway being the closest at over $2,000 less per capita. And that's the closest!
I'm glad Brad's company allows for patients with financial burdens to pay a different price for a medication, and I'm confident that'll remain the same even if the price of drugs falls (and it really needs to -- my albuterol inhalers, for which there is no generic, cost well over $200 per before insurance, it's absolutely disgusting). The technology that goes behind making such pharmaceuticals won't go away, either.
I don't think your husband should have anything to worry about -- of course, me saying that is going to stop you from worrying, and considering my husband works for NASA and someone saying that "Oh, NASA will be around forever" doesn't make me feel 100% reassured, I totally get that. But Obama isn't trying to get rid of or even diminish biotech in pharmaceuticals, just to shift their focus. And let's face it: The pharmaceutical companies own at least part of government. Making them change, especially to their financial detriment, is going to be an uphill battle at the very least.
If we want to continue talking healthcare, what is it worth if our husbands still have jobs (and if we do, too), but we have no rights to our reproductive health, laws regarding our positions as women in the healthcare industry, and personal autonomy are all thrown out the window? THAT was a real possibility under Romney-Ryan, and was one of many reasons why O voted Obama.
(And I still wholeheartedly disagree with the Medicare issue, but that's for another day.)
(... same with social issues. Because those would be fucked under Romney, too.)
But allowing for generic drugs DOES hurt my husband's company/other companies. These companies put in YEARS of research and MILLIONS of dollars, which is why they need to charge so much for the drug. When a generic comes on the market, it hurts them. The company selling the generic gets the benefit of their research and costs, and makes the profit.
ReplyDeleteAnd I would also point out that what my husband does saves lives. The civil liberties you are referring to mean nothing if a person's ability to live is in jeopardy.
And this, by the way, brings me back to the whole thing about producing more innovating products. Why would company A want to spend all that time and money to produce a drug that company B (and C and D and Q) can then profit from?
ReplyDeleteJust so we're on the same page, you know that (especially if this becomes a reality) those who create the brand-name drug will most likely end up making a generic to go along with it, right? It'd actually take some business away from those offshoot companies that create generics once the patent rights* on the name brands expire, a real possibility when a drug company is trying to make as much profit as possible.
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/12/09/merck-jumps-into-generic-biotech/
(I know this article was from ages ago, but it's going to be a trend if generic drugs is where we're going to end up.)
*These patent rights, FWIW, also made it VERY easy for these companies to make their billions before a generic even came out -- companies that produce generics are prohibited from using even close to the same formula until the patents expire, and they're often changed at the last minute so they can run another course before generic pharma can get their hands on it. They also have the benefit of the name brand popularity, something that generics don't have at all. So don't worry, that money spent on research and production are more than made up for by the time a generic comes out, if one ever does.
I never said what your husband does doesn't save lives -- after all, my life is dependent on a medication, and as such, I realize the benefit that comes from the cost of research, trials, and so forth. I think the amount spent on such things is exorbitant (and can actually be spent more wisely, much the same argument that many -- myself and Matt included! -- would say about NASA and other major public and private entities), especially since it ends up jacking up the price for those who really need that medicine to live. Spend less, make less, still have people depend on it, still have a profit.
You know what, you're right. I will go tell my husband who has been in the pharmaceutical industry for 20 years that he's wrong. The internet says so.
ReplyDeleteWow, seriously? This is how you're going to react to spreading a bit of information and hoping for some related discourse?
ReplyDeleteTalk about insulting. Really.
Oh come on, Steph, you combat everything I say like you have more knowledge on the subject. What am I supposed to say? What is the response you're expecting? Me to just bend over and accept that you're smarter than a man who has spent 20 years in R&D in a Big Pharma company?
ReplyDeleteYou can find ANYTHING on the internet to support your argument. Here's one to support mine:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mpr_01.htm
Does that mean it's true?
And, alright then. I apologize.
ReplyDeleteWe'll have to agree to disagree. I really don't have anything else to say.
Geezus, where did I ever say or imply I had more knowledge on the subject? Or that I was smarter than someone 20 years in the field? Strictly because I'm arguing a case and learning more about it as I go along?
ReplyDeleteNo, I expect a bit more discourse about how the article that I pointed to -- in which one of those major pharmaceutical companies that has been around for decades -- may, in fact, be wrong. If it's the case, and if you happen to know, by all means. Not being in that same industry (but having enough knowledge of how the USPTO works, at the very least, to make an educated argument on that front and the ability to research elsewhere for information I *don't* know) puts me at a disadvantage, so if there's educating to be done, then go for it. No need to be insulting about it.
Now what you posted is interesting, and definitely something to look into. (See! Educating myself! NEED INPUT) It makes me wonder why R&D costs so much and why the FDA requires more strict R&D on some drugs while pushing others, such as Gardasil and the new albuterol inhalers with a different propellant (oh, and don't even get me started on this one -- it hits a very particular nerve), right through the line, costing several their health and some, their lives. That, and the constant threat brought about by Big Pharma that "OMG SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN" that somehow manages to keep prices all over the map.
"FDA drug development costs continue to increase in response to a growing demand for more clinical information and more clinical trial data."
Like all industries, cost-saving measures would likely work wonders should any sort of price-fixing by the government ever take place. That could be a safe argument for any private or public industry, as I've said before, and may make the practice more efficient.
Again, I don't know everything about this field -- I can only base my opinion on the research that I've done, including this article now. I don't even think it's the fault of R&D for the prices that we have now, but the corporate greed exhibited by Big Pharma, and aside from the possibility that they may lose money (out of the BILLIONS they make), I need a more compelling argument than the not-so-distinct possibility that your husband may lose his job.
Yeah, probably. But I do appreciate that article -- gave me a different perspective, regardless of my personal feelings on the matter.
ReplyDeleteI apologize.
ReplyDeleteI interpreted the start of your comment as insinuating that you knew more than me:
"you know that (especially if this becomes a reality) those who create the brand-name drug will most likely end up making a generic to go along with it, right?"
Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but it reads like "you know you're wrong, don't you?" way.
I'd like to offer a bit of perspective from my husband, if I may:
There's the rub. It may cost 10 cents to make the second pill for a company but it costs them $1+ Billion to make the first. By allowing generic versions of biotech drugs (or bio-similars as they are called for us) too short into the run of a companies rights to make money, that initial company can no longer make enough money to offset costs. We are no longer dealing with aspirin here. We are dealing with complex drugs to cure complex ailments. Ailments that if they were easy to cure, we'd have found them decades ago. These new cures extend the lives of the population in general and overall allow many to live who would have died just 20 years earlier. Ailments we take for granted as an inconvenience or minor today were deadly to millions not long ago. Unfortunately, that type of development costs massive amounts of money. Take away the incentive of making that back there is no reason to do the development in the first place. A large amount of discoveries in the medical field come from the US because we foster an environment to allow it and gain from it. Take that incentive away and it doesn't happen. Unfortunately, the by-product of invention is cost for invention. If you want the cure someone has to pay. many of these countries don't generate the cure but just reap the reward. Therefore, they do not need to charge their people the cost to make it up. This is a bit simplistic but one reason why her inhaler costs what it costs. We aren't being greedy, it just cost that company so much to discover it and produce it safely.
Additionally, he also offered this:
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the thought is flawed. Not only do we need to make up the costs for the drug we make but also those we try to make and fail. In this industry most things fail because the problem is so complex. Most biotechs fail because their idea doesn't work. Billions lost and no cure found. You need that one big drug to hit so you can find the money needed to look for more. Even then most companies get lucky if they even get one let alone two. But using the money from the first, we look for the next. Take away that revenue stolen by the generic and we can't look for new stuff. Sure, the price goes down but the next cure is never found because there is no cash. Also, take away the incentive to make you money back and we all stop developing. It doesn't get better for society, it gets worse.
We don't throw money around, far from it. People can't even begin to understand the costs to develop these things and the things that fail. Oh the failures are numerous. But again, we aren't making aspirin.
Finally, this little part right here?
ReplyDelete"I need a more compelling argument than the not-so-distinct possibility that your husband may lose his job."
That IS insulting. Because if I said the same thing about needing a more compelling argument to vote Obama than the possibility someone's marriage could be unrecognized? I'd be lynched.
Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. I am fully assuming that a major pharma company will start investing in generic alternatives, especially since they'll already have all the R&D behind them and will have no problem coming out with a generic. It just makes sense to me -- not that it'll definitely happen, but if there's a way to make money off the idea? Psh, I'd do it, too.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your husband's input. FWIW, I completely agree that a drug should remain on the market on its own, as it has thanks to patent protection, to at least recoup the cost of the R&D that went behind it, if not more. I *don't* like that the system can be played so that the patent, upon being close to its expiration, can be altered to have it run for another 7 years just to prevent a generic from another company to come out; that kind of play just... it boils my blood. Make what you can, continue the profits since you'll have name brand recognition, and be fair about having an alternative come out.
(That's just the "STOP FUCKING THE LAW OVER" part of me coming out. I see that shit every day, it sucks.)
I do have a question, mainly because I don't understand what incentive is "gone":
"A large amount of discoveries in the medical field come from the US because we foster an environment to allow it and gain from it. Take that incentive away and it doesn't happen."
Also, what's his opinion on the possibility of, after a patent on a drug by, say, Merck expires, Merck comes out with its own generic alongside its name brand product?
(And I have an argument about the inhalers, namely the shoving of a very popular, cost-effective, and lung-effective [no better word for this] brand out to make way for a monopoly and the change in the propellant that actually constricts the bronchial tubes, but that's an issue I've been trying to bring up to pharmaceutical companies for years... ugh.)
Maybe, but (and I mean absolutely no offense by this, so please don't take it that way, it's just the reality of things) we're talking about a relative handful of people versus an entire minority. I'd say the same about my own husband (sorry, Matt).
ReplyDeleteTotally understand that, and while late to the party, I did mention below that I believe in the recouping of the cost of R&D and then some. Including those failures.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying he has an easy job or that he's throwing money around (well, biotech may not be -- I have a hard time saying the same for Big Pharma itself as a separate entity).
Still would like to know his thoughts on bigger pharmaceutical companies investing in the development of generics. I imagine it's easy, but I ain't doing it.
On the Merck article you linked to, he said this:
ReplyDeleteThe Merck thing is kind of funny. Companies are trying to copy biotech drug BUT it ain't that easy. Most big pharma realied that quickly and just decided to go out and buy the biotech companies instead. There is a reason Genzyme is now a subsidiary of Sanofi. :)
On another subject:
Your stop fucking the law over comment makes me laugh a bit, considering what you're voting for. There are a lot of people who DO take advantage of our system (they don't all, that's not what I am saying) but in my (extended, step) family alone, there's someone abusing MA welfare by living in NH and collecting MA welfare. She doesn't work, doesn't even try to work, and actually planned her new baby (out of wedlock, at age 44) when her other son was 18 because she would lose some of her welfare benefits. She gets cable TV, she gets a smart phone, and she doesn't have to do anything for it. I know this isn't everyone, of COURSE it's not everyone, it's not even the majority. But it happens. It's infuriating. And I'm not the only person out there who knows someone like this. She IS fucking the law over, on a technicality because she has a MA P.O. Box. Another family member called in to report it and was told they didn't have the resources to try to investigate.
So when I think about being told (aka, government deciding) that I need to pay higher taxes to support the welfare system, it IS aggravating, in much the same way you are upset by the pharmaceutical pricing/patent issues. I'm not saying, eliminate welfare or anything that extreme, but I would prefer some way to control it more - drug testing (in the right manner), needing to be actively looking for work, I don't know. I'm not in government so I don't know what the steps are to make that happen. But I would like to see the possibility of taking advantage of our system reduced, much like you want to see the big pharm companies not take advantage of the patent technicalities.
Does this make sense?
I think perhaps you should look up how many people work in the pharmaceutical industry. Genzyme alone employs thousands at his one location. It's not a handful. Is it more than the number of gays wishing to marry? Probably not. But it's a significant number.
ReplyDeleteBTW - Pfizer employs 103,000 people, according to Wikipedia. Sanofi, 113,000. That's just two companies. Granted, some of those are worldwide.
ReplyDeleteAnd just found this when searching for employee numbers, you might find interesting:
http://www.theneweconomy.com/technology/big-pharmas-stalled-rd-machine
As far as generics go, I suppose I'd need to ask him but this question doesn't make sense to me.
ReplyDeleteIf company A spends millions to produce Drug X, what would producing a generic do vs cutting their cost to match the generics? They've still spend that money, they still need to make a profit. There's no difference (at least, that I can see) to producing Thyrogen vs. generic thyrogen. What is the point?
Didn't know that about Genzyme/Sanofi, but it doesn't surprise me. Would the purchase of such a company result in more profit overall? If not, how would it affect it? Would this eventually lead to a monopoly, where very few drug companies run the whole thing and would prove it difficult for smaller biotech companies to make it on their own?
ReplyDeleteAs for the other subject, we're talking apples to oranges -- still fruit, but with one being held to a higher standard (uh... the apple? IDK, work with me here). While I'd expect them BOTH to be mindful of what they do and earn their keep, I would fully expect a company to have more responsibility when it comes to "fucking over the law" than an individual, as a company's "fucking over" tends to have more sweeping consequence than that by an individual.
Not to say that the situation you're talking about doesn't piss me off. It absolutely does, and it gives those people who need government assistance a terrible name, much like the incredibly loud Tea Party, as small as they are relatively, the Republicans a bad name strictly by association. A majority of people *don't* take advantage of the system, though, and even more people desperately need it and can't get it due to one reason or another. I'm sure those people are pissed, too.
I agree that it needs to be overhauled as well, makes total sense. Not exactly by drug testing unless those drugs were very specific (i.e. no busting someone for marijuana, especially now that it's legal in a couple states [also YAY on that, go states!]), but I do like the idea of actively looking for work or, in the case of a disability, being able to show that the disability makes it so that person absolutely cannot get work. But it IS really hard to overcome those problems and I certainly don't have the answers.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act under Clinton's first term, while I'm sure it has some flaws (it's a state-by-state Act), DID go a long way to fixing some of these issues, including the addition of the work requirements that are currently in place. Despite the ads put out by Romney, Obama didn't repeal that part of PRWOA, but a waiver program was put into place by HHS that had strict requirements if a state wanted to opt out. I honestly don't know if any states were actually granted that waiver.
Anyway, so some work has been done. I hope that it can only get better from here, but your extended step-family is definitely the exception rather than the rule.
But I'm not saying that everyone in the pharmaceutical industry would lose their jobs, just that it'd be a *relative* handful compared to the number of LGBT in the US, estimated around 8 million and with 4% of the US population openly saying they are.
ReplyDeleteThat's definitely an interesting article, and while the circumstances and industries are different, the same absolutely happened with NASA. See: Kennedy Space Center post-SpaceX, for both contractors and government employees alike.
That's what I want to know! Would it affect their profit margins at all -- for better or for worse -- and would it make it worth it to produce generics alongside their name brands after the patents expire? If another company is going to sweep in, take the formula that's now available to the public, and create a cheaper copycat, would it be in the pharma's interest to do the same, at least to continue making something off their own product?
ReplyDeleteSomehow this question makes sense in my brain, I swear it does...
His answer about buying up smaller biotech firms kind of answered that, but I'm wondering if it'd be any different if the company just did it on its own, beating those smaller biotech firms to the punch.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I found for number of employees:
ReplyDeletehttp://v1.medtrack.com/research/Istats.asp
1.2 million in the top 20 companies. Yes, not all would lose jobs, but R&D is a large part of this.
Not the same as the gay population, certainly, but it's not a drop in the bucket either. All I'm trying to say is, it isn't just my husband's job...it's a lot of jobs.
And this is just one piece. Just one of my arguments against the direction we're heading. It's just the one you and I happened to focus on. I'm hoping that you might see from this that there was more to my vote than "money" which several people have suggested to me. Or that you see that I do think beyond just me.
There are several friends of mine that voted because it was their rights being at stake. That is no different than me voting for things that directly affect me as well. To call my (collective, Romney supporting) vote "inward looking" is wrong. And that's all I was trying to say/show you. I don't see how it's "inward looking" any more than a gay man voting for Obama because Romney says he won't recognize his marriage. Both affect a "population" in some form - be it Brad and other R&D researchers, be it seniors losing Medicare Advantage, or be it gays losing the right to marry.
Can we at least agree on that?
Perhaps you're thinking that the company can charge higher for their brand name and less for the same pill without the brand name on it? It's still selling their pill for less (and if the government sets the price limit like Brad's argument, they have to reduce their brand name pill price anyway), they lose money.
ReplyDeleteThink about it this way. If I produce two exact same greeting cards, one marked $4.00 and says "The Perfect Loop" and the other marked $3.00 and says "The Not-so-Perfect Loop", which one will people buy? The $3.00 card. I lose profits. I can't cover my supplies and my labor.
Sure, I can agree to that. I'd probably feel the same way if one candidate ever hinted at the idea of letting NASA go entirely, or to drastically reducing the amount of funding it would get (guh, drop in the bucket, but there are some that actually believe that would make a difference).
ReplyDeleteI never said, nor would I ever say, that a vote for Romney was strictly one for money. A vote for Romney is strictly against my ideology in every sense of his, including but not limited to his stances on gay rights. It stings that, in some shape or form, a vote for Romney -- at least to me, personally -- is one against a group of people whose civil liberties really should not be voted on in the first place. IMHO, a vote for him is a vote for setting gay rights, women's rights, and other important matters years back.
BUT. This is just me.
Anyway... I'm about to head home. Is it bad to say that, save for certain parts, I kind of enjoyed this a bit? I learned quite a bit today (and my opinion of you, high as it is, never changed), so for that, thanks.
"Perhaps you’re thinking that the company can charge higher for their brand name and less for the same pill without the brand name on it?"
ReplyDeleteSomething like this, yeah. And I understand that the generic would still be cheaper, but it'd keep the money with the original manufacturer than with another biotech firm.
There will always be someone who will buy (and who can afford) the name brand over the generic, and vice versa. Personally, I always go for generic when it's available -- sorry, Brad, no offense! :) But if that money went to the original biotech than a secondary, even if the cost is cheaper for the same thing, would that not be better?
(I'm no finance person, I will 100% attest to that. I'm just trying to understand if this would be beneficial at all, considering the above.)