I was introduced to Zaylore Stout, or Zee as we call him, by a mutual friend. We were at the Soma Street Food Park and our conversation over lunch was mostly political. I recognized that he is a bright and committed progressive.
Flash forward to the tragedy of last November, when the incoherent psychopath that is Donald Trump surprised so many of us by winning a majority of the electoral college. In the days and weeks that followed, it became clear to me that sitting around and complaining isn't enough. We need to do something. But what?
Then I heard that Zee is running for a city council position in his adopted home of St. Louis Park Minnesota. City council? It is a starting point. Ideas, movements, begin at the local level. So do politicians. And he is certainly young enough to begin at that level.
So I looked at my work schedule, I looked at my accrued vacation, and I decided that I could spare a week to knock on doors. So that's where I am now. I have been knocking on doors, and last night I was editing a video of the endorsement he received from the outgoing council member who's seat he is seeking. That is now uploaded to his campaign Facebook and YouTube accounts.
It is time now to go out and knock on some more doors. What are you doing to fight facism?
Tweet
Monday, August 7, 2017
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Link the length of the patents to drug prices
First of all, we all know drug companies do not pour millions of dollars into developing new drugs out of the kindness of their cold, cold hearts. They do it in order to make money. And if they were not such assholes about it, that would be perfectly OK.
All of the stockholders deserve a return on their investment. All of the employees deserve to be paid. The millions of dollars the companies invest need to be recouped, as do the millions spent on drugs that are never successful. Major advances are only made after many failures. All that money has to come from somewhere, and the successes need to pay for that.
So my thought is this. Let's start with a baseline 20 years for a patent. That is the maximum number of years the company can have exclusive rights to their new drug, and it is 20 years after approval. That can become a shorter period of time, based upon how much they charge for the drug.
Now I am not talking about what the price of the drug is, I am talking about the margin, the cost over the cost of manufacturing and the cost of amortizing all of the expenses incurred in developing it. If you recover the cost in less that 10 years, then you lose a year off the patent life for each year before 10 that you pay off that cost.
And after the development costs have been amortized, you are allowed a markup over the cost of production and distribution (which may rise or fall) of 60 percent. If you go over that for two consecutive quarters you lose another year, but you can only lose one year in any 4 quarters. An exception might be if you go over 100 percent for 2 consecutive quarters some kind of tax kicks in.
In the cost that is being amortized, failed projects can be rolled in, but there are a few caveats.
1. The company can split the cost of any failed development effort between more than one successful drug or pay for all of it from one drug. But that total cost can only be assigned once.
2. In order to write off the cost of a failed development effort, any patents on that drug go into public domain.
3. Salaries of the 5 five highest paid employees are not included in those costs. That means the shareholders pay for the CEO's 20 million dollar salary and plus stock options.
I know this isn't perfect and it isn't a complete plan. But it is a new way of looking at things. A patent is issued by the government granting exclusive rights to produce something. Often the foundation of that something was paid for by government grants to basic research. So you and I paid for some of the research and development that went into that drug.
Drug companies need to make a profit, and they need to be willing to fail. They need to be willing to risk their shareholder's money on a possibility. And when they do discover something that is worth bringing to market, they need to be able to recoup the losses of all the failures and somehow come out ahead. The trick is to give them the incentive to do that and still make those drugs affordable.
Tweet
All of the stockholders deserve a return on their investment. All of the employees deserve to be paid. The millions of dollars the companies invest need to be recouped, as do the millions spent on drugs that are never successful. Major advances are only made after many failures. All that money has to come from somewhere, and the successes need to pay for that.
So my thought is this. Let's start with a baseline 20 years for a patent. That is the maximum number of years the company can have exclusive rights to their new drug, and it is 20 years after approval. That can become a shorter period of time, based upon how much they charge for the drug.
Now I am not talking about what the price of the drug is, I am talking about the margin, the cost over the cost of manufacturing and the cost of amortizing all of the expenses incurred in developing it. If you recover the cost in less that 10 years, then you lose a year off the patent life for each year before 10 that you pay off that cost.
And after the development costs have been amortized, you are allowed a markup over the cost of production and distribution (which may rise or fall) of 60 percent. If you go over that for two consecutive quarters you lose another year, but you can only lose one year in any 4 quarters. An exception might be if you go over 100 percent for 2 consecutive quarters some kind of tax kicks in.
In the cost that is being amortized, failed projects can be rolled in, but there are a few caveats.
1. The company can split the cost of any failed development effort between more than one successful drug or pay for all of it from one drug. But that total cost can only be assigned once.
2. In order to write off the cost of a failed development effort, any patents on that drug go into public domain.
3. Salaries of the 5 five highest paid employees are not included in those costs. That means the shareholders pay for the CEO's 20 million dollar salary and plus stock options.
I know this isn't perfect and it isn't a complete plan. But it is a new way of looking at things. A patent is issued by the government granting exclusive rights to produce something. Often the foundation of that something was paid for by government grants to basic research. So you and I paid for some of the research and development that went into that drug.
Drug companies need to make a profit, and they need to be willing to fail. They need to be willing to risk their shareholder's money on a possibility. And when they do discover something that is worth bringing to market, they need to be able to recoup the losses of all the failures and somehow come out ahead. The trick is to give them the incentive to do that and still make those drugs affordable.
Tweet
Sunday, March 12, 2017
How much do they really believe in what they have created?
The right wing of America has finally achieved the holy grail of American politics. They control the house. the senate, and the presidency. Now they will attempt to remake America in their own image.
Of couse my take on this is, we are all screwed. It is a return to the 'good old days' when there were no child labor laws, when the police would attack organized labor, and there were no standards for food or water quality, and whether you were injured by unsafe working conditions on the job or poisened by contaminated food or water, you had no recourse.
So as their signature accomplishment they are preparing to strip away health insurance from many and make it more expensive for many of the rest of us. So if they want to prove to the American people that they are really working in our best interests, there is a very simple solution.
All of congress should make themselves participants in Trumpcare. Eliminate the generous health plan granted to all members of congress and their families, and let them pay for insurance, as individuals, not in a group plan, the way many of the rest of us have been.
You think what you are doing is a great idea? As part of the legislation, take your own medicine.
Of couse my take on this is, we are all screwed. It is a return to the 'good old days' when there were no child labor laws, when the police would attack organized labor, and there were no standards for food or water quality, and whether you were injured by unsafe working conditions on the job or poisened by contaminated food or water, you had no recourse.
So as their signature accomplishment they are preparing to strip away health insurance from many and make it more expensive for many of the rest of us. So if they want to prove to the American people that they are really working in our best interests, there is a very simple solution.
All of congress should make themselves participants in Trumpcare. Eliminate the generous health plan granted to all members of congress and their families, and let them pay for insurance, as individuals, not in a group plan, the way many of the rest of us have been.
You think what you are doing is a great idea? As part of the legislation, take your own medicine.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Can we finally admit that it didn't work?
The experiment has been going on for more than 50 years now. It was obvious that it didn't work after the first 10. I am talking about closing the state mental hospitals and dumping the mentally ill onto the streets. Thus began a flood of homelessness.
The idea sounded good, release them to community based facilities, where they would receive care close to their homes and families, not in the snake pits that many state hospitals had become. But in a short time those community based facilities first became for-profit businesses, squeezing out the treatment part to increase profit margins. Snake pits worse than the state hospitals they were replacing. Then the funding for even those dried up.
What we have today is a patchwork of good, bad, and non-existent treatment, and none of it is designed to address truly long term problems.
There is no cure for schizophrenia. For many, it can be managed with medication, but it doesn't go away.
So those with schizophrenia require life long treatment. Not necessarily life long hospitalization, but neither can they be shoved out into the street with nobody checking in with them, making sure they are taking their medication. We no longer have any system to do that. Unless someone has a rich relative to pay for private hospitalization, they are out of luck.
Not all the homeless are mentally ill. There are runaway teenagers. There are people that used to have a decent job, but our economy has failed them. There are people with substance abuse problems. And even among the mentally ill, there are probably many who with treatment could be re-integrated into society.
Rebuilding the state hospital system is not a cure-all. It doesn't solve all the problems of homelessness and mental illness. But it does something, which is much better than the nothing or almost nothing that we are doing now.
The old system had serious flaws. I hope we have learned what we did wrong in that old system, so we can do better next time. But even with all of it's flaws, it was better than what we have replaced it with.
We tried something else, and it didn't work. Is there anyone who thinks what we are doing now is working better than what it replaced? I mean really, anyone?
For all it's flaws, the state hospital system was a treatment of last resort for many. It is time to bring it back.
Tweet
The idea sounded good, release them to community based facilities, where they would receive care close to their homes and families, not in the snake pits that many state hospitals had become. But in a short time those community based facilities first became for-profit businesses, squeezing out the treatment part to increase profit margins. Snake pits worse than the state hospitals they were replacing. Then the funding for even those dried up.
What we have today is a patchwork of good, bad, and non-existent treatment, and none of it is designed to address truly long term problems.
There is no cure for schizophrenia. For many, it can be managed with medication, but it doesn't go away.
So those with schizophrenia require life long treatment. Not necessarily life long hospitalization, but neither can they be shoved out into the street with nobody checking in with them, making sure they are taking their medication. We no longer have any system to do that. Unless someone has a rich relative to pay for private hospitalization, they are out of luck.
Not all the homeless are mentally ill. There are runaway teenagers. There are people that used to have a decent job, but our economy has failed them. There are people with substance abuse problems. And even among the mentally ill, there are probably many who with treatment could be re-integrated into society.
Rebuilding the state hospital system is not a cure-all. It doesn't solve all the problems of homelessness and mental illness. But it does something, which is much better than the nothing or almost nothing that we are doing now.
The old system had serious flaws. I hope we have learned what we did wrong in that old system, so we can do better next time. But even with all of it's flaws, it was better than what we have replaced it with.
We tried something else, and it didn't work. Is there anyone who thinks what we are doing now is working better than what it replaced? I mean really, anyone?
For all it's flaws, the state hospital system was a treatment of last resort for many. It is time to bring it back.
Tweet
Thursday, September 8, 2016
One more rock and roll
Last Sunday I went to my first stadium rock concert in years. I had been given the ticket by a friend or I wouldn't have gone. Looking at the lineup, well, it wasn't bad but none of the bands were ones I had been dying to see. At least that was what I thought.
The first band, Tower of Power, was pretty good. Next up was The Doobie Brothers. I had never seen them and I had never really thought all that much about them one way or another. As they played, I realized how many songs that I really like are theirs. It is often the case that I enjoy music and never have any idea who the artist is.
The next band was the Steve Miller band. I was most interested in them for some reason, because I had never seen them (I hadn't see Tower of Power or the Doobie Brothers either for that matter) and was curious. They started pretty slow. The first song very perfunctory. The second was a little better and then things picked up and it was a good set.
The fourth band was Santana. I heard them once, a long time ago, as the opening act for the Grateful Dead. For whatever reason I wasn't impressed and was not really looking forward to hearing them again. I was about to be surprised.
The band came out on stage and the drums started. For the next 45 or 50 minutes, they didn't stop. There was no "this next song is", not even a breath of air. Even when the guitars were not playing, the drums were going and the transition from song to song was seamless. Carlos Santana is of course a great guitar player, but the band he has put together was tight and inexhaustible. After that 45 or 50 minutes they finally stopped, said thank you and walked off the stage.
For two minutes the audience applauded, then the drums began again. As the drums played the musicians returned to the stage and they all picked up right where they left off. All the band members got their spots in the light during their 45 minute encore. The highlight was the drummer.
Cindy Blackman was an accomplished jazz drummer long before she joined Santana. And during that drum solo she showed how good she is. While drum solos at rock shows are OK, I have never looked forward to one, never been spellbound by one. This drum solo had 40 thousand people spellbound. When she finally stood up from her drum kit, everyone was on their feet. She got louder applause than any of the bands that preceded the Santana set. And moments after receiving that applause, she was cranking up the beat again, the band picking up right where they left off, churning out song after song.
Journey followed Santana. I kind of felt sorry for any band that had to follow that set. They were OK, but it was Santana that made it a night to remember, made me glad I came.
Tweet
The first band, Tower of Power, was pretty good. Next up was The Doobie Brothers. I had never seen them and I had never really thought all that much about them one way or another. As they played, I realized how many songs that I really like are theirs. It is often the case that I enjoy music and never have any idea who the artist is.
The next band was the Steve Miller band. I was most interested in them for some reason, because I had never seen them (I hadn't see Tower of Power or the Doobie Brothers either for that matter) and was curious. They started pretty slow. The first song very perfunctory. The second was a little better and then things picked up and it was a good set.
The fourth band was Santana. I heard them once, a long time ago, as the opening act for the Grateful Dead. For whatever reason I wasn't impressed and was not really looking forward to hearing them again. I was about to be surprised.
The band came out on stage and the drums started. For the next 45 or 50 minutes, they didn't stop. There was no "this next song is", not even a breath of air. Even when the guitars were not playing, the drums were going and the transition from song to song was seamless. Carlos Santana is of course a great guitar player, but the band he has put together was tight and inexhaustible. After that 45 or 50 minutes they finally stopped, said thank you and walked off the stage.
For two minutes the audience applauded, then the drums began again. As the drums played the musicians returned to the stage and they all picked up right where they left off. All the band members got their spots in the light during their 45 minute encore. The highlight was the drummer.
Cindy Blackman was an accomplished jazz drummer long before she joined Santana. And during that drum solo she showed how good she is. While drum solos at rock shows are OK, I have never looked forward to one, never been spellbound by one. This drum solo had 40 thousand people spellbound. When she finally stood up from her drum kit, everyone was on their feet. She got louder applause than any of the bands that preceded the Santana set. And moments after receiving that applause, she was cranking up the beat again, the band picking up right where they left off, churning out song after song.
Journey followed Santana. I kind of felt sorry for any band that had to follow that set. They were OK, but it was Santana that made it a night to remember, made me glad I came.
Tweet
Monday, November 30, 2015
What's the point?
Over the years there have been more and more seating only music venues, fewer and fewer with an open floor for dancing. I am not talking about night clubs, but places where headliners go to play. And more and more I am starting to think, why bother?
Now there are many acts where I would be happy with theater type seating. I saw Jewel that way. I would enjoy seeing James Taylor or Shawn Colvin that way too. But Bonnie Raitt, Frank Turner, the Rolling Stones? Are you kidding?
I am not saying that rock and roll concerts should have no seats. Most of the people will want to sit down at least some of the time. And some of the people really want to see the show but can't stand up for long periods of time, if at all. We rock and rollers are getting old. But standing in a skinny isle in front of your seat doesn't quite cut it.
A local venue, the Uptown Theater in Napa has booked the Beach Boys (or some remnant of the Beach Boys anyway). It is strictly theater seating, there is no dance floor at all. Who goes to see the Beach Boys with their hands folded neatly in their lap?
I have not been, only seen the layout on their website. And I am sure it is a wonderful venue to listen to a singer/songwriter play their heart out and wring tears from your eye with heartfelt lyrics. If James Taylor were to play there, I would love to go see him. But a rock and roll show? I will have to pass.
Tweet
Now there are many acts where I would be happy with theater type seating. I saw Jewel that way. I would enjoy seeing James Taylor or Shawn Colvin that way too. But Bonnie Raitt, Frank Turner, the Rolling Stones? Are you kidding?
I am not saying that rock and roll concerts should have no seats. Most of the people will want to sit down at least some of the time. And some of the people really want to see the show but can't stand up for long periods of time, if at all. We rock and rollers are getting old. But standing in a skinny isle in front of your seat doesn't quite cut it.
A local venue, the Uptown Theater in Napa has booked the Beach Boys (or some remnant of the Beach Boys anyway). It is strictly theater seating, there is no dance floor at all. Who goes to see the Beach Boys with their hands folded neatly in their lap?
I have not been, only seen the layout on their website. And I am sure it is a wonderful venue to listen to a singer/songwriter play their heart out and wring tears from your eye with heartfelt lyrics. If James Taylor were to play there, I would love to go see him. But a rock and roll show? I will have to pass.
Tweet
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Not the same thing
I have to preface this with a confession. I am a Grammar Nazi. Errors in grammar and usage committed by OTHER PEOPLE make my skin crawl, and I have to bite my tongue to not correct them. I have much more tolerance for my own mistakes.
The other day my wife and I went out for breakfast. Our server was excellent. He didn't disappear for long periods of time, When we asked for something, it was quickly delivered. It was good service and he earned the good tip we gave him.
More than once we asked for something, and his response was "No problem." While that would not be my choice of words it certainly did not cause the aforementioned skin crawling. In that instance it is just a substitute for 'Yes'.
However, when he would deliver something to the table, refill our coffee or water, and one of us would say "Thank you", his response was the same, "No problem". "No problem" is not the same as "You're welcome".
Petty? Of course it is, and yes I am an old fart. I was not particularly polite as a young man but I have grown to appreciate certain niceties that grease the wheels of society. Among those are "please", "thank you" and "you're welcome". While "no problem" could be an acceptable answer to the question "May I have another cup of coffee?", it is not a response to "thank you".
This concludes my petty peeve for the day.
Tweet
The other day my wife and I went out for breakfast. Our server was excellent. He didn't disappear for long periods of time, When we asked for something, it was quickly delivered. It was good service and he earned the good tip we gave him.
More than once we asked for something, and his response was "No problem." While that would not be my choice of words it certainly did not cause the aforementioned skin crawling. In that instance it is just a substitute for 'Yes'.
However, when he would deliver something to the table, refill our coffee or water, and one of us would say "Thank you", his response was the same, "No problem". "No problem" is not the same as "You're welcome".
Petty? Of course it is, and yes I am an old fart. I was not particularly polite as a young man but I have grown to appreciate certain niceties that grease the wheels of society. Among those are "please", "thank you" and "you're welcome". While "no problem" could be an acceptable answer to the question "May I have another cup of coffee?", it is not a response to "thank you".
This concludes my petty peeve for the day.
Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)