Tweet
It's time for those who steal billions and endanger us to face real justice including prison.
-
In the fast lane -
Aside from political stuff, Elizabeth Warren is a truly remarkable individual. Her dad was a janitor and she worked her way up to Rutgers law school. From there, she became a Harvard law professor, which is just incredible. Harvard law professors all come from truly elite schools for the most part, so she had to really stand out just coming from Rutgers.Originally posted by tropicalshox View Post
I've always thought her political stances are interesting. If anyone should be pro-capitalism, believing anyone can work their way up the system, it would be her. -
Like public institutions haven't been passing out worthless degrees for decades......or government stealing social security.
See? I can do it too.Comment
-
An interesting 2014 article I found after discovering Goldman Sachs in part owns Education Management Group.
In the fast laneComment
-
So that makes it all OK or just makes it an even bigger mess?Originally posted by WuDrWu View PostComment
-
Bigger mess.Originally posted by ShockTalk View PostThere are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.Comment
-
I would like an example from Ms Warren of a CEO who is "stealing billions" without being charged.
More likely is that well connected business leaders are able to lobby for highly complex rules and regulations that give themselves an advantage in the marketplace.
If Ms Warren would like to expose the entire corrupt system of pay-to-play between crony capitalists and politicians, more power to her.
But complaining about people who are using the law to their advantage is disingenuous."Don't measure yourself by what you have accomplished, but by what you should accomplish with your ability."
-John WoodenComment
-
Examples are in her report.In the fast laneComment
-
I'm guessing they're no more damming than the example of the for-profit college?Originally posted by tropicalshox View Post
They were charged and paid a fine.
Without looking it up, I'm going out on a limb and say the judge and the prosecutor are registered Democrats who give the max to Progressive candidates.Last edited by wu_shizzle; January 30, 2016, 02:38 PM."Don't measure yourself by what you have accomplished, but by what you should accomplish with your ability."
-John WoodenComment
-
It doesn't take.much time to read her report.In the fast laneComment
-
I made it to the first paragraph of her report: "Laws are effective only to the extent they are enforced.
A law on the books has little impact if prosecution is
highly unlikely."
Then my mind wandered and I wondered what her stance is on dealing with illegal immigrants.
Then I began thinking about cheesebugers. And bacon.Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!Comment
-
Well, many are more interested in cheeseburgers and whatever.In the fast laneComment
-
I read up on Novartis (one of those evil companies). They settled out of court for $400 million. The law they broke was that they incentivized pharmacies to help keep patients on a medicine they had already been prescribed by doctors that were not being incentivized.
That's basically capitalism and is good for the patient. I honestly see over-regulation as the issue here.Livin the dreamComment
-
You should do a little more reading. 1. Their kickback scheme required pharmacies to gloss over the potentially life threatening side effects. 2. How can it be good for the patient to have a secret kickback scheme that gets pharmacies to recommend a certain drug to them? If it were a necessary drug, capitalism would have no role. Doctors would just prescribe it. 3. The kickback scheme also required the pharmacies to recommend doctors prescribe it more often. And 4. You also mention that the medicine was prescribed already. But if you think ads, etc. have no impact on the sales of prescription drugs, you're being naive. Why would pfizer pay for so many ads if it didn't have an impact? A pharmacy recommending a drug causes more people to request it which means it gets prescribed more.Originally posted by wufan View Post
Capitalism may have a role in medicine. I get the argument for R&D. But you're on the wrong side of this one. Novartis is a bad company, and they paid a tenth of what they should have.Comment
-
1. The drug I saw they were recommending was for post transplant surgery recovery. Those have nasty side-effects, but the drug was approved by the FDA as safe. They weren't feeding them cyanide disguised as Tylenol. Minimizing side-effects is an interesting issue. I'm curious what this means, how it was tracked, and how it was incentivized. Covering up side-effects is certainly amoral, but I'm not quite convinced they did anymore than just list 25 of the 30 side-effects. Ever been to the pharmacist and then Check the side-effects on line. Did he give you a full list verbally?
2. It was a necessary drug. In fact, patients that fail to take it after a transplant risk rejection of the organ. The pharmacists were encouraging the patients to get refills and stay on the life saving drug they were already prescribed. There was a competitor drug. You have to be on one or the other or you will have a high likelihood of death
3/4. I understand that piece. Why can't a pharmacist recommend a drug to a patient or physician? I do not see this as a moral conflict.Livin the dreamComment
Comment