I was originally going to make Number 4 "Healthcare" but quickly realized it would become to big and unwieldy to read or write about so decided to just pick on 1 healthcare specific for each post, this is the first.
As we become older we rely on more and more drugs to keep us healthy, some of the most common are those that regulate our blood pressure for example ( Atenolol ) and ( Lipitor ) to regulate our cholesterol, the list of others is endless so I will just say these are but the tip of the iceberg.
Whats Changed
1. Increased use of drugs to prevent heart attacks etc.
2. The American Health care system pays more for Pharmaceuticals than just about any other country in the world
3. Pharmaceutical Companies are granted 10 years plus to recover R and D costs, but somehow manage to gain multiple years extra in the US to milk it for all it's worth.
Below is an example of how the previous standards have fallen apart due to pressure / corruption / lobbying call it what you like
A great example is Lipitor ( Atorvastatin ) which is marketed by Pfizer an American Pharmaceutical corporation, as a standard Pharmaceutical Companies have up to 12 years of exclusive use to help pay back the huge costs involved in research and development before generics can be developed.
5 years ago Lipitor should have been allowed to be produced as a generic but for some unknown reason only in the United States Pfizer kept control and stopped Generic equivalents being produced, not only that they had the cheek and got away with increasing the cost by more than 30% in the US market during the last 5 years, ( What happened to the department put in place to protect the public from this type of thing ) .
In theory any society that was looking at saving healthcare costs Lipitor ( Atorvastatin ) should have been available in it's generic form on May 30th 2006 but it looks like deals within deals within deals means the public and the US heathcare industry will continue to pay close to the full price for another 6 months till the middle of next year $350 per month about $35 in copay
In the UK, Canada, Australia Lipitor costs have been less than $100 per month with even larger discounts to National Health Services
So the only country that is stitched with high prices is the same country that payed out the large tax incentives from the US tax payer they received while the drug was in development.
Lipitor is just one example where America pays more than any other country for the same drugs produced by the same companies because of
You tell me why that is ?
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Whats Changed ** Number 3 Elections **
It would be easy when talking about the election process to consider we have not seen changes ,
the same basic premise still applies that has for years, potential candidates are required to stand in a fair and free election for the right to represent the people who elect them, this applies to all forms of Government.
Whats Changed
More than we realize
1. Most elections now require formal Proof of ID
2. Voting District Boundaries are changed and put in place by those currently in power hoping to give them an edge in the demographics for the next set of elections
3. The amount of money spent during elections has increased by higher and higher multiples each election cycle, these increases have happened in both direct by the party / Candidate and indirect via non disclosed groups of supporters
So how do these changes influence Election Results
1a. By requiring Formal Proof of ID it is likely to most effect the lowest earners in society who will be less likely to vote. ( Little real wide spread impact if the country wants major change )
My own view on this is formal proof of ID should have been written in from the very beginning to stop voter fraud so although this has had and will continue to have an effect, the gains I believe outweigh the losses.
2a The Voting District Boundaries have been used for many years, the difference now is that due to increased computing power for analysis it is much more likely to be effective in it's goals. ( Little real wide spread impact if the country wants major change )
3a "Money has equaled Power" and "Power has equaled Money" for as long as we have had politics, but Money used for mass advertising to the electorate can and does make a difference in results.
Just think of why companies advertise a brand of detergent because it works
With the large increases required to mount a political campaign it is now impossible to compete unless you have millions of dollars in both direct contributions or you know organisations will run adds that will help your campaign directly or indirectly, these type of $$$$$$ are impossible to get from the ordinary voter which leaves the potential candidate ( Whichever Party ) only one option to get it from Big Business , Now the reality is Big Business are not charities so if they are donating hundreds of thousands of $$$$$ either directly or indirectly it is not because they are super caring but because they hope to get something back in return.
You may wonder sometimes why the media has not picked up on this and exposed the issues , pretty easy answer ( Media relies on Advertising for profits so highly unlikely they will highlight the problems ).
So who is mostly affected by this major change ( The General Voting Public ) because it is more likely the representative you elect will support or not support bills, changes etc. that reflect his / her large donors than the voters he represents ( If he or she doesn't support those donors) they will not get the funds required next time round to seek election.
The other direct outcome of the current election funding and the increase in advertising is the growth of negative advertising of candidates rather than positive advertising.
So if those in power do or don't admit it, they are no longer "Of the people by the people for the people" but better described as "Of the people by the people for whoever paid the most money to secure their future"
The influx of money causes major wide spread impact if the country wanted major change, if you spend enough on negative campaigns about the opposition party pretty soon those who wanted change can be convinced the opposition is no better .
I would be interested to hear from those who agree or disagree with my views, I have tried to keep these non political i.e. party based because I do not think they are primarily party related.
the same basic premise still applies that has for years, potential candidates are required to stand in a fair and free election for the right to represent the people who elect them, this applies to all forms of Government.
Whats Changed
More than we realize
1. Most elections now require formal Proof of ID
2. Voting District Boundaries are changed and put in place by those currently in power hoping to give them an edge in the demographics for the next set of elections
3. The amount of money spent during elections has increased by higher and higher multiples each election cycle, these increases have happened in both direct by the party / Candidate and indirect via non disclosed groups of supporters
So how do these changes influence Election Results
1a. By requiring Formal Proof of ID it is likely to most effect the lowest earners in society who will be less likely to vote. ( Little real wide spread impact if the country wants major change )
My own view on this is formal proof of ID should have been written in from the very beginning to stop voter fraud so although this has had and will continue to have an effect, the gains I believe outweigh the losses.
2a The Voting District Boundaries have been used for many years, the difference now is that due to increased computing power for analysis it is much more likely to be effective in it's goals. ( Little real wide spread impact if the country wants major change )
3a "Money has equaled Power" and "Power has equaled Money" for as long as we have had politics, but Money used for mass advertising to the electorate can and does make a difference in results.
Just think of why companies advertise a brand of detergent because it works
With the large increases required to mount a political campaign it is now impossible to compete unless you have millions of dollars in both direct contributions or you know organisations will run adds that will help your campaign directly or indirectly, these type of $$$$$$ are impossible to get from the ordinary voter which leaves the potential candidate ( Whichever Party ) only one option to get it from Big Business , Now the reality is Big Business are not charities so if they are donating hundreds of thousands of $$$$$ either directly or indirectly it is not because they are super caring but because they hope to get something back in return.
You may wonder sometimes why the media has not picked up on this and exposed the issues , pretty easy answer ( Media relies on Advertising for profits so highly unlikely they will highlight the problems ).
So who is mostly affected by this major change ( The General Voting Public ) because it is more likely the representative you elect will support or not support bills, changes etc. that reflect his / her large donors than the voters he represents ( If he or she doesn't support those donors) they will not get the funds required next time round to seek election.
The other direct outcome of the current election funding and the increase in advertising is the growth of negative advertising of candidates rather than positive advertising.
So if those in power do or don't admit it, they are no longer "Of the people by the people for the people" but better described as "Of the people by the people for whoever paid the most money to secure their future"
The influx of money causes major wide spread impact if the country wanted major change, if you spend enough on negative campaigns about the opposition party pretty soon those who wanted change can be convinced the opposition is no better .
I would be interested to hear from those who agree or disagree with my views, I have tried to keep these non political i.e. party based because I do not think they are primarily party related.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Whats Changed ** Number 2 Student Protests **
I chose this subject next because we have seen what started as student protests and attracted the general population to support the protest have sometimes changed dictator based regimes .
Over the last 30 or so years we have seen how political protests often started by students for a cause that is just and correct has changed society
These range from the protests in South Africa against apartheid segregation that combined with political support from around the world with sanctions against South Africa to force change
To the latest where protests started in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya as part of the "Arab Spring" against dictator regimes drew support from the ordinary working man and woman plus political, media and popular support from around the world leading to the overthrow of the corrupt regimes.
Some are still going on in
Syria is one example and currently those in power have used force using the Police, Army and who ever else to squash the protests.
Israel is a second example where hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets to protest Social Inequality, this is still ongoing
Some have failed a number of times for example in Burma where each time the protests have been squashed
We send our kids off to University to broaden their horizons, provide them with the knowledge to make informed decisions and hopefully and most important the higher education needed to find decent payed careers which will allow them to pay back high levels of student loans required to finish their degrees.
Whats Changed
Occupy Wall Street / We are the 99% protests
For the first time since The Vietnam War students in the United States took to the streets in large numbers during the Occupy Wall Street and the We are the 99% protests, in general from everything I have seen and read they have protested peacefully.
Their gripes ranged from large Student loans with poor job prospects to Wall Street Bailouts to the current inequality in our society between the 1% and the other 99% . What is interesting is the number of ordinary working men and women that were beginning to show support for the protests. It is scary in many ways that as soon as larger numbers of the General Populace were seen to be showing support the protests have been squashed using the Police.
Unlike media support for the Arab Spring Uprisings our media has done everything to discredit them
I did not see the media change the name of the Libya Arab Spring Uprising to LAS for example but the media has changed the name of these protests to OWS ( Occupy Wall Street ) .
It is also interesting that there is little media coverage in the United States of the social justice protests in Israel which included hundreds of thousands of protesters but wide coverage of Arab Spring protests.
The "Israeli Social Justice Protests" are essentially the same as the "We are the 99% protests" and "The Arab Spring Protests" protesting about the inequality of wealth distribution between the haves and the have nots.
The big question on my mind is now that force and the law has been used to squash these protests in the United States is will they disappear as those in power are hoping or will they re-appear in a more violent form due to frustration. My personal hope is that frustration does not lead to a more violent style of demonstration as they will lose the increasing support of the general populace.
I feel for the students. it must be frustrating to do "the right thing" go off to college to enhance your career prospects and while studying build up student loans ranging from $10,000 to $75,000 only to find no decent paying jobs when you have finished and obtained your degree. College education fees ( and the loans required ) have increased exponentially over the last few years as state and Federal Funding has decreased in real terms. Colleges and Universities have also increased fees significantly more than inflation. Those that talk about kids working their way through college have little idea of the challenges facing these kids.
One further comment over the last 30 years the parents of these kids have less disposable income available so are less able to help.
A Question for the readers
Should the students be allowed to protest peacefully against what they feel are injustices in our society ?
Over the last 30 or so years we have seen how political protests often started by students for a cause that is just and correct has changed society
These range from the protests in South Africa against apartheid segregation that combined with political support from around the world with sanctions against South Africa to force change
To the latest where protests started in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya as part of the "Arab Spring" against dictator regimes drew support from the ordinary working man and woman plus political, media and popular support from around the world leading to the overthrow of the corrupt regimes.
Some are still going on in
Syria is one example and currently those in power have used force using the Police, Army and who ever else to squash the protests.
Israel is a second example where hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets to protest Social Inequality, this is still ongoing
Some have failed a number of times for example in Burma where each time the protests have been squashed
We send our kids off to University to broaden their horizons, provide them with the knowledge to make informed decisions and hopefully and most important the higher education needed to find decent payed careers which will allow them to pay back high levels of student loans required to finish their degrees.
Whats Changed
Occupy Wall Street / We are the 99% protests
For the first time since The Vietnam War students in the United States took to the streets in large numbers during the Occupy Wall Street and the We are the 99% protests, in general from everything I have seen and read they have protested peacefully.
Their gripes ranged from large Student loans with poor job prospects to Wall Street Bailouts to the current inequality in our society between the 1% and the other 99% . What is interesting is the number of ordinary working men and women that were beginning to show support for the protests. It is scary in many ways that as soon as larger numbers of the General Populace were seen to be showing support the protests have been squashed using the Police.
Unlike media support for the Arab Spring Uprisings our media has done everything to discredit them
I did not see the media change the name of the Libya Arab Spring Uprising to LAS for example but the media has changed the name of these protests to OWS ( Occupy Wall Street ) .
It is also interesting that there is little media coverage in the United States of the social justice protests in Israel which included hundreds of thousands of protesters but wide coverage of Arab Spring protests.
The "Israeli Social Justice Protests" are essentially the same as the "We are the 99% protests" and "The Arab Spring Protests" protesting about the inequality of wealth distribution between the haves and the have nots.
The big question on my mind is now that force and the law has been used to squash these protests in the United States is will they disappear as those in power are hoping or will they re-appear in a more violent form due to frustration. My personal hope is that frustration does not lead to a more violent style of demonstration as they will lose the increasing support of the general populace.
I feel for the students. it must be frustrating to do "the right thing" go off to college to enhance your career prospects and while studying build up student loans ranging from $10,000 to $75,000 only to find no decent paying jobs when you have finished and obtained your degree. College education fees ( and the loans required ) have increased exponentially over the last few years as state and Federal Funding has decreased in real terms. Colleges and Universities have also increased fees significantly more than inflation. Those that talk about kids working their way through college have little idea of the challenges facing these kids.
One further comment over the last 30 years the parents of these kids have less disposable income available so are less able to help.
A Question for the readers
Should the students be allowed to protest peacefully against what they feel are injustices in our society ?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Whats Changed ** Number 1 Tax Avoidance **
Sorry about change of direction of Midwest Horse but it is something I wanted to say
Tax Avoidance by Corporations and Large Companies
For as long as there have been taxes Corporations have employed accountants and lawyers to find Tax Loopholes, that is what big business has always done and will always do.
How it's worked up till the last 20 years or so in America and around the rest of the world
1. A way of paying less tax is found by corporations
2. Corporations use the tax loophole to pay less tax
3. The tax authorities spend the next two years working with the elected government to close the loophole
4. 2 years later a Bi-Partisan supported bill closes the loophole
5. It starts all over again
What's Changed
Over the last 20 to 30 years the number of lobbying firms and lobbyists representing big business has increased in Washington and State Capitals with the sole purpose of buying influence in the corridors of power and stopping bills passing that affect companies bottom lines ( I.E. Profit ) .
Just one of the consequences has been the slowing down of closing Tax Loopholes allowing more and wider ranging tax Avoidance.
Most of the gains over the last few years for large multi nationals tax avoidance is to use multiple offshore corps and shell companies to push profit around the world to the lowest tax countries and end up Earning Multiple Billions of Dollars in profits in some of the smallest countries in the world.
The Effect on the working man and woman.
When any section of society pays less tax ( In this case big business ) other sections of society need to pay more taxes in the form of sales taxes, property taxes, Income taxes, Gas Taxes, Beer Taxes etc. etc.
This is the first in a series of posts highlighting the changes as I see them let me know what you think
Steve
Tax Avoidance by Corporations and Large Companies
For as long as there have been taxes Corporations have employed accountants and lawyers to find Tax Loopholes, that is what big business has always done and will always do.
How it's worked up till the last 20 years or so in America and around the rest of the world
1. A way of paying less tax is found by corporations
2. Corporations use the tax loophole to pay less tax
3. The tax authorities spend the next two years working with the elected government to close the loophole
4. 2 years later a Bi-Partisan supported bill closes the loophole
5. It starts all over again
What's Changed
Over the last 20 to 30 years the number of lobbying firms and lobbyists representing big business has increased in Washington and State Capitals with the sole purpose of buying influence in the corridors of power and stopping bills passing that affect companies bottom lines ( I.E. Profit ) .
Just one of the consequences has been the slowing down of closing Tax Loopholes allowing more and wider ranging tax Avoidance.
Most of the gains over the last few years for large multi nationals tax avoidance is to use multiple offshore corps and shell companies to push profit around the world to the lowest tax countries and end up Earning Multiple Billions of Dollars in profits in some of the smallest countries in the world.
The Effect on the working man and woman.
When any section of society pays less tax ( In this case big business ) other sections of society need to pay more taxes in the form of sales taxes, property taxes, Income taxes, Gas Taxes, Beer Taxes etc. etc.
This is the first in a series of posts highlighting the changes as I see them let me know what you think
Steve
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)