Daily Archives: December 3, 2007

Most profitable

Posted on by

Another topic of conversation during the super-smart-and-successful employed girls of the girls night was the state of health care.

Someone was mortified that our civilized country would allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise. She contended that they were already the most profitable industry ever.

I narrowed my eyes. “I don’t think that’s true.”

“Yes it is!” she said. She had read several books about it.

A smart and successful approach to the problem is to read books about it. And it is more than the casual interest, quite obviously, because it takes work to read it.

but it also takes work to write such a book. And I am suspicious of that…I hear in the distance the sound of an axe grinding.

So, I want to research which companies are the most profitable. Fortune magazine gives a list.

Johnson&Johnson are at #11…but I think they are more focussed on shampoo than finding the new viagra…Pfizer is #15…that’s a drug company for sure.

I wonder what criteria those books use? Here’s a site that says they are the most profitable. He cites 2001…When my link above cites 2005.

2001 was a bad year for many many companies…Maybe not the best year to pick for judging profitability across the board. Then again, it depends on what you are trying to prove. Maybe if you want to say they are the most profitable, then it is the best year to pick. 2001 is the year you would be RIGHT!

Profitability is tricky. I mean, Enron looked extremely profitable, until it didn’t.

What’s the deal here? Do we want to be right, or do we want to solve a problem? I personally don’t care to be right, I care to be better off.

The people i know that work in the pharmaceutical industry tell me that the research and development of new drugs all get paid for out of american pockets. That the r&d wouldn’t happen if they didn’t get the money back from the USA.

is that true? they are insiders, but might be skewed to favor their viewpoint too.

As far as I know, all the big companies are international. Wikipedia has a list. They seem to indicate that all the comopanies are based in some nationality.

But trade being what it is, surely they all sell to america. The word on the street that the USA pays for the R&D could be true.

And maybe that’s not fair. The EU and Canada should shoulder their part! All the rich nations should be penalized equally!

then again, maybe they are penalized by not getting the good pills. I don’t know. It is most intriguing.

I have heard it said that the problem with Big Pharma’s profitabiliyt expecations is with the regulations required to get the goods on the market. That the FDA is so darn picky, and can change teh requirements at any time, meaning that Big Pharma might have to undergo big expensive changes to their testing causing delays. That means that they must build into their pricing very high profit levels, on the chance that they might have to do that kind of silly thing.

Of course, the source of this “de regulate!” message is awfully libertarian. So maybe they are skewing the facts to support their beliefs.

The R&D for drugs is not a sure thing. There are all kidns of experiments that are dead ends. That’s what it takes to find the good stuff. Try, try and expensive try again.

In the same way that the scientists must look around to find the cure for cancer or aids or MS, shouldn’t we be scientific and open minded about finding the cure for our not-optimal health-care system?

let’s look at the situation, and poke at it in various ways without assuming the answer pre-poke. it’s a large complicated system. who knows what might be the right action?

socialization

Posted on by

I went ice skating this weekend. It is part of a girl’s night my fabulous socially organizing-type friend is doing.

There are a lot of girls that could be part of the girls’ night. But this is the second girls night, and we are capping out at four. They are not all the same girls. It’s a rotating cast of people that can manage to come.

At our dinner afterwards, Kim (the organizer) brought something up. She has a roommate, a mostly employed actor, and he asked her what she was doing.

“Girls night”

“Oh, I’m having a dinner party, I was gonna tell you to come.”

This dinner party was organized about 2 days prior. They expected about 40 people to show.

OUR girls night had been organized MONTHS ago, but only four people (and only two for the whole time) came.

I suggested that maybe roommate’s JOB is to draw an audience, and that is why all these people come. He pulls a crowd, and that is what makes him employed as an actor.

Someone else suggested that maybe it’s because all his unemployed actor buddies are quite up for anything at the drop of a hat. He KNOWS a bunch of people with free time.

We girls were not full of free time.

So, It makes me think. How do people end up being friends with people these days? Myspace and Facebook are not really full of friends. Not the sort of friends you see and hang out with.

It’s tough, once you get successful and responsible, to maintain the friends. That’s why I admire Kim greatly for helping. I know it takes time for her to organize our girls nights.

Somehow I think we forget to give ourselves and fun times a priority. It gets pushed back, lower down on the list. FIRST we have to get to work and FIRST we have to go take the class and FIRST we have to…

but we can’t seem to find a second.

I know that once people have kids, they seem to grow a social life again. I’ve seen elaborate birthday parties for three year olds that have more adults than kids.

I guess if you hang out with poeple who are full of free time, then you can have friends. Like the employed actor. but those of us who are more than mostly employed…well…we like hanging out with other ambitious people. And people like that take 2..3…4…10 tries before you can actually spend the time.