NPR: The Disability-Industrial Complex

[harmless]

Yeah, so it looks like the anti-welfare propaganda is heading to the States. And why not, it's working so well here.

What's interesting to me is hearing this story broadcast on the radio (the link on the op is pretty much a transcript of the broadcast word for word) the tone wasn't anti welfare or deminizing of these people at all. Seems to be the opposite of what people are taking away from it in a different medium.

NPR isn't known for anti-welfare propaganda. At least part of this story is a partial explanation of why the unemployment rate isn't higher and why the labor participation rate is so low. The states have been doing their darndest to dump people from unemployment to (federal) disability coverage. The difference for the individuals involved is that its riskier returning to the workforce after being on disability than on unemployment.

Yeah, I'm happy with those points. I've just got my back up. It's a terrible situation here and 'scroungerphobia' is at umnprecedented levels, which makes you feel pretty constantly paranoid and falsely 'guilty' even if you're a genuine, life-long claimant. A lot of people are looking on us with suspicion just because of the extremely few.

[simple schoolboy]

We don't have a catch-all healthcare thread so I'll just put this here. I rarely watch live TV (in this case cable) but it strikes me that the majority of ads are pharmaceutical or medical device oriented. Is this an indication of an out of control medical industry or is it just that retirees are the only ones to watch tv without the filter of a dvr/ internet service?

[Electromatic]

Both. The pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than research.

[broken iris]

We don't have a catch-all healthcare thread so I'll just put this here. I rarely watch live TV (in this case cable) but it strikes me that the majority of ads are pharmaceutical or medical device oriented. Is this an indication of an out of control medical industry or is it just that retirees are the only ones to watch tv without the filter of a dvr/ internet service?

I think it's partially because of drug patent laws. Pharmaceutical companies only have on average seven to ten years after development and approval to make money before a generic can become legally available, so they need to saturate the market with 'awareness' of the product causing both doctors and patients have an ingrained reaction to buy when they hear "a-fib" or "RA".

I think mod-God B used to work in this area or something similar, maybe he could enlighten us.

And yes, we should have a general "Merica, why you no ban sick" thread now that we are about to reap the fruits of the Afford Care Act.

[simple schoolboy]

Pharmaceuticals get 7 years of copyright protection while plays and musicals get 70. Why that is the case I'm not really sure.

[Green Habit]

Pharmaceuticals get 7 years of copyright protection while plays and musicals get 70. Why that is the case I'm not really sure.

Dear god, this is always such a great point.

[simple schoolboy]

Pharmaceuticals get 7 years of copyright protection while plays and musicals get 70. Why that is the case I'm not really sure.

Dear god, this is always such a great point.

A boy can hope that copyright reform can be a bi-partisan endeavor, right? Unless the purpose of copyrighting is to enrich the estates of long-dead writers, in which case it's working splendidly.

[Green Habit]

Pharmaceuticals get 7 years of copyright protection while plays and musicals get 70. Why that is the case I'm not really sure.

Dear god, this is always such a great point.

A boy can hope that copyright reform can be a bi-partisan endeavor, right? Unless the purpose of copyrighting is to enrich the estates of long-dead writers, in which case it's working splendidly.

One of my top ten most hated SCOTUS cases that is still binding precedent is Eldred v. Ashcroft:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html

If I was on SCOTUS, I would work my darnedest to get four other justices to agree on an interpretation of the Copyright Clause that would limit copyrights to the life of the author(s). Any "plus decades of years" bullshit should be struck down.

[simple schoolboy]

Pharmaceuticals get 7 years of copyright protection while plays and musicals get 70. Why that is the case I'm not really sure.

Dear god, this is always such a great point.

A boy can hope that copyright reform can be a bi-partisan endeavor, right? Unless the purpose of copyrighting is to enrich the estates of long-dead writers, in which case it's working splendidly.

One of my top ten most hated SCOTUS cases that is still binding precedent is Eldred v. Ashcroft:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html

If I was on SCOTUS, I would work my darnedest to get four other justices to agree on an interpretation of the Copyright Clause that would limit copyrights to the life of the author(s). Any "plus decades of years" bullshit should be struck down.

You're just jealous that you aren't in charge of Rodgers' and/ or Hammerstein's estates. A gold mine for the former till 2049, and 2030 for the latter presuming the 70 years after death holds.