4 ms·

>Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society. This seems like one of the most cleanly horizontally divided opinions in all of the US - w

>Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society. This seems like one of the most cleanly horizontally divided opinions in all of the US - where nearly everybody agrees loudly and strongly with it except the wealthy and powerful. I wish a presidential candidate would have the balls to echo this severe but obviously popular thought and fix the fucking system with extreme prejudice.

foolbiter 7y ago
There are at least two currently-running candidates who do seem have the balls to directly confront the pharma industry! Why do you think there aren't?
- slenk 7y ago
  There are 20-some people running...I wouldn't call them a presidential candidate yet...more like presidential hopefuls. And because big pharma seems to always win.
  - mars4rp 7y ago
    they win because not enough people care!
  - r00fus 7y ago
    They are technically all candidates. The winner of the primary is a nominee. Pharma gets what they pay for. Vote for someone who isn't beholden to them.
    - slenk 7y ago
      Yeah, but after continuing to vote for people that don't have backing and therefore never have a chance to start really is starting to feel like I am wasting my vote. Hell, because of the Electoral College, my vote ultimately doesn't count if it isn't what the whole state picks.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  Because the people that will likely win the nomination will almost certainly have big money, to include Big Pharma, behind them. Ads, research, propaganda, and aggressive ground games work, but they need money. Like multi-national corp or nation-state level money[1]. Hilary had some uncomfortable ties to Wall Street -- she was a Senator from NY, mind you -- and the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz picked up a lot of Budweiser money by scrapping any DNC talk of Marijuana Legalization (DWS has long battle MJ Legalization in Florida, so she's been taking their money for a while, or was a sympathetic bribe for Alcohol). But I could have lived with that in exchange for working health care and sane foreign policy. [1] see also: the russian firehose of propaganda -- https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
sverige 7y ago
Trump's proposal to make pharmaceutical pricing transparent is the biggest step in the right direction in a very long time. But I get it, 'orange man bad' and all that.
- cco 7y ago
  I think this is needlessly inflammatory. I agree with Trump on this and I’m sure many here do as well. No one has yet said, “orange man bad” so we shouldn’t conjure up that bug bear until it happens, it detracts from good faith conversation.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  Why play the victim before anybody has attacked you? I agree, that's my favorite thing he's done. He can be a bad orange man on the par too.
refurb 7y ago
I think you’ve got a very skewed view of the US population if you think it’s clearly divided populous on this issue.

foolbiter 7y ago

There are at least two currently-running candidates who do seem have the balls to directly confront the pharma industry! Why do you think there aren't?

slenk 7y ago
There are 20-some people running...I wouldn't call them a presidential candidate yet...more like presidential hopefuls. And because big pharma seems to always win.
- mars4rp 7y ago
  they win because not enough people care!
- r00fus 7y ago
  They are technically all candidates. The winner of the primary is a nominee. Pharma gets what they pay for. Vote for someone who isn't beholden to them.
  - slenk 7y ago
    Yeah, but after continuing to vote for people that don't have backing and therefore never have a chance to start really is starting to feel like I am wasting my vote. Hell, because of the Electoral College, my vote ultimately doesn't count if it isn't what the whole state picks.
blaser-waffle 7y ago
Because the people that will likely win the nomination will almost certainly have big money, to include Big Pharma, behind them. Ads, research, propaganda, and aggressive ground games work, but they need money. Like multi-national corp or nation-state level money[1]. Hilary had some uncomfortable ties to Wall Street -- she was a Senator from NY, mind you -- and the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz picked up a lot of Budweiser money by scrapping any DNC talk of Marijuana Legalization (DWS has long battle MJ Legalization in Florida, so she's been taking their money for a while, or was a sympathetic bribe for Alcohol). But I could have lived with that in exchange for working health care and sane foreign policy. [1] see also: the russian firehose of propaganda -- https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

sverige 7y ago

Trump's proposal to make pharmaceutical pricing transparent is the biggest step in the right direction in a very long time. But I get it, 'orange man bad' and all that.

cco 7y ago
I think this is needlessly inflammatory. I agree with Trump on this and I’m sure many here do as well. No one has yet said, “orange man bad” so we shouldn’t conjure up that bug bear until it happens, it detracts from good faith conversation.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
happytoexplain 7y ago
Why play the victim before anybody has attacked you? I agree, that's my favorite thing he's done. He can be a bad orange man on the par too.

refurb 7y ago

I think you’ve got a very skewed view of the US population if you think it’s clearly divided populous on this issue.