2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I have worked in the healthcare industry for the past decade.  As someone who is intimately familiar with the structure and organization of today's pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, I cannot see how we could expect future innovation if we capped profits.  On average, it takes 10 years and upwards of a billion dollars to bring a new therapy to market and less than 10% of compounds entering the clinical development process make it through to approval.  If it wasn't for the motivation to profit, would these companies even bother to do this work?  I doubt it.

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context

The notion that the state should somehow decide how much a person can afford to pay for housing is completely absurd. While they?re at it, perhaps the state should also decide if an individual or couple can afford to have another child or that new Lexus SUV in the driveway. Socialism anyone?

What about personal responsibility for one?s own financial situation? Unless it can be proven that a given lender misrepresented the terms of the loan or otherwise committed fraudulent acts to deceive the borrower, the ultimate responsibility for that loan still lies with the borrower. Neither lenders nor the government should be responsible for the stupidity of those who finds themselves in dire straits as a result of poor loans. I have very little sympathy for borrowers who did not fully understand the loan program they were entering into because they either didn?t do their homework, plan for a rainy day or blindly trusted their mortgage broker.

Unfortunately, the problems of the financially ignorant have become our collective problem as we watch our own home vales stagnate and even fall in some areas. But what?s the solution? The federal government?s current plan just delays the inevitable.

Maybe we should consider a 21st century reprise of the WPA. In exchange for taxpayer bail out of their loans, the debtors are conscripted into public service improving life for all Americans.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context