Even granting the questionable success of the legislation, it is wrong, on principle, to have the government incentivize private entites. This is so even if it means that the incentive would lead to the production of orphan drugs.
Note that a patent does not grant a right, it merely uses government power, i.e., the authority of the law courts, to secure a right acquired by a patent holder. In this scenario, the government is reduced to being a dispassionate arbiter that protects rights against force or fraud. This is the only type of government intervention that should exist in a free society.
The government incentive that has been created here exists because the potential market for these drugs is considered not great enough to make a profit. However, the business decision not to produce such drugs because the market is too small is one that need not be "remedied" by government intervention. Instead, a truly free market would allocate R&D resources for those drugs that can make the largest possible profit, i.e., those with the biggest potential market. As for orphan drugs, the appropriate free market response would be to allow drug manufacturers--who have earned the aforementioned large profits in the marketplace--to voluntarily consider whether to apply some of those profits to R&D for these drugs (this would be similar to the way that large law firms have associates that work on 'pro bono' or reduced fee cases). If so, then the problem is dealt with privately, and the unique goodwill that such a venture would produce is a further incentive for this response. If not, then at least the most pressing medical problems that can be ameliorated/cured by drugs, i.e., those diseases that strike the largest segment of the population thereby creating the largest possible market, will offer a natural incentive for drug manufacturers. Resultingly, the greatest number of individuals will then profit from the availability of these drugs.

Although the ultimate question of whether there is a net social benefit to the Orphan Drug Act is murky, it's existence could prove useful to economists interested in optimizing patent term length. In particular, if seven years of perfect exclusivity is enough to encourage a significant amount of new investment in _rare_ disease treatment, one wonders whether seventeen years is far too long. Even the compromises struck by the Hatch-Waxman Act look excessively favorable to drug companies.

Posner makes a very interesting point with respect for the potential to for resources committed to orphan drugs to be used for other more socially valuable investments -- for example, investments into drugs that treat more common diseases.

Of course, the analysis is tricky, and I am sure that Posner is aware that he has only barely scratched the surface.

The first thing that Posner's analysis assumes is that there is some sort of competition for limited resources -- that resources not invested in orphan drugs would be available for something else. This sounds right, but it needs some careful thought.

First, what other things would funds not invested in orphan drugs be invested in? If instead of orphan drugs, those funds were used to finance, say, pornography or luxury yaughts, then the new allocation from changing the law would make society worse off. Drugs, even those which merely alleviate symptoms and delay the inevitable, might provide extreme utility to the recipients. The utility provided by such drugs may very well exceed even the monopoly inflated prices - but the user may be unable to pay without insurance. Of course, one's utility from consuming a product is not limited by mere ability to pay - and one cannot plausible say that, say Bill Gates enjoys more utility from consuming a luxury yaught than someone suffering from a disease suffers gains from having horrible symptoms alleviated. That being said, I am not necessarily defending increased allocations for orphan drugs, only noting that this is an important question. It could be that funds, instead of being diverted from pornography or luxury yaughts, are instead being diverted from research and development in other drugs. This would be the strongest argument against orphan drugs, rather than the suggestion that the funds would be better invested in the market in general. In any case, the key question is this: what exactly will funds not invested in orphan drugs be invested in? Only with that question answered are we really able to begin to ponder the costs and benefits, many of which are not susceptible to reduction to mere monetary values.

Second. Instead of diverting resources from other drugs, developing markets for orphan drugs might result in network effects that benefit drug development generally. It seems quite likely that many researchers and other professionals will not devote the entirety of their professional career to researching only orphan drugs. Instead, it is likely that researchers will shift their focus as both their skill sets shift and promising developments in other areas induce them to enter different drug development markets. What Posner is suggesting is that the presence of orphan drugs will cause existing resources to shift to their development towards orphan drugs a little more than is justified by their merits. However, this point only looks at the situation statically. It could be that the increased revenue to the drug industry from orphan drug production allows the hiring of a bigger pool of researchers, incentivizes research universities to create more programs with people trained in drug research, and in the process leads to productive collaboration beneficial to both general drug development as well as orphan drug development.

Third. If one thought that orphan drugs were bad because they shifted resources from more promising drugs rather than increased the capacity of the R&D system as a whole, wouldn't this argument apply even more forcibly to some drugs which go through normal channels, such as Viagra. From a utilitarian perspective, it does not seem that a drug like Viagra is nearly as useful as say, one treating cancer. If Posner is right about orphan drugs, doesn't this imply that perhaps the government should avoid providing protection to drugs like Viagra in the future since they result in a diversion of resources from more socially beneficial drugs, like those treating serious diseases? I suspect that there are network effects -- that drug research is not merely a zero sum game -- and development of drugs like Viagra may in fact be beneficial to the development of more important drugs. However, if network effects are negligible, it would be an argument not only against orphan drugs, but against Viagra as well. (I should note that it would not be necessarily a conclusive argument, since even without network effects, on net, it might incentivize greater investment in the drug industry, which we have reason to believe is more beneficial than investment in the luxury yaught industry, due to the large positive externalities which investors are unable to capture in the orphan drug industry.)

As always, Posner has clearly presented an economic analysis with disastrous, provocative results, and expected us to swallow the poison pill. His analysis is lucid, illuminating, and cautious and there is little with which to disagree. And yet the rigorous analysis obfuscates his claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die. This rankles as much does his claim two weeks ago that democracy is analytically separable from constitutionalism, and so the kinds of inequalities that disrupt rule of law (e.g., rigged elections) are not anti-democratic. Technically true, but trivially true, and to many unsavory if not unpalatable.

I take Posner's point that a dollar spent to earn two dollars is a waste when one has the costless opportunity to make three. But I have two responses.

First, passing legislation is not free. Rescinding the Orphan Drug Act to replace it with a more cost-effective alternative will ignite political strife. Some will oppose the change, others will support it, many others will glom on to the issue and submit self-serving proposals for revision. Think of the hell to be raised by trying to reallocate federal funding for breast cancer research. Womens groups would denounce it even though there is a virtual cure for breast cancer, even though what funding is allocated to breast cancer is best spent on prevention, even though other diseases -- even other kinds of cancer -- kill more Americans, receive less funding, and affect both men and women, young and old. To make a long story short, that extra dollar of profit may never be seen because the hidden costs of implementing the change in regulatory regime may consume it.

Second, as I hinted at earlier in this post, what we value as a society encompasses more than pure efficiency. We tend to care about the personal stories of disease-ridden kids; we tend as a nation not to care as much about the fortunes of insurance companies that must pay off astronomical bills. We tend to care about helping the needy, at least in theory; we tend not to care about pure economic theory. In our two party system, one party runs on cutting taxes to the point of bankrupting the government; the other runs on exclusively and perniciously raising taxes on the class of citizens that sustaining nation's economic engine. That said, "letting people die," which is how such a Posnerian reform would be reported upon, would not pass muster with enough Americans to guarantee a politician's support. We have had politicians secure the Presidency by promising to enlarge the size of government and politicanswho secutre the Oval Office by pledging to shrink it to a shrub, but never have we had a President who spoke of making the government more efficient by harming the weakest members of our society. Not only would changing such an act be costly, but finding energized and long-lasting constituents for it, even among its beneficiaries, would be difficult it not impossible. Social Security reform, anyone?

A couple of comments on the costs of orphan drugs.

First, although the R&D costs may be fixed in that they are sunk costs before any revenues acrue from sales of the drug, we must avoid assuming they are 'fixed' in the vernacular sense that they are unchangeable. Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution estimates that 40-50% of drug development costs are due to regulation, and I believe it is even higher.

The FDA imposes huge costs both directly and indirectly. Direct costs imposed by the FDA are generally a belt plus suspenders approach to risk and include 'quality' testing of materials by both the supplier and the manufacturer, complete retesting after a change in formulation/manufacturing process even when accepted scientific data indicates the change has no impact on the measures, etc. This culture of risk intolerance and rigidity lead to numerous indirect costs, including long development cycles, process and planning inflexibility (it is common to require a dozen or more sign-offs for every R&D decision), and supplier lock-in due to large change costs (which of course raises the price they can charge).

Since much of orphan drug treatment is paid for by taxes (i.e., Medicaid and some Medicare), it does not make sense for the government to increase its costs by raising the financial reward through exclusivity without first minimizing the R&D investment through FDA reform. Decreasing the barriers to drug development would have the added benefit of increasing entry into both treatment areas and the industry, raising competition among drug products and companies.

A second point about costs is that the current Orphan Drug regulation does not grant exclusivity until the drug is approved, but requires publication of the orphan designation as soon as it is made. This gap favors large companies by allowing them to 'stake out' an area, inhibiting innovation. Many drugs with orphan designation have never been brought to market, and are the equivalent of vaporware to reduce competition. Indeed, since these products are generally marginal in their prospects due to the small patient base, the threat of losing ALL possibility of marketing a drug for 7 years is a much greater problem than a patent barrier. Patent issues generally can be defined very early in the development process, while exclusivity can block a product literally the day before it is approved, after 100% of development costs are sunk. I think it is likely the overall effect is a reduction in orphan drug development.

An analogous situation would be a small town that has the population to potentially support only one 'big box' store, where the town council will give a business license to only one, but only after the store has been completely built, staffed and stocked. A big chain will likely put up a sign saying "BigBox coming soon" but then direct investment to other somewhat larger towns with potentially greater payoff. If two chains put up signs they are almost compelled to freeze investment until the town council has been bought off to assure the winner of a license. And any small independent 'big boxes' aill likely be scared off by the signs.

POSNER: "Partly because different cancers are classified as different diseases, an estimated 25 million Americans have a rare disease as defined by the Act."

I am not familiar with the details of the Orphan Drug Act, but based upon the statement above, there is a huge opportunity for gaming the system. By manipulating the classification of disease, rare diseases can be created where there were none before.

If gaming is possible, I am sure drug company R&D is already being spent on working this angle. Because I would in their shoes.

This is a cool stuff
:)

http://netWallpapers.com
http://tradealoan.com

This is a cool stuff
http://netWallpapers.com
http://tradealoan.com

This blog is awesome!

http://netWallpapers.com
http://tradealoan.com

i am lovin this blog...

http://netWallpapers.com
http://tradealoan.com

防水涂料
电加热器
电刷镀
不锈钢反应锅
大型贮罐
填料
发酵罐
弯管加工
真空耙式干燥器

射线防护
纺织印染助剂
化工助剂
电加热器
IC卡座
噪音声级计
离心刮板蒸发器
电刷镀
滤油机

环境试验设备
试验设备
化工设备
点胶机
无锡网站制作
试验室
振动台
钢丝绳减震器
低温试验箱

无锡网站制作
高低温试验箱
scc
螺旋板换热器
离心刮板蒸发器
折弯机
恒温恒湿箱
高温试验箱
盐雾试验箱

高温试验箱
恒温恒湿箱
试验设备
折弯机
清洗机
环境试验设备
导热油
无锡网站制作
环境试验设备

弯管
不锈钢填料
清洗机
反应设备
油漆涂料设备
真空耙式干燥机
超声波清洗机
电加热器
无锡网站建设

切片机
万用表
钢丝绳减震器
折弯机
振动台
试验室
刮板蒸发器
化工助剂
超声波清洗机

烟气分析仪
弯管加工
电热膜
一氧化碳测试仪
氧气测试仪
不锈钢窨井盖
大型贮罐

And yet the rigorous analysis obfuscates his claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die Please. No such thing is claimed. And having a rare disease does not necessarily make one a helpless victim or one of the 'weakest members' of society; rare diseases hit rich and poor alike, and they do not necessarily incapacitate or disable individuals.

It is in fact appropriate to ask - ad absurdum - whether an Act resulting in pharmaceutical companies spending billions to find a cure for a disease whose only victim were Bill Gates, instead of spending them on research that might benefit thousands or even millions of Americans, would in fact have negative benefits the rest of us.

Or are the 'weakest' - how they are defined and by whom is never explained - worth more than everyone else by virtue of said 'weakness' ? Should resources that could help or save 100,000 be diverted for the benefit of 100, either because the latter are arbitrarily deemed to be 'weaker', or because the alternative would be 'efficient' and that's a bad politically-incorrect word in polite company ?

Sylvain,
Contrary to your fiery rhetoric, it is a fact that Posner is saying society would be better off if the woman with Gaucher's disease --let's call her Person X -- did not benefit from the Act because the regime the Act creates drives down total social welfare.

Person X has Gaucher's disease. She and the overwhelming majority of other users of the medicine cannot afford to pay $601,000 per year for the medicine. Without the act, the medicine would not exist.

I doubt you know very much about Gaucher's disease, but Person X most likely does not have type-2, because type-2 usually kills by age 2. In other words, Gaucher's disease is a life-threatening illness. A swiftly killing one, too.

Type-1, which Person X likely has, is the most common -- and without treatment, the life expectancy of someone with type-1 is drastically lower than that of someone without Gaucher's disease. It is also the case that the symptoms of the disease do in fact make one "weak," as Gaucher's disease essentially destroys your neurological system.

Without the act, Person X would have been left to die slowly, painfully, and sooner than an able-bodied person. She would not have had enough money to commission research to create drugs to treat her illness, and her illness would have claimed her. When someone is powerless to help themselves avoid a preventable death, that sounds like weakness to me.

It is necessarily the case that cutting off the Act strands people like Person X without treatment or cures for lethal illnesses, because the profit motive does not exist to spur R&D for cures or treatments without the Act. Not only is this obvious to anyone with common-sense, it is suggested by Posner's post itself.

And yet the rigorous analysis obfuscates his claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die.

Well said.

W,

Sylvain's fiery rhetoric is entirely justified in view of your mis-representation of Posner's position and the illogic of your argument.

Posner merely points out the trade-offs and does not come to a conclusion as to the overall benefit of the Act, so your claim that, "Posner is saying... the Act... drives down total social welfare," is wrong.

The question is whether overall net benefit is increased by the Act. Posner's fundamental point is that there are trade-offs in research; researching a cure to one disease may deprive funding to research in more common diseases; if this is true total welfare may be reduced by the Act.

Your argument is that people with Gaucher's disease suffer, and the Act is good because it relieves this suffering. This is quite simply a false argument, because it overlooks the point that for every one Gaucher's patient saved (or made comfortable) by the Act, 5 or 10 or 100 may (or may not) be deprived of relief from other equally serious but more common diseases.

An assessment of the Act's net benefit cannot possibly be made with examining what is foregone, so your argument that Gaucher's patients suffer is simply useless on its own.

Excuse me:

"...cannot possibly be made withOUT examining what is foregone..."

Flatly stating that something is a fact does not constitute proof. It is a fact that you *believe* this to be what Posner is saying. But belief, however loudly stated, is neither evidence nor proof.

The question is not whether the Orphan Drug Act has been good to people who suffer from Gaucher; the question is not whether there should be an Orphan Drug Act; nor is it whether it would be in the interest of society for these or others to 'die slowly', a claim you then amusingly and self-contradictorily undermine by arguing that Gaucher is in fact a 'swiftly killing' disease.

The question is whether the incentives created by the Act may, in time and for a variety of reasons - the world does evolve - be such that too large a segment of our necessarily limited resources would be spent on the rarest diseases at the expense of those afflicting larger numbers.

It's wonderful that we can treat Gaucher this way. It's even remarkable that we can afford insurance coverage to pay for $600,000 treatments, given the bad rap health insurance gets. But there is surely a level at which the cost would outweigh the benefits; if the R&D cost per Gaucher patient were $6 billion, using up all the pharmaceutical research dollars available at the exclusion of research on AIDS, malaria, bird flu and other diseases, one can confidently state the resulting social impact would be negative for all.

By the way : were you in fact in favor of the latter arrangement i.e. we must spend whatever it takes to save the victims of some extremely rare disease, whether or not there is anything left for AIDS or malaria, would it be the same as saying you believe mankind to be better off without a few hundred million Africans over the next few decades ? This would be one highly likely consequence, but could one claim their death to be your main motive ?

Finally, all people who suffer from an incurable and deadly disease are equally powerless to help themselves regardless of their numbers. That we try and make sure those with rare diseases are not ignored by the mere virtue of the rarity of their suffering is not only necessary but commendable.

That we also try to make sure the incentives to help them do not become so large as to deprive much larger and equally powerless numbers of attention to the detriment of our overall social welfare is both a perfectly reasonable concern and a complex issue. Claiming that those who express such concerns somehow wish or prefer the death of specific groups is misguided, disingenuous, deceptive and, quite frankly, small-minded.

In the end, whether attributing such intent or meaning to Posner is self-serving or a product of your own misunderstanding is besides the point. The question is a perfectly valid one.

By the way, bolding words such as 'obvious' and asserting a monopoly on common sense never strengthened anyone's case. Just so you know.

Judge Posner,

We are gearing up to watch your interview on Charlie Rose. I've got the popcorn in the microwave as I type.

Ben: This is quite simply a false argument, because it overlooks the point that for every one Gaucher's patient saved (or made comfortable) by the Act, 5 or 10 or 100 may (or may not) be deprived of relief from other equally serious but more common diseases.

Nothing in my argument is false. The difference between the persons with Gaucher's disease and the persons who may suffer from other diseases is that the persons with Gaucher's disease receive an actual benefit. We have no idea what will happen to the relevant monies once revoking the Orphan Drug Act is proposed; chances are it will be consumed by the legislative brokering process, as I argue above. So: you have guaranteed losses and no guarantee of any offsetting benefits. That you ignore this renders your argument obfuscatory, much as is Posner's post. (I would also note that an "argument" cannot be false; it can be invalid or valid. One of its propositions could be false, however. If you're going to throw around logical terms, you might as well know what they mean, ben.)

Sylvain: ...nor is it whether it would be in the interest of society for these or others to 'die slowly', a claim you then amusingly and self-contradictorily undermine by arguing that Gaucher is in fact a 'swiftly killing' disease.

I actually do no such thing. What I say is this: "Without the act, Person X would have been left to die slowly, painfully, and sooner than an able-bodied person." The "swift killing" refers to the fact that someone with Gaucher's disease will die sooner than someone without it (e.g., by age 2); the fact that the death is slow refers to the rate of neurological destruction. If you knew anything about Gaucher's disease, you would know that.

ben: Posner's fundamental point is that there are trade-offs in research; researching a cure to one disease may deprive funding to research in more common diseases; if this is true total welfare may be reduced by the Act.

I fail to see how that is any different from this formulation: "Posner is saying society would be better off if the woman with Gaucher's disease --let's call her Person X -- did not benefit from the Act because the regime the Act creates drives down total social welfare." I would also note that I was summarizing my earlier argument. You, quite cunningly, quote from the summary in my second post, yet somehow have managed to ignore the first and most definitive post -- which was the subject of the dispute between Sylvain and I. Your critique of my argument on this basis is the equivalent to claiming an opponent's argument is false because of a typo. It should be obvious to anyone with common-sense that I did not write a quick one-sentence paragraph at the head of my second post so as to brush aside everything I had said in the first. I was simply responding to Sylvain.

I'd like to thank you both for increasing the chance that Posner will address my concerns.

Sylvain: Claiming that those who express such concerns somehow wish or prefer the death of specific groups is misguided, disingenuous, deceptive and, quite frankly, small-minded.

And yet the AARP has succeeded in tabling Social Security reform doing just that. If you read my original post, you'd get that was the point!

In particular, Ben, your claim that my argument is false is incoherent because you overlooked this from my first post:

I take Posner's point that a dollar spent to earn two dollars is a waste when one has the costless opportunity to make three.

Oh, and put any "argument is false" in quotations, so as to maximize mockery.

One question I have about this issue is whether the money being spent on these rare diseases would otherwise be put to equally worthwhile use on other diseases. I would first like to point out that a common disease will always have funding allocated toward treatment and cure. So, the existance of this orphan drug act does not stop research and funding for more common diseases such as aids etc. These common diseases don't need legislation supporting them because companies have a direct profit incentive for finding treatment (which is explained in Posner's post).

However, without the orphan drug act, most of these rare diseases would see no R&D from private companies. Thus, the people would not be receiving modern treatment. Providing these incentives helps makes sure that these people do see treatment and in the meantime, patients of more common diseases are still receiving treatment.

In an industry in which most of the money is spent for the treatment of common diseases (whether this legislation exists or not), some spending on the rare diseases is nessecary and this would only be done with some legislation supporting it. So if you are looking at what is better overall, I think that a large positive difference in the quality of treatment for these rare diseases outweighs the small negative difference in the quality of treatment for common diseases that results.

Ta,
I can only conclude, based on my experience, that ben and Sylvain will now commence attacking you.

Ta: So if you are looking at what is better overall, I think that a large positive difference in the quality of treatment for these rare diseases outweighs the small negative difference in the quality of treatment for common diseases that results.

I would actually disagree here. We have no idea whether a small negative difference will result in the quality for common diseases. Chances are the funding will remain constant. The funding for the Orphan Drug Act will likely be reallocated toward pork -- I don't think there is any reasonable prospect it would have gone to common diseases at all, so there's no reason to count it as a potential loss. Thus, you have guaranteed losses and no guaranteed offsetting benefits (i.e., from the reallocation).

Ta: So, the existance of this orphan drug act does not stop research and funding for more common diseases such as aids etc. These common diseases don't need legislation supporting them because companies have a direct profit incentive for finding treatment (which is explained in Posner's post).

I agree with this, except to the extent that certain diseases have lobbies behind them. It may be true that the disease doesn't need legislation or more funding than the market provides, but politics does not always work! Breast cancer, as I noted above, receives more funding than is efficient. As soon as you seek to revoke the ODA, the bickering for redistribution of its monies will begin.

W.,

"Nothing in my argument is false"If you say so than that must be enough to settle it. I mean, it's not like you'd be the most biased person in judging your own arguments, right ?

I actually do no such thing...You did. Since neither Posner's post nor the Orphan Drug Act are about Gaucher, your attempts at diverting the debate by posing as a Gaucher expert shall remain ineffective.

Maybe you should link to what it is the AARP has actually 'tabled' so we can judge for ourselves, but whatever it is, why do we care ? Why is the AARP an authority on this matter ? Why is its view unquestionable ? According to whom ?

Appeals to authority - whether your own on an unrelated matter, or that of the AARP - will not absolve you from providing supporting arguments and evidence. Attempting to pass for a poor victim of 'attacks' and constantly referring to your own posts when you are manifestly so uninterested in reading those of others and answering their main questions and arguments is unlikely to be a productive approach either.

Neither will the use and abuse of every possible rhetorical distraction to avoid the actual question raised by Posner, which, once again, is generally this : some fraction of our pharmaceutical research dollars should be spent on rare diseases. But what should 'some' be ? Zero is bad, hence the Act. 'All' would be absurd; although you probably will not openly concede it, since your vituperative position would unravel from there. There is a range of possible outcomes between these extremes, from too little to too much, through the highly desirable in-between. Hopefully that is where we are. But how do we know ? Maybe the fate of one single lucky lady arbitrarily chosen by a WSJ reporter is sufficient to convince you we are at that sweet spot. Since a sample of one or even a few is not scientific, some of us need more evidence to believe that is so. Sorry.

Some of us also accept that this Act, like any other legislation before and after it, could one day become obsolete, or quite possibly counter-productive. Given the potential costs to our overall social welfare, knowing when that is the case is a matter of concern and a perfectly reasonable avenue of inquiry.

Either you have answers, facts and arguments to prove that the Act achieves as optimal a balance as possible in allocating our scarce research resources, or you do not. If the latter, no amount of abusive rhetorical calisthenics will disguise it so you might want to spare yourself the effort.

But maybe that is your real goal : vacuous moral posturing and grandstanding without running the risk of actual debate.

Ta, no disagreement here. The question is not whether we should create incentives to have such drugs or not. The question is how much. Some amount of our research resources should be spent on these rare diseases. How much is some though ? Too little is bad; but so is too much since it could then divert so many resources from equally deadly and far more widespread diseases, at great overall cost.

To take an extreme example, we could tell pharmaceutical companies that all profits from the treatment of rare diseases are to be tax-free. That would be nice for those who suffer from those rare ailments, but the appeal of that market segment in terms of pure profitability could have extremely perverse consequences for our overall collective welfare, if large swathes of promising, important but less profitable research are abandoned or ignored to focus on the rarest diseases.

Nobody is saying we are at that point. But do we know where we are ? Are we doing too little ? Too much ? Most importantly, how do we know ? How do we assess the *net* benefit of this important program ? This is not a trivial question. And it deserves scrutiny.

Some claim that even considering the question is tantamount to wishing people to 'die slowly' in the 'interest of society', whatever that means. Which is not only preposterous but the very opposite of Posner's concern i.e. that we do not end up neglecting and letting even larger numbers die through excessively distorting incentives. The millions spent for Gaucher or any other rare genetic disease are, by definition, no longer available for bird flu research.

Incentives are created to disrupt and change a status quo. They can be too small and ineffective. Or too large and harmful. How do we know we're in the sweet spot ? A sample of one from the WSJ cannot possibly provide the answer, can it ?

The funding for the Orphan Drug Act will likely be reallocated toward pork [...] Thus, you have guaranteed losses and no guaranteed offsetting benefits (i.e., from the reallocation).

Classic red herring. The same circular argument could be used to justify any government program by anyone with a stake or an interest in it : "If we don't spend this on the Patriot Act, it will go to 'pork', not Homeland Security..."

(Tongue in cheek) I mean, if we hadn't spent $200 billion invading Iraq, who knows how many bridges to nowhere we would have built instead so having ourselves a war might not be such a bad deal, right ? Who cares about the actual costs and benefits of the adventure itself ?

Either the Act can stand up on its own or it cannot. Where the money could or should go otherwise is a separate political issue.

W, its not valid to say that the money would otherwise be going to pork because the issue is not whether the government should be funding these companies. The issue is to what level they should recieve incentives to fund rare disease research. The money that is being spent toward rare disease research is coming from pharmaceutical companies, not the government. So the alternative to rare disease research would be some other medicinal research. The money would still be in put toward medical research whether this bill exists or not. I don't see how pork funding is linked.

Ladies and gentlemen, the answer to the central question in this debate is: "We have no idea what will happen to the relevant monies once revoking the Orphan Drug Act is proposed; chances are it will be consumed by the legislative brokering process"

Thanks W, glad we got that one sorted.

Here's another one: what is the Meaning of Life? 2 sentences or less. Go!

I fail to see how that is any different from this formulation: "Posner is saying society would be better off if the woman with Gaucher's disease --let's call her Person X -- did not benefit from the Act because the regime the Act creates drives down total social welfare."

Posner did not express a view on the sign (positive or negative) of net benefits from the Act. Posner did not say society would be better off without the Act.

Ta, some of these incentives come in the form of tax benefits, as well as various grants and subsidies to Universities heavily involved in such research. It is not large compared to the amounts spent by the industry but it's nothing to sneeze at either.

You are quite correct on your main point i.e. much of the R&D and productization is carried out and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies themselves.

But even if the government did fund most or all of the research, the argument would still not hold. Any government program could be argued to be better than a pork-barrel alternative (as if pork-barrel spending was the only or most likely alternative for Orphan Drug Act money). The argument is actually frequent in political circles - think trade unions defending protectionist measures - but it is largely a self-serving and desperate one.

Funding for any Act should be argued on its own merits; speculations about the relative merits of alternative spending vehicles - which, conveniently enough, are always undefined and assumed to be wasteful - should not be a factor in deciding the merit of a given program.

Although the political needs of the moment may of course produce the reverse effect i.e. the needs of this program might result in scrutiny over that one, to see if some of its resources could be diverted.

Posing as a Gaucher expert? My sister had Gaucher's disease, you cretin. The WSJ articles that Posner refers to in the first sentence of his post discuss Gaucher's disease. He read the article. I read the article. Obviously you did not read the article.

Sylvain: Funding for any Act should be argued on its own merits; speculations about the relative merits of alternative spending vehicles - which, conveniently enough, are always undefined and assumed to be wasteful - should not be a factor in deciding the merit of a given program...Either the Act can stand up on its own or it cannot.

Wow. In that case, how do you answer ben's critique, that "An assessment of the Act's net benefit cannot possibly be made withOUT examining what is foregone..."

I also wonder how you could answer Professor Becker's assertions to the contrary. When discussing Social Security or Medicare, he notes repeatedly that the system must be addressed as a whole. To him, at least, parcelling out one program and ignoring the wider legislative context is intellectually dishonest. It seems the bunch of you have made a lot of noise, but not said anything.

Ta: W, its not valid to say that the money would otherwise be going to pork because the issue is not whether the government should be funding these companies.

Wow, another straw-man! Amazing. I never said government is funding these companies. Government is funding the act, which creates the market which would not otherwise exist. No government funding, no market. Take away that government funding and you have no market as well as additional money to spend on other government objectives. Any money in federal coffers is subject to being siphoned away to pork. If you cannot see that link, you apparently have never heard of the Bridge to Nowhere. Pretending that the issue is not whether the market exists is obfuscatory, as I noted in my first post.

Sylvain #1: (Tongue in cheek) I mean, if we hadn't spent $200 billion invading Iraq, who knows how many bridges to nowhere we would have built instead so having ourselves a war might not be such a bad deal, right ?

Sylvain #2: The millions spent for Gaucher or any other rare genetic disease are, by definition, no longer available for bird flu research. [Not tongue in cheek].

If you would like to see contradiction, look at the inconsistency of Sylvain's two arguments above. First, he mocks an argument; then he makes it himself!

Ben attacks me for somehow being iffy on the "central question of the debate" -- which is a neat trick if you simply reframe the question in a self-serving way, and says:

ben: Ladies and gentlemen, the answer to the central question in this debate is: "We have no idea what will happen to the relevant monies once revoking the Orphan Drug Act is proposed; chances are it will be consumed by the legislative brokering process" Thanks W, glad we got that one sorted.

Yet he does not attack Sylvain for doing much of the same:

Sylvain: Nobody is saying we are at that point. But do we know where we are ? Are we doing too little ? Too much ? Most importantly, how do we know ?

In other words, we can see who is biased and who selectively quotes here. It seems to be a team of nasty goblins who has not read the WSJ article, who has not carefully read Posner's post, and who has not even read carefully what I have written.

For example:
Sylvain: Why is the AARP an authority on this matter ? Why is its view unquestionable ?

When did I say that the AARP is an authority on anything? When did I even say that I liked the AARP? It is a fact -- hey, if you dispute this, you evidently don't read ANY newspaper, not just the WSJ's article -- that the AARP has tabled Bush's Social Security reform; Chuck Grassley and Roy Blunt have said it is off the table until 2009. The point was not that the AARP is good; it was an analog to exactly what would happen to reform of the Orphan Drug Act because of lobbying interests in Washington. The attempt to associate me with AARP is just a straw-man and a pitiful one at that. Not only that, but after pretending the argument has no force, you even have the nerve to flat-out repeat it, Sylvain:

Sylvain: The argument is actually frequent in political circles - think trade unions defending protectionist measures - but it is largely a self-serving and desperate one.

What is self-serving and depserate is the way some people around here frame the question, e.g.:

Sylvain: Neither will the use and abuse of every possible rhetorical distraction to avoid the actual question raised by Posner, which, once again, is generally this : some fraction of our pharmaceutical research dollars should be spent on rare diseases.

Really? Does Posner literally "say" that in exactly those words? If not, then ben should start attacking you:

ben: Posner did not say society would be better off without the Act.

Ben, Posner didn't "say" anything, as these posts were written. It's called figurative language. You know, as in claiming your opponent made a claim he did not make:

Sylvain: Some claim that even considering the question is tantamount to wishing people to 'die slowly' in the 'interest of society', whatever that means.

No one claimed this.

Try not engaging in intellectual dishonesty, guys, it makes you more credible.

To summarize : you've never claimed what you actually wrote, and Posner said all the things he never wrote, because you say so. It must be true : you can bold words ! If it's bold, it's right ! If Posner's title and entire post are about the Open Drug Act but, as an example, he uses an article on Gaucher, then the whole thing is about Gaucher. If you say so, it must be true.

Hey, it's all about'figurative' language, the new definition of which seems to be 'whatever I claim people to be saying without ever proving how or why'. Crafty, that.

Side note : you brought up the AARP. Not me. I asked what its relevance to this argument was. Still no intelligible or relevant answer except to invent more absurd accusations and conflating more unrelated issues to drown your (dead) fish. Read before you answer. Listen before you speak, you might come across as less of a troll.

By the way, you did make that claim. In bold, in your very first post. That you are now so keen to deny it will be sufficient for now. Thank you.

Oh and you could have saved yourself a lot of time by simply answering my previous question i.e. by admitting you only come here to engage in pseudo-moralistic posturing. Thank you for the generously extensive and hyper-ventilated confirmation. I am flattered by all the attention. (Although me thinks the one-letter pseudonymed person doth protest too much...)

Sylvain: By the way, you did make that claim. In bold, in your very first post. That you are now so keen to deny it will be sufficient for now.

This is a lie. I do not even mention the AARP by name in my first post, let alone in bold. I refer to it implicitly while discussing the legislative prospects for Orphan Drug Act reform. I say:

Not only would changing such an act be costly, but finding energized and long-lasting constituents for it, even among its beneficiaries, would be difficult it not impossible. Social Security reform, anyone?

I never say that the AARP is good, or that it is authoritative. Indeed, the first time I mention the word "AARP" it here:

Sylvain: Claiming that those who express such concerns somehow wish or prefer the death of specific groups is misguided, disingenuous, deceptive and, quite frankly, small-minded.

And yet the AARP has succeeded in tabling Social Security reform doing just that. If you read my original post, you'd get that was the point!

In other words, I am agreeing that the AARP is "misguided, disingenuous, deceptive and, quite frankly, small-minded"; where I disagree is that the AARP has been successful. That doesn't mean I'm a supporter. The Nazis were successful in killing 6 million Jews; saying so doesn't mean I'm pro-Nazi.

Sylvain: Oh and you could have saved yourself a lot of time by simply answering my previous question i.e. by admitting you only come here to engage in pseudo-moralistic posturing.

I don't need to call you names. I think the character of the above quote speaks for itself.

By the way, if Mr Becker has indeed said that the system should be 'considered as a whole' when discussing Social Security and Medicare, could it be because the latter are a wee bigger, more extensive, cost slightly more and touch a few more Americans than the Open Drug Act ? Might they - maybe - also have a somewhat larger economic and social impact on the US than this one Act ?

I don't know, I guess I'm just asking why some piece of legislation should be approached as if its study or amendment was the equivalent of reforming Social Security and other entitlements...Expecting consistency here would seem rather foolish.

Never mind.

Ladies and gentlemen, do enjoy the rest of a lovely Thanksgiving w-e.

Sylvain,

I stand by this: And yet the rigorous analysis obfuscates [Posner's] claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die.

The disagreement stems from how you distorted the above into:

Sylvain: Some claim that even considering the question is tantamount to wishing people to 'die slowly' in the 'interest of society', whatever that means.

Where did I say anything about "considering the question being tantamount to wishing"?

Sylvain: By the way, if Mr Becker has indeed said that the system should be 'considered as a whole' when discussing Social Security and Medicare, could it be because the latter are a wee bigger, more extensive, cost slightly more and touch a few more Americans than the Open Drug Act ?

Isn't that begging the question? LOL

This is a lie. I do not even mention the AARP by name in my first post, let alone in bold.Except this is not the claim I was referring to. Which would be obvious if you only bothered to read your own bolded assertion in your first post and compared it to the last statement in your previous answer. But I guess reading others is too tiresome and would stand in the way of the grandstanding. Better keep on keepin' on about the AARP - as if anyone cared - and now even the Nazis, in the same line of argument.

It's official : you are completely off your rocker. It's all right, help is on the way. This is exactly what we invented the Orphan Drug Act for. And goes to show that it might not always be the most effective use of our resources, I guess.

could it be because the latter are a wee bigger, more extensive, cost slightly more and touch a few more Americans than the Open Drug Act ?

It's the Orphan Drug Act!

(Hey, he knows about LOL....and in italics too...he must be kewl)

Seriously. Apologies to Mr Posner for slapping a troll around in this otherwise excellent space. He shall be ignored from now on. Sorry for all the noise, they're rather loud and messy pets.

Out and over.

Sylvain: Except this is not the claim I was referring to. Which would be obvious if

Except it is not obvious because of the way you inarticulately worded your post. It appears that you are still talking about the AARP. Try writing with clarity:

Sylvain:

Side note : you brought up the AARP. Not me. I asked what its relevance to this argument was. Still no intelligible or relevant answer except to invent more absurd accusations and conflating more unrelated issues to drown your (dead) fish. Read before you answer. Listen before you speak, you might come across as less of a troll.

By the way, you did make that claim. In bold, in your very first post. That you are now so keen to deny it will be sufficient for now. Thank you.

Who is to know what "that" claim is? The last claim you referred to was me bringing up the AARP.

Sally, oops. Must be that figurative speech thing again. Contagious, I guess.

Frankly, Sylvain, I think you're the troll, and I hope Posner bans you. I don't even think you read any of the relevant materials before opening your mouth!

Well, if you took the time to read before blowing off steam, a lot of things would clear up.

Someone please tell the guy(gal?) what he(she?) wrote in bold in his first post. The scrollbar must have broken, with all this heat. Ta ta.

I am not W, or ben, or Ta, or anyone else here. I come here all the time!

Aaaw, Sally. That so hurts my feelings. Really. Tell you what : next time you can be the teacher and discipline the naughty kids yourself instead of begging the prof to do it for you OK ?

Bye now.

Sylvain: Well, if you took the time to read before blowing off steam, a lot of things would clear up. ... The scrollbar must have broken, with all this heat.

Sylvain: If Posner's title and entire post are about the Open Drug Act but, as an example,...

But they are not. It's called the Orphan Drug Act.

Yes, sweetie. I heard you the last time. Replace Open with Orphan and make a real point.

What's with all the bolding these days anyway ? I got to try that. It seems to prove things or make them important. Neat.

Seriously, kids. It was fun. I really, really got to go now. (He says for the 12th time...children...sigh...)

W: ...[Posner's] claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die.

W, where does Posner actually write this, or words to this effect?

Sylvain,

You're a posturing hypocrite. You didn't even read Posner's post carefully. You do a tremendous disservice to everyone who comes here to be intellectually stimulated with your cheap misquotations and snarky comments. And now you are sexist! Sweetie? Sweetie? Where the hell do you get off?

You didn't just make a casual error. You typed Open instead of Orphan because you are too intellectually lazy to pay careful attention! You are the one who was upset and angry. You're the one who didn't bother to scroll up. You're the one who is full of bull. You're a classic case of projection.

Instead of comparing your penis-size with Internet foes, you might try contributing something of worth. I suppose my 3-year old son would have insecurities like yours at your age if I had named him Sylvain! However many times were you pounded during recess, this blog is no place to take out your aggression.

ben, my dear friend, this was in bold. Do not dare question the bold sentences ! They are not open to inquiry and are not subject to the burden of proof. Figurative speech ! It's the new Science ! We must always prove to W. he said what he did, not the other way around. Where have you been ?

OK I'll stop. Again.

Ben,

W: ...[Posner's] claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die.

W, where does Posner actually write this, or words to this effect?

This is an example of distorting what I wrote by selectively quoting it. What I wrote was this:

As always, Posner has clearly presented an economic analysis with disastrous, provocative results, and expected us to swallow the poison pill. His analysis is lucid, illuminating, and cautious and there is little with which to disagree. And yet the rigorous analysis obfuscates his claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die.

When I later state that Posner is "saying" XYZ, it's just a shorthand way of referring to the earlier post, quoted above. I did not mean to revise the original post, which refers to a claim obsfuscated, and replace it with the assertion that such a claim was explicit and express.

But to someone who cares about deconstructing the text of your post, rather than dealing with its substance, that doesn't matter.

ob·fus·cate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bf-skt, b-fskt)
tr.v. ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates
To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made... to obscure or obfuscate the truth” (Robert Conquest).
To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.

Well, speaking of lazy posturing and aggression, I am glad you could let me know why I typed one instead of the other. The depth of your psycho-analysis does indeed leave me in awe. As for the soft kindness of your overreacted put-down, it is indeed humbling.

As far as sexism, I must admit I have erred. I mean, look at you bringing penis size in the melee. Now *this* is nuanced female sophistication at work. Only guys have to go below the belt.

As for your ability to keep the debate on its tracks, it is clearly unmatched.

OK, guys. Time out : so far we've had Gaucher type 1 and 2, the AARP, the Nazis and now penis size.

Anyone have anything related to Mr Posner's post ? Once.... ? Twice... ?

You mean his post about the Open Drug Act?

OK so Posner's analysis obfuscates - look Ma ! Bold ! - "his" (Posner's right ?) "claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die."

In other words, he didn't say anything of the sort, it's just obfuscated but visible to those....who are more interested in deconstructing the text of a post, rather than dealing with its substance.

We finally agree on something. Joy.

Ask your three-year old son. He knows.

Uh, not really, Sylvain.

Actually, if you go back to first post, you'll recognize that we've come full circle. Any questions you want answered? Go back there and simply read it more carefully.

Yes, it is mere "deconstruction of text" to say that:

I take Posner's point that a dollar spent to earn two dollars is a waste when one has the costless opportunity to make three.

You're a fool.

I am glad you do not need to call me names.

And your point is ?

Just stating a fact. I know you have problems with that. Perhaps it explains why you don't read the newspaper.

Stating a fact ? A fact like the one according to which I don't read 'the newspaper' - there is only one apparently - or a real fact, one you can actually back up ?

Now, can you really answer ben's question and explain when and how Posner said what you claimed he did ? Or are we just going to get more tiresome evasion and long-winded tirades about everything and nothing ?

Sylvain: Now, can you really answer ben's question and explain when and how Posner said what you claimed he did ?

I addressed that above, actually.

Sylvain: A fact like the one according to which I don't read 'the newspaper' - there is only one apparently - or a real fact, one you can actually back up ?

I say that you don't read ANY newspapers not because you failed to read the Wall Street Journal article that prompted this post, which you now admit, but because you had no idea that the AARP was responsible for the ad campaign that tabaled President Bush's Social Security reform until 2009. That has, quite literally, been in every major American newspaper and on news television programs for months.

You just want to restart the debate because you lost. Have a good night.

No you didn't address this above. You lectured about the meaning of the word 'obfuscate' and pontificated on the alleged deconstructions of others. You still have no justified the bolded claim of your first post.

Where did I just admit that I did not read that article ? Where, pray, did I do such thing ? This is truly fascinating. We are witnessing the manufacturing of yet another W 'fact'.

And where is the evidence that I did not know of the AARP and its Social Security proposal ? I asked what its relevance was to the Orphan Drug Act argument we are having. Since it has no relevance to it that I could think of, it stand to reason that I would ask what it is you were talking about. Which you never answered clearly. Now that this is finally clarified, however, I still have no idea why this is relevant to this argument, or how on Earth it can support your original claim.

Actually, I just wanted to start the debate since there hasn't been any yet. A litany of unsupported allegations is no debate.

I agree. Expecting a debate was a pretty dumb idea, considering. And I did lose; too much time. It is kind and considerate of you to give up.

One closing note for Sally. The kind that should go over email but no such avenue is available.

Earlier on, I did call you 'sweetie'. I also referred to the Act as the Open Drug Act. Twice. (After naming it correctly four times prior).

Apparently, this entitled you to poke fun at my first name. So your idea of a proper answer to a foreigner whose tone or style you dislike is to make fun of his name - your son would get away with it, at his age; but you ? - and pounding on an innocent and quite irrelevant lexical mistake in his second language, all with the sole support of penis-size psycho-babble ?

And I'm the one with aggression and intolerance problems ? I'm the one prone to snarky comments ?

Sure I am.

Sylvain: I'm the one prone to snarky comments ?

Sylvain: (Hey, he knows about LOL....and in italics too...he must be kewl)

Seriously. Apologies to Mr Posner for slapping a troll around in this otherwise excellent space. He shall be ignored from now on. Sorry for all the noise, they're rather loud and messy pets.

Out and over.

YES.

OK, I guess you're saying you're no better so I shouldn't be surprised by cheap xenophobic jibes.

Point taken.

My American neighbor helpfully points out that making light-hearted fun of the infatuation of some with HTML style tags and sissy online chat abbreviations, as well as calling a troll a troll does entitle others to insult you on the basis of your first name, among other things.

He does think I am nuts for using my own name. Insulting others from the safety of anonymity is the preferred approach, he says.

Wise man.

W,

It isn't usual practice to concoct a position for somebody else, declare what they write is merely obfuscating that position, and then attack that position. Perhaps you could try addressing what Posner actually wrote. And instead of using shorthand, just be explicit.

Thanks

Ben,

Perhaps you could try addressing what Posner actually wrote. And instead of using shorthand, just be explicit.

I didn't use "shorthand" in my first post. I used shorthand in my second post to refer to my first post. I did address what Posner wrote. In my first post. You can scroll back up to my first post and read it, instead of continually referring to my second.

Ben: It isn't usual practice to concoct a position for somebody else, declare what they write is merely obfuscating that position, and then attack that position.

Really? Because that's exactly what you do by continually referring to my second post without tackling any of the substance in my first post.

Ok, first, Sally no offense but unless you find something to say that isn't about Sylvain's typo, please shut up.

Secondly, lets try to get back to the relevant issue.

As far as W's assertion about the intent of Posner's post, I feel that he goes too far in saying that Posner implies "society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die." In truth, Posner doesn't actually state his opinion on the matter and he merely poses a question. There is some bias against the Orphan Drug act in his post, but that is probably to help us see why the legislation might not be seen as good.

W, you responded to my post about the issue not being the government's money by talking about how the government is the one funding this act and that being the source of the debate. However, the issue is not whether the government should fund this act, it is whether the act should exist or not and to what level. Posner's post does not refer to the cost to the government of implementing this act, it does mention costs to drug companies for financing R&D for rare diseases. The issue is not "what should the government spend its money on?", the issue is should the government encourage spending on rare disease research and to what level.

My opinion to the first part of the question was stated in a previous post and is yes. As to the second part, which Silvain and Ben both address as the primary focus, I don't really think a proper answer can be given without a thorough knowledge of the numbers inlvolved.

Ta: As far as W's assertion about the intent of Posner's post, I feel that he goes too far in saying that Posner implies "society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die." In truth, Posner doesn't actually state his opinion on the matter and he merely poses a question. There is some bias against the Orphan Drug act in his post, but that is probably to help us see why the legislation might not be seen as good.

I never made any assertions about the intent of Posner's post; Sylvain did in one of his attempts to distort my actual statements. But I will agree that "there is bias against the Ophran Drug Act in [Posner's] post." Is that bias explicit and express? No, it is obfuscated by the rigor of his analysis. As should be clear from reading my first post.

Ta: However, the issue is not whether the government should fund this act, it is whether the act should exist or not and to what level.

You cannot separate whether the act should exist from whether the governmment should fund the act: those are two ways of saying the same thing -- the act cannt exist unless the government funds it. We are agreeing in substance and disagreeing in forms of words.

Ta: As to the second part, which Silvain and Ben both address as the primary focus, I don't really think a proper answer can be given without a thorough knowledge of the numbers inlvolved.

Ah, and here we come to the cost of the legislation and how such reform will be tarred and feathered. Literally, all covered in my first post.

Listen, Sylvain:

You insulted that guys' sister who has Gaucher's disease, you have called men sissies and women sweetie, you made fun of my 3-year old son, you have insulted just about everyone who has posted in this thread, and you have the nerve to call me a cowardly because I didn't put my last name on here so weirdoes like you could stalk me? There it is, you fallacy-using bully. J-O-H-A-N-S-S-E-N. Now why don't you hop over to your neighbor's and consult him about what to say now, you bilious frog.

By numbers involved i mean the costs to the pharmaceutical companies relative to the amount of people affected by the medicines, not the cost to the government for funding the legislation.

Of course the legislation can not exist without funding, but this legislation does not exist because it is a good way of letting the government use its money, it exists because it is a good way of encouraging the drug companies to spend money toward rare diseases. The legal system does not exist because it is an efficient way for the government to spend money, it exists because it is an efficient way to take care of crime.

The debate is not about should the government spend its money on this as apposed to pork, it is whether there is greater benefit if drug companies use their limited recources on rare disease R&D or on research for more common diseases or a balance. Once this question is answered, the ultimate question of whether the government should fund this bill can be answered.

I never made any assertions about the intent of Posner's post

Interesting. "...And yet the rigorous analysis obfuscates his claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die."

'His' being Posner. Most of the quote above being bolded in the original. The author being you, not me.

Nobody needs to do any 'attempts'. It's on the record. You did not complain about a mere 'bias' against the Act. You asserted that a) Posner believes society to be better off by letting some to die slowly, but b) that he obfuscated this 'claim' behind his 'analysis'. Which you also referred to in your preamble as a 'poison pill'.

That none of your posts has been able to justify this gross distortion of Posner's position is clear. That you would then flatly state you never made any such comment when confronted with it multiple times is beyond belief; that you would try to deflect the blame on others who have been holding you accountable for your misjudgment is simply unreal.

Unless 'leaving people to die slowly' was another of those figures of speech ?

Ok, Sally please shut up. So far you haven't made any posts about the topic. Ok fine, so he wrote open instead of orphan big deal. At least he has made some relevent posts.

Ta: The legal system does not exist because it is an efficient way for the government to spend money, it exists because it is an efficient way to take care of crime.

Oh, that is so wrong, it is self-refuting! If that is true, explain contracts, explain wills, explain trusts, in fact, explain all non-criminal law!

Ta: Of course the legislation can not exist without funding, but this legislation does not exist because it is a good way of letting the government use its money, it exists because it is a good way of encouraging the drug companies to spend money toward rare diseases.

Actually, this is wrong. Saying that it is "a good way of encouraging the drug companies to spend money toward rare diseases" is just another way of saying "it is a good way of letting the government use its money," because you've begged the question that using government money on rare diseases is good -- but we can't determine that without weighing all of the costs. You have to beg the question, or else you cannot explain why you jerry-rig you include some relevant costs and exclude other relevant costs, e.g., "By numbers involved i mean the costs to the pharmaceutical companies relative to the amount of people affected by the medicines, not the cost to the government for funding the legislation." That kind of rigging is what I would call "obfuscatory." Oh, wait! I already did. In my first post!

Sylvain, your assertions about what I wrote are demonstrably false.

"...And yet the rigorous analysis obfuscates his claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die."

This is not a statement of "intent." Your claim, Sylvain, is that one can infer intent from the fact of the cover-up. In other words, Posner is covering up his claim because Posner intended to make the claim. But I don't say that. Look above: Posner isn't doing the obfuscation here. The rigorous analysis is. I never claim Posner believes XYZ and does ABC because he believes XYZ (i.e., he has the specific intent to do ABC); I'm simply focusing on the claims, whether implicit or explicit, in his post.

Sylvain: That you would then flatly state you never made any such comment when confronted with it multiple times is beyond belief

I simply did not make any assertions about Posner's intent. You outright misinterpreted what I wrote by not reading it carefully.

Sally,

I did not insult anyone's sister, I did not make fun of your son - telling you to ask your son is making fun of him ? And who uses her son to insult people and score cheap points anyway ? - and I certainly did not insult you in any way that justified your answer. I did not call any 'men' sissies - I characterized one specific online chat abbreviation as sissy; if you can't tell the difference, don't correct my use of the language - and I did not called women sweetie, I called you sweetie.

That you can only justify your self-righteous anger by gross exaggerating or fabricating a series of accusations is rather revealing. You obviously care very deeply about the level of intellectual stimulation around here.

I am glad we have clearly established who has anger projection issues around here. Thank you.

Sylvain: Which you also referred to in your preamble as a 'poison pill'.

At least now you recognize it was a preamble! Still, you must not know what "poison pill" means in corporate law. I was not saying he was intending to poison anyone! Again, you misinterpreted my post!

Ok, I have a question W, in reference to the Orphan drug act, which group is spending many billions of dollars, the government or the pharmaceutical companies? The cost to the government is not the issue, the issue is how should the drug companies spend their money. The government is not directly funding research in rare diseases, it is encouraging drug companies to. If this bill did not exist, then the drug companies would spend the money on more common diseases, not on pork!

W: "Oh, that is so wrong, it is self-refuting! If that is true, explain contracts, explain wills, explain trusts, in fact, explain all non-criminal law!"

Ok, so you are saying that the government has laws about wills and contracts because thats how they like their money spent, not because there needs to be some organization of private business? When these laws are made, first the intent is found then the method of enforcing the intent is made. The civil legal system does not exist because the government feels the need to pay judges, it exists because there needs to be organization and as a result the money is spent!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_pill

Ta: Ok, so you are saying that the government has laws about wills and contracts because thats how they like their money spent, not because there needs to be some organization of private business?

Hmm, I didn't say that at all. What you said was that the legal system exists to combat crime. Wills and contracts have nothing to do with combatting crime. You were wrong. That's all.

W, you claimed Posner believes society would be better by letting some of its members die slowly. You even bolded it. You can mistreat your own words and those of others as long as you wish, the record is there.

I will take your exceedingly poor and repeated attempts at tortured semantic evasion as an admission of regret for your gross distortion of Posner's statements. Thank you.

Right. Corporations use poison pills to complain about bias. We all know that.

Ta: The cost to the government is not the issue

Yes, it is, because you can't sanely pretend that the government does not fund the ODA. If the money from the ODA goes to something else (i.e., pork), the market for medicines of rare diseases would no longer exist, and that would hurt people with Gaucher's disease. The point is you can't obfuscate the direct harm this government choice will have on those people, when there are no guaranteed benefits on the other half of the scale. That private investment will dry up in the asbence of a viable market is just a way of describing the effect of the government canceling the ODA.

Sylvain: W, you claimed Posner believes society would be better by letting some of its members die slowly.

I literally NEVER said that "Posner believes that". You keep making it up, it still won't be true. I keep directing you back to the first post for a reason. Try reading it.

W: "And yet the rigorous analysis obfuscates his claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die."

"This is not a statement of "intent." ... Look above: Posner isn't doing the obfuscation here. The rigorous analysis is. I never claim Posner believes XYZ and does ABC because he believes XYZ (i.e., he has the specific intent to do ABC); I'm simply focusing on the claims, whether implicit or explicit, in his post."

Ok, so you are saying he makes a claim about slow death, but that isn't his intent? I beleive you contaridict yourself there, I recomend you just admit that you were being a bit extreme when you stated that this is his claim.

W, What are you, nine years old ? The literal defense wouldn't save you, even if you were. This is what you said of Posner's beliefs. Unless you're now saying Posner does not believe in his own 'claim' ? Is that the new line of defense ?

Keep digging yourself a hole.

Ta: Ok, so you are saying that the government has laws about wills and contracts because thats how they like their money spent, not because there needs to be some organization of private business?

W: Hmm, I didn't say that at all. What you said was that the legal system exists to combat crime. Wills and contracts have nothing to do with combatting crime. You were wrong. That's all.

There is a serious flaw in your logic there. My point which you don't address is that intent comes before enforcement. My point is just as valid if you must, make it specific to criminal law, I assumed that you were capable of understanding that the same principal applies to civil law itsefl (just not for crime).

Anyway, you don't answer my question of where the majority of the money is coming from, the answer is the drug companies not the government. I believe that the cost to the government is negligable as compared to the money being spent by the drug companies. Your post about pork is relevant perhaps to breast cancer which the government I'm guessing directly funds, but not for this Orphan drug act.

Time for a bit of grammar.

Sylvain writes the following : "Posner's rigorous analysis obfuscates his claim that the sky is blue."

So according to one individual here, Sylvain is in fact not stating that Posner either claims or believes the sky to be blue.

The wonders of the English language.

Sylvain, you insulted a woman's 3-year old kid, so I wouldn't be throwing around moral authority if I were you. Have some shame.

Ta: Ok, so you are saying he makes a claim about slow death, but that isn't his intent? I beleive you contaridict yourself there, I recomend you just admit that you were being a bit extreme when you stated that this is his claim.

No, there is no contradiction. I never said he "made a claim", either. I said that the claim was his. Do I think that any reasonable person using logic could fairly infer that such an implicit claim is a necessary implication of his explicit argument? Yes. Is it fair to call the claim "his"? Yes. Whether he specifically intended to put it there, however, I have no idea. I never say, because, frankly, I don't know.

I do think however, that he has specifically rigged a view of the costs in the way Ta has, and that such is obfuscatory. And that is exactly what I said. And I do think that implicit claims are more difficult to challenge, much liek taking over a company once a poison pill has been deployed. By the way, a poison pill is "a strategy, generally in business or politics, which attempts to avoid a negative outcome by increasing the costs of the negative outcome to those who seek it."

Sylvain: "Posner's rigorous analysis"

This isn't what I said, either.

I said: "the rigorous analysis"

The difference is between Posner in the act of analyzing, i.e., his subjective view of what he is doing, and the analysis that Posner has done after the fact, which may acquire its own independent meaning. You can't conflate subjective and objective and pretend that they are the same Sylvain. This isn't France.

Ta: My point which you don't address is that intent comes before enforcement.

That assumes that legislation has intent. There's much scholarship to the contrary, i.e., that is a controversial view. I didn't respond to it, because that is a side-argument. I'm not going to get into an argument over Law and Disagreement by Jeremy Waldron right now. So: no logical flaw. Nothing illogical about avoiding irrelevant side-issues.

I am amazed that you are still defending your position W. You say that his claim is not his intent, is that not enough for you to admit your mistake. Until now I respected your reasoning but to see that you are still defending this claim destroys the validity of any of your points.

Sylvain, you insulted a woman's 3-year old kid, so I wouldn't be throwing around moral authority if I were you. Have some shame.Before assigning blame and shame, you might want to look for proof, instead of repeating the unsubstantiated accusations of others. Or is it just another attempt at diverting the conversation away from your semantic foibles ?

Incidentally, that poor, poor woman used her 3yo son to try and score points and insult me on the basis of my foreign name. Is that the kind of innocent, classy victim you want to hide behind ? Is that all you have ?

You can't conflate subjective and objective and pretend that they are the same Sylvain. This isn't France. You're right. It isn't. I don't recall anyone over there being so embarrassed about their own statements that they would keep contriving such tortured semantic nonsense to weasel out of them. Incidentally, I wouldn't make claims about the French language if I were you. You are having enough troubles with your own as it is.

You are having enough troubles with your own as it is.

I don't think so. I think my first post stands, and your mistaken attempts to distort my statements have been exposed for what they are.

Ta: Until now I respected your reasoning but to see that you are still defending this claim destroys the validity of any of your points.

Wow. That isn't a self-serving claim! That's like Sylvain calling someone else petty!

Ta: You say that his claim is not his intent, is that not enough for you to admit your mistake.

Hmm, I didn't say that! What I said is this: Some claims implicit in his explicit argument may not have been specifically intended, but I have no idea whether they were or not.

Yes, your first post stands on the record for anyone to judge for themselves. No attempts of any sort needed. It is what you wrote; take the responsibility for it instead of blaming others for it.

Sylvain: I don't recall anyone over there being so embarrassed about their own statements that they would keep contriving such tortured semantic nonsense to weasel out of them.

If I were embarrassed by something I would not defend it. Your claim is illogical!

No, W. You did not literally say that.

You are not defending it, you are denying it.

Sylvain: It is what you wrote; take the responsibility for it instead of blaming others for it.

Sylvain. Please, go scroll up. You have taken more than one person's comments out of context. You read my use of the term "poison pill" to mean that I thought Posner wanted to poison the readers of his blog. Please get a grip.

W: "And yet the rigorous analysis obfuscates his claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die."

So basically, you (W) are saying that someone can have a claim, and that this claim is not their intent? The only way this can occur is if the author did not write what they meant.
So you are saying that Posner himself did not know what he was writing as that is the only way to maintain consistency with your argument. Unless this is what you are stating, I urge you to let go of this point and continue with the rest of your argument.

Sylvain: You did not literally say that.

I didn't say it at all. It isn't even implicit in what I explicitly said.

Ta: "So basically, you (W) are saying that someone can have a claim, and that this claim is not their intent? The only way this can occur is if the author did not write what they meant.
So you are saying that Posner himself did not know what he was writing as that is the only way to maintain consistency with your argument. Unless this is what you are stating, I urge you to let go of this point and continue with the rest of your argument."

This is just a way to shoe-horn in an argument about legislative intent that I already said was beside the point. Yes, I think there is a difference between the specific (subjective) intent of the author and the (objective) public meaning of his words. Most people accept this distinction, actually. (Including Richard Posner.)

You read my use of the term "poison pill" to mean that I thought Posner wanted to poison the readers of his blog. Please get a grip. And where did I claim anything about poisoning the 'readers of the blog' ? Before fabricating a new accusation, it would be appreciated if you could at least substantiate one of the dozen you have already made.

I didn't say it at all. It isn't even implicit in what I explicitly said. Of course; when it suits you we have to stick to what you literally said. When it doesn't, you then liberally rewrite your initial statement. Convenient.

when it suits you we have to stick to what you literally said. When it doesn't, you then liberally rewrite your initial statement. Convenient.

I didn't engage in any rewriting. I directed you back to what I originally wrote (in my first post), multiple times, and provided definitions of the words that I used, because you seemed not to understand them.

Ok, I'm done.

Except you just did. I know what you said and where it is. No need to condescendingly 'direct' anyone to it, as if that was a proper justification.

Very well, if you say that the message Posner wanted to provide is not nessecarily the message he provided then there is no reason for discussing this point.

However, I do have a question for you, do you feel the following accurately sums up the question that should be debated: Should drug companies should spend toward rare disease R&D and if so to what level?

If that is the question, then let us return to it and stop discussing small insignificent details of eachother's posts. They take us away from the main issues.

Also, I don't know where Sylvain said anything about Posner poisoning the readers.

Ta, it's all right. I seem to have been saying a lot of things that no one could find any