The Miracle Drug

With the recent economic struggles, many companies are deciding to raise prices on their products so they can be more profitable.  One company that capitalized on this tactic is Questcor.  Questcor only makes money off of one drug that is called Acthar.  This medicine is supposed to help people that have infantile spasms, a condition that can eventually result in death, yet very unlikely.  This article gives a summary of Questcor's tactics.

Questcor is the only company that sells Acthar, because they bought the rights of the drug in 2001.  "In 2007, it raised the price overnight, to more than $23,000 a vial, from $1,650, bringing the cost of a typical course of treatment for infantile spasms to above $100,000".  Since Questcor had a monopoly of this industry, they were able to raise the price of their drug a whopping 14 times above the original price.

14 TIMES!!!!!  To make matters worse, since Acthar is the only medication for infantile spasms, patients with this disease must pay the hefty price.  And to even complicate matters further, Questcor began stating that Acthar is a successful drug for other conditions.  However, since Acthar was created before the Food and Drug Administration required testing to prove that the drug worked, it did not have to be tested.  In other words, people were paying $23,000 a vial for a drug that they didn't know even worked.

What kind of world do we live in where a company can mark up prices 14 times the original and then say that it cures other diseases when there is no proof?  This is absurd!  Recently, insurance companies said they would not pay for Acthar for patients unless it was treating infantile spasms.  This prevents Questcor from selling Acthar for other conditions that there is no proof of the medicine working on.  Despite this, Questcor was able to get away with selling their drug in the first place.

Although we live in tough economic times, nothing warrants a company to completely deceive the public in a maniacal way.  Unfortunately, there are no repercussions for Questcor because they did not break any rules.  This is the reason that the government tries to protect industries from monopolies.  As a country, we NEED to do a better job containing these companies that think they can beat the system.

What repercussions do you think Questcor deserves, if at all?  And do you think tough economic times warrant a company to hike prices this much?  Please comment below.

Social Mobility or Just Another Barrier?

As I begin to think about college, I never feel that the cost of education impacts my ability to attend the school of my choice because my family is financially sound.  However, there are plenty of people that cannot attend college because they cannot afford the hefty price.  In class over this semester, we have discussed social mobility and how education can be one way to improve class status.  Despite this ability to move social classes, early education has begun to dictate the future.  Recently, in middle and high school, affluent kids are receiving even better education than before in comparison to poorer kids.   This sets a baseline for the future and gives less fortunate kids a disadvantage from the very beginning.  In addition, if these less fortunate students are smart enough to get accepted to college, many of them don't have enough money to pay the tuition.  A New York Times article I read echoes this statement.

Three girls in Texas, with financial issues, started taking classes in 8th grade that focused on college-readiness.  The girls felt that these classes would help prevent them from ending up like their parents, not college-educated and with a low-wage job.  In a letter to her school counselor, one of the girls, Angelica Gonzales, said, "'I don't want to work at Walmart'".  Angelica's mom works at Walmart and she sees the constant struggles her mom faces.  These struggles can be attributed to the fact that no one in her family attended college.  As a result, Angelica wants to break this cycle.


The three girls graduated high school in 2008 and they attended Emory, Texas State, and a community college, respectively.  Emory is an excellent school, but Angelica piled up $60,000 in student debt and was not able to finish college because of the financial stress.  Now she works as a clerk in her town's furniture store.  Why is this?  Because she needed money immediately to repay her student loans.  The fact that Angelica ended up as a store clerk after attending Emory questions the ability to move social classes.

Education is supposed to be a way to improve socioeconomic status, but this is becoming increasingly less common.  With the cost of college at an all time high, many people CAN'T afford it.  America prides itself on the idea that people can determine their own destiny and they do not inherit their status from their parents.  Recently, it seems as if social class is hereditary.

It's a shame that people are becoming locked into a social class, but that's the reality.  Unfortunately, there is no solution unless the government provides additional support to defray the cost of college education.  Now, college is more about the ability to pay than the qualifications of the student.  Although it is difficult to grasp, the proof is in the pudding and it does not look promising.  If social mobility is something that the United States really cares about, the government must develop creative solutions or citizens' social class may be pre-determined.

Why hasn't the government done anything to ameliorate this problem? And what do you think is the best way to solve a social mobility issue?  Feel free to leave comments below.

Is it really about the money?

With the recent news of Apple bringing jobs to the US, I was interested in finding out more.  Today in class we had a brief discussion about how Apple has been criticized for having poor working conditions for their workers in China, especially at Foxconn.  I found an article that includes an interview with CEO Tim Cook.

In the article Cook mentions, "Next year, we will do one of our existing Mac lines in the United States."  He also mentioned that  "The glass on this [i]phone is made in Kentucky. And we've been working for years on doing more and more in the United States."  This seems like a great step for Apple because they are creating a significant number of jobs.  However, they have to spend $100 million to do it.  Apple is completely willing to pay this amount because they have a significant amount of cash.  The bigger issue is why couldn't this be done sooner?

Cook believes that since people are not educated on how to manufacture anymore in school in the US, not many people possess the skills necessary to produce an iPhone or Mac.  Is this about education or is it really about money?  Paying a Chinese factory worker is much cheaper than paying an American factory worker.  Although Cook said that Apple felt obligated to make jobs in the US because it is their "home market", is it really just a publicity stunt?  Apple has had controversy about treatment of their workers overseas, so are they trying to clear some of the controversy by importing jobs to the US and treating workers well?


I believe Cook and Apple have good intentions but I'm skeptical and it seems suspicious that Apple is moving jobs to the US all of a sudden.  I own multiple Apple products and have never really thought about the conditions of the workers that created my product.  Quite frankly, as long as I don't know about the conditions, I don't really care, like many other consumers.  And even if I saw that workers were being treated poorly, it would not prevent me from buying Apple's products.  If a company producing shirts or shoes was treating their workers poorly, I may not buy their products, but since Apple's products are revolutionary and no company offers products of such quality, I would continue to buy Apple devices. 

Do you feel that Apple is moving jobs to the US as a publicity stunt? Why?  And does what a company produces affect whether or not a consumer will buy the product if the workers are being teated poorly?

Taking a Rest

This past week, I was watching an NBA game on ESPN and the two commentators were having a debate.  This debate surrounded around the San Antonio Spurs getting fined $250,000 for resting 4 of their 5 starters.  This article explains what happened.

The Spurs had a 6-game road trip in 9 days and had won the first 5 games.  On the last night of the trip, the coach decided to send 4 starters home to San Antonio and not even show up for the game.  Two of these players were older than 35, and needed a rest.  The other two were 30 and 25.  As a result, the NBA decided to fine the Spurs $250,000 because they "did a disservice to the league and our fans".  Really?

The job of a coach is to win the NBA championship.  Greg Popovich, coach of the Spurs, felt like the team would benefit if he sent home a few players to get some extra rest for the upcoming games.  Popovich was simply doing his job.  However, the NBA felt that it was despicable because fans pay to see the star players.

Popovich was definitely justified for sending his players home.  When players are fatigued, they have a higher risk of injury and if one of those players got injured, they might have no chance of winning the championship.  Popovich is paid to win the title, not to satisfy the wants of the league.  Although the league might be angry, coaches have benched stars before without being fined.  Americans LOVE to win.   It's part of American culture.  So why should David Stern, NBA commissioner, punish a coach for doing something that almost comes naturally to him?  The fans just want to see their team win the championship, even if it costs them a game.  No NBA team is going to win every game.

In the past, "The Cleveland Cavaliers rested a healthy James for four straight games at the end of the 2009-10 regular season" and "In the NFL, the Indianapolis Colts rested a healthy Peyton Manning even with an undefeated record late in the 2009 season".  If benching players in games happens often, why should the NBA be allowed to fine teams now?

Do you feel that the NBA should have fined the Spurs for resting 4 of their 5 starters? Why? And do you think certain situations dictate whether a fine is necessary? Feel free to comment below.

The Factory-run Economy

On the brink of the fiscal cliff, the economy and employment have been a big issue.  In the new era of technology, employment is not improving.  Machines are taking jobs away from Americans at a record pace and these machines "can do the work of 10, or in some cases, 100 workers."  This article illustrates the issue that faces employment because of technology.

Today, people are being trained to fix machines as opposed to being trained in the field to machine is used for.  Since 2000, "Nearly six million factory jobs, almost a third of the entire manufacturing industry, have disappeared"

Are we converting to a technological era that is outpacing the job industry?  Is efficiency more important than employing people?  Our generation is becoming more and more dependent on technology and everyone is willing to save a little money by converting to machines, even if it may cost millions of people their jobs.  Unfortunately, many Americans with adequate skills cannot get jobs in industries that rely on technology.  These capable workers have to work at locations where their skills are not utilized.

The picture below emphasizes the fact that no one can get jobs at factories anymore, forcing people to revert to McDonalds and other low paying, service jobs.  Ironically, the "help wanted" on the McDonalds store is asking for help because there are too many people that need jobs.

Although machines can drastically improve efficiency, at what point do we have to start worrying about losing jobs as a country?  Will people start being trained as machine fixers?  Feel free to comment below.

"Light Footprint"

With the conflict going on in the Middle East between Israel and Iran, I was wondering in what ways the US was involved.  I read this article that focused on Obama's strategy on approaching he Middle East.  His plan was referred to as a "Light Footprint".

Light Footprint is a strategy that involves "a mix of remote-control technology and at-a-distance diplomacy to contain the most explosive problems in the Middle East, South Asia and Africa."  This seems like a very good plan because troops do not have to go to the Middle East and fight.

There were also "Strikes by unmanned drone aircraft increased sixfold, secret cyberweapons were aimed at Iran, and special forces killed the world’s most-wanted terrorist and made night raids the currency of American force."  This strategy worked for a while; however, with the recent events in Syria and Iran, it seems like Obama is going to have to change his strategy.

I started thinking about how difficult it must be as the President to decide when troops' services are necessary.  Although the president is making a strong push to take troops out of many countries, at what point does this become unfeasible?

Obviously no one wants US troops to die, but what if pulling out troops or being reluctant to import troops leads to even more deaths for native citizens of that country, especially if it is our ally.  Obama faces a tough decision on how to handle the crisis in the Middle East, but he has to think about the ramifications of importing troops.  The president has the job of deciding what to do, but he is going to have to eventually change his strategy if he cannot negotiate with the leaders of Iran.

Do you think that it is better to pull out troops according to plan, even if it may jeopardize the lives of that country's citizens?  And at this time, what do you think would be the best approach to the Middle Eastern crisis?  Leave comments below.

An American Hurricane

I didn't realize how devastating Hurricane Sandy was until I watched the Hurricane Sandy concert.  8 million without power, many without homes, and the New Jersey boardwalk completely ruined.  Here is the comparison between before and after the hurricane.  Hurricane Sandy was clearly a catastrophe that no one could have predicted, just like Hurricane Katrina and 9/11.

I was watching the Bears game today and right before they started the game, there was a moment of silence, a giant flag in the shape of the US on the field, and the announcer said, "Only in this country does everyone join together and give up their houses to help everyone that has suffered.  We live in the greatest country in the world."

That really got me thinking, what stats does this announcer have to prove that the US is the only country that helps people in need.  We have learned to analyze media critically and this is a great example.  The announcer had good intentions by trying to demonstrate patriotism and show his support for the survivors of Hurricane Sandy.

However, this statement seems very farfetched.  He may believe that America is the greatest country in the world and he is entitled to his opinion.  Contrarily, he is saying no country in any circumstance helps out its citizens when a disaster strikes.

Do you think the announcer had reason to say this statement?  Why?  And why do you think people accept this bold kind of speech without questioning it?  Leave comments below

Is Government Spending Wasteful?

I just recently read an article concerning wasteful government spending.  Although the government uses tax money for many worthy causes (schools, banks, transportation, and others), government spending can also be considered wasteful.

For example, the government had "a $939,771 experiment funded by the National Institutes of Health in Michigan and Texas that tested fruit flies to discover that male fruit flies are more attracted to younger female fruit flies than older ones."

This seems like a complete waste of money.  What good is it to test whether male fruit flies are more attracted to younger or older females, especially when it cost taxpayers $1 million.  

I don't know what prompts the government to fund these seemingly useless experiments, but they have to stop wasting taxpayers money.  Although it is not listed in this article, another article shows that the government loses $70 million annually producing pennies.

REALLY?

What is the point of making pennies anymore?  If the rate of inflation has made the price of producing pennies twice as much as the value of pennies, stop making them!  Some of the things the government spends its money on ceases to amaze me.  Instead of these unnecessary expenses, CUT TAXES.

The government spends "nearly $1 million annually on developing a so-called 'Mars menu.'"

Is it really necessary to try to develop foods that can be eaten on Mars even though we are at least 2 decades away from having a man on Mars?

Do you think the government spends money recklessly on unnecessary things?  And do you think the government should cut taxes instead of wastefully spending taxpayer money?  Leave comments below.

A little too much information

I recently read an article about the election, that focused on voters' lives.  It demonstrated how political figures may have too much information on people's lives.  

"Strategists affiliated with the Obama and Romney campaigns say they have access to information about the personal lives of voters at a scale never before imagined. And they are using that data to try to influence voting habits".

Are candidates so worried about getting votes that they are looking into people's personal lives to try to influence them?  This seems like a violation of privacy.  They even know things about people that their friends might not even know:

"The callers [have] access to details like whether voters may have visited pornography Web sites, have homes in foreclosure, are more prone to drink Michelob Ultra than Corona or have gay friends or enjoy expensive vacations".

I would not want strangers to know these things about me and would be offended that someone was working that hard just to get my vote.  Although the campaign managers say that they are trying to protect privacy, I would feel uncomfortable if they knew this information.

I applaud the candidates for trying this hard to get more votes, but at what cost?  Is it worth confidentiality?  Presidents are supposed to do their best to protect the citizens of the United States, but they are allowing members of their campaign to seek personal information about voters so they can sway them.  This almost seems like desperation.

Do you think that getting this personal information from voters is a violation of privacy?  Would you want people to know certain information about you?  Feel free to leave comments below.

"Broke"

Tonight I was watching ESPN 30 for 30.  This was a particularly interesting episode because it talked about the finances behind athletes and how many of them spend all of their money and go broke.  This is an overview of the episode.  Many athletes come from poor families that do not deal with large sums of money.  

Sean Salisbury, a former NFL player, said "I made more money in one check than my father made in three years."  This was a man who had grown up with little money and was now given more money in the form of one piece of paper than his father had made in three years.  Athletes just don't know what to do with their money.

When they rise to stardom, they are bombarded with constant business deals and endorsements.  About 1 out of every 30 or 40 of these deals is actually successful where the athlete gets their money back.  Almost all the rest of them fail and all money is lost.  Straight out of college, these athletes do not have experience with money. They hire agents to try to help them with their money, but some of these agents are hindrances.

Agents generally take 10% of a player's contract and sometimes deal with all the money a player obtains.  This means expenses, taxes, insurance, and mortgage.  Unfortunately, many of these agents are scammers.  One agent stole 5 million dollars from one player and did not file his taxes so the IRS knocked on his door asking for 1 million dollars.

In order to prevent this, agents hire financial managers to help them create a budget.  Although financial advisors are more reliable, some are still scammers.  Michael Vick's financial advisor was running a ponzi scheme from her house and Vick was out 6 million dollars.  Athletes are naive and with the rapid increase in salary over the recent decades, athletes have more money to spend.

The word "Broke" refers to the fact that 3/4 of NFL players are under financial stress or have gone bankrupt two years after they retired.  This stat is amazing.  These players cannot stop spending and when their career ends, they have no source of revenue.

Due to player's egos, they always want to have more than their counterpart.  This is why many athletes wear chains and bling bling to demonstrate their worth.  It is a matter of "anything you can do, I can do better".  Athletes are spending upwards of 1 million dollars on jewelry alone.

In these times, many people only worry about money and will do illegal things to take advantage of the naive.  America needs to better educate young athletes about the dangers of the financial world.  Athletes need to budget their money and not feel the need to spend compulsively.  The average NFL career length is 3.5 years.  Players that spend their money between paychecks will be broke the second they retire.  Obviously it is up to the players to make smart financial decisions but with all the media attention, it's tough not to show off the money you have.  Players need to worry about their own money with the help of others instead of others doing the work for the players.  Otherwise the bankruptcy will continue.  The American identity values fame and fortune, but not when it leads to bankruptcy.

Why do you think agents steal money illegally from the players?  How do you think players can manage their money better?  And why do you think they have this urge to spend all their money?  Please leave comments below.

And in the words of the great Biggie Smalls, "Mo Money, Mo Problems"

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Today my AiS class went on field trip to the Court Theatre to see the play Jitney, the Osaka Gardens, and finally to the Museum of Contemporary Photography at Columbia College. At the museum, there was one exhibit which I found very interesting.

This exhibit featured about 10 different photographs of all different kinds of houses; however, they all had one thing in common: their address.  The address, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  What comes to mind?  The White House in Washington D.C.?  That was what I originally thought of when I viewed the address.  Upon further inquisition, I realized what the exhibit meant to me.

All of these houses were in different locations around the country in a vast array of areas.  One looks like a barn, another a building, another a rural house, and one a lower-quality house.  Interestingly, there was no photo of the White House.  This signifies how all of these buildings have the same address, but only one most people consider to be important.  I bet that if anyone mentions the address 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they are mentioning the one in Washington D.C., not the one in Indiana or even Arizona.

I personally think that this confusion is due to priority and recognition.  Most people consider the President to be very important and famous.  Since we recognize him, we know the address of his house-- which is a famous monument itself.  People are so caught up in fame, they immediately associate the 1600 Pennsylvania reference to the White House, when 1600 Pennsylvania is just a way to identify a solitary location in a given state, not the nation.

This fame idea is similar to Timothy Treadwell from Grizzly Man.  His father claimed he went downhill after he did not get a part on Cheers.  This American view of celebrity warps people's minds.  Some people spend their whole life trying to be famous and gain recognition.  For example, Will Ferrell is an actor, just like any of the characters we saw in Jitney today.  Same as a member of theater at New Trier.  However, their degree of fame separates them.  The majority of people recognize Ferrell, but not a New Trier actor.   This perception of fame shapes American culture.  

The idea of fame is just like 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but with buildings instead of people.  The White House has an aura and is well-known, unlike any ordinary house with the same address.  This exhibit really changed my view on how Americans perceive fame and how important it is to society.

Feel free to leave other comments about the exhibit if you saw it.  Also, how do you think Americans perceive fame?  And is it fair to rule out less famous people with the same jobs or lesser-known buildings with the same address because you do not recognize them?

In Memory of 9/11

I was siting in advisory today listening to the morning announcements, which I and everyone else normally ignores, but today I had a reason to listen.  Today marks the 11th anniversary of 9/11 and I definitely wanted to show my acknowledgement with a moment of silence for all the victims.  Obviously this was a horrendous attack on the world trade center, Pentagon, and the attempt on the White House or Capital.

However, there were only about 3,000 deaths.   This number is similar to the death tole on any other day.  So what makes this event so special?  I believe it has a significant impact on American society, not only because it was a terrorist attack, but it sparked patriotism.  I read an article about some of the changes Americans made in their social life after the 9/11 attacks.

Not only were people displaying American flags outside their houses, they were hanging them from their cars and other places.  People also started to have different perceptions of others.  One woman said that "I think you're a little more cautious because you don't always know who your neighbor is."  People did not know who to trust and were scared that the mighty America had been attacked.

After the attack, people were more cognizant of their surroundings as well.  Airports cracked down on anyone with anything sharp, liquid, or dangerous.  In addition, people were cautious when it came to air travel.  No one wanted their flight to be one that crashed.

Now looking back,  it seems as if a lot of information has surfaced about hints that something was going to happen.  For example, when the pilots that flew the four planes went to pilot school, they only wanted to learn how to fly, not land.  In retrospect, it is easy to blame people for not doing something that could have stopped the attack.

I would argue that although this event was tragic and devastating, it may have been a little bit good for America.  People became more patriotic.  The government became more aware of possible threats.  And it gave the US motivation to hunt down Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.  By no means am I saying the event was a good thing, but I think America emerged stronger.

Do you think America was stronger after 9/11?  And do you think 9/11 had a bigger impact than just 3,000 deaths?

National Conventions Word Chart

The Democratic National Convention has just ended and in reflection, I was looking at the word chart that we discussed in class.  This chart shows the number of times each word was used by a particular party.  While the chart does not account for context, it does a pretty good job summarizing the points made at the two conventions.

For example, the Democrats used the word "millionaire" 7 times while the republicans did not use it once.  When in context, "millionaire" was used in a negative way, taking a shot at the Republicans for lowering taxes for millionaires.  Context aside, this chart is very instrumental.

Many inferences can be made about the chart, but I wanted to talk about a specific few.  First, it appears as if many of the words on both sides focus directly on Obama and how he did as president.  This is not a surprise; however, it seemed as if the speeches were more reflective as oppose to what a candidate will do once he becomes president.

Some of the words that evidence this on the Republican side are "business", "Obamacare", "fail", "spending", "unemployment", and "debt".  All of these words refer to what the Republicans believe Obama did incorrectly as president.  The Republicans are not big fans of the new healthcare reform and refer to it as Obamacare more than Medicare because they believe that it is a doing of Obama and will only survive if a democrat stays in office.  A lot of the other words surround business because the economic issues in the country.  By describing the unemployment rate under Obama as well as the government spending and debt, it may seem like a turn-off.  It is very interesting that the Republicans used "fail" so much.  This implies that the believe Obama has failed as a president.

On the democratic side, the words that show Obama's successes are "Medicare", "education", "Bin Laden", "middle class", "workers", "seniors", and "women".  The Democrats believe that the new Medicare bill was very successful because everyone now has healthcare, even though it may cost hospitals a significant sum of money.  The Democrats also mention Bin Laden while the Republicans did not mention his name once because the killing of Bin Laden was a major success.  It is not easy killing the number one terrorist.  The majority of the other words refer to the normal or ordinary people of the middle class and the same treatment of seniors and women.  Obama is a big proponent of supporting the working middle class and by mentioning words that relate to them, he may gain more of their votes.

In summation, it seemed like the conventions significantly focused on how well Obama has performed at president. Now the big question for voters is: Did the Republicans do a better job of explaining how Obama has been a bad president or did the Democrats do a better job of explaining how Obama has succeeded?

Please leave comments about other patterns you noticed in the chart or your stance on who did a better job.

Campaign Lies

The next presidential election is coming up this November and we are starting to see ads on TV. Every year these campaigns seem to focus more on the shortcomings of the other candidate than the advantages of themselves.  I read an article explaining how many candidates stretch the truth and take quotes out of context.  Brooks Jackson, the director of factcheck.org, said that, "at various points this year both sides have blithely gone on repeating statements that were found false."  He went on to say "'They don’t care...because it gets votes."'  Obviously candidates want more votes, but why can't they be truthful? Instead of talking about the disadvantages of your competitor, candidates should talk about the advantages of electing them.  Mitt Romney released a video last year that focused on the mistakes of Obama.  Political views aside, it is not ethical to talk about how bad a specific candidate is no matter what one's stance or opinion is.  Why do you think that political figures always say the problems with the other candidate? And do you think this is ethical?

America's true pastime

As the NFL season is shortly coming upon us, there is a true discussion to be had.  Is baseball America's true pastime? I would argue that football has overtaken baseball for this title.  Yes, there are greats like Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron that are legends in baseball and have paved its history, but football is the dominant sport today.  With the dawn of the steroid era, the "purity" of baseball had started to vanish.  Football is a hard-nosed game.  The grit and determination are evident through players' facial expressions.  I read an article that argues that football is America's pastime.  Kate Coil states,

"...football is America’s way to relax after Thanksgiving dinner and a reason to get together with friends and family every winter for parties, commercials and tossing around the old pigskin."

Football is more than a game.  It is a social event.  It is a bonding experience.  Not that baseball isn't these, but football is becoming more popular.  Even awful teams can sell out their stadium that occupies 70,000 people, whereas baseball has half-empty stadiums a lot of the time and baseball stadiums can only hold about 45,000 people.  Also, not that many people are waiting for one great baseball game because teams play three game series' and there are 162 games in the season compared to football's 16 games.  I look forward to every single Bears game for the whole week before.  I say this as a huge fan of baseball.  I consider baseball to be my favorite sport.  Nevertheless, I would much rather watch football.  So on Sunday when you're wondering what to do, plop down on your couch, turn on the TV, and enjoy America's true pastime.