Regulatory Environment does affect Rep Employment

Discussion in 'Novartis' started by Anonymous, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:17 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest


    Don't waste your time trying to save pharma reps. It's too late. Spend your time looking for another career. Go back to school, start a small business, network. The pharma career related to sales is over. The pharma career in marketing and related jobs is over. You might be able to hang on for a few more years but if you are under 50 you should be worried.
     

  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    New, novel treatments will always rule the day. You can only cut and save for so long before you need to start making new and improved shit. The stock prices are short-term gains. Long-term value can only come from new and improved therapies... and those therapies ain't gonna sell themselves.
     
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    The Obama Administration will appeal this finding of a 3 Judge Panel (2 GOP, 1 Dem Judge) to the entire 11 Judge (7 Dems, 4 GOP) Washington, DC Court of Appeals. I think that we can all guess at the outcome there. And as we may note, 3 of those Dem Judges were appointed after Senate Leader Reid pulled the Trigger on the Nuclear Option and changed the Filibuster Rules in the Senate. How has it been described? "The GOP is playing Checkers while the Dems are playing chess".

    3 hrs afterwards another Court of Appeals unanomosly rejected the same claim. Now there will be total agreement among the Courts of Appeals - 2 Circuits will have upheld the ACA subsidies so if SCOTUS decides to hear it they will be doing so against all precedent and it will be honestly seen as a pure political move. It will be 5 to 4 to take it and 5 to 4 to overturn based on a typo in the law. So, SCOTUS will deny about 7 million people in the US Health Care based on a typo when millions of other people in the US get to keep their Healthcare based on similar subsidies and against all precedent in a nakedly political move.

    Then even if SCOTUS does that it will be next year after ~ 10,000 more Pharma Reps are laid-off.

    Doesn't sound like "positive news for the goos guys" does it?
     
  5. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Your cut-n-paste source is wrong. It's not a "typo", it is how the law is written. Also, SCOTUS, can not and will not "deny" millions of people healthcare. The power and obligation of SCOTUS is to overturn laws and executive actions it determines are unlawful or unconstitutional. So while this is not an immediate solution, it is clearly "positive news for the good guys."
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    The "cut & paste source" was one of the judges from the 4th Circuit Court appeals. All 4 judges that have now upheld the law state that there is no proof that anyone who wrote the law or who voted for the law wanted it this way. And the 2 judges that voted against it both admit that is is a typo and wasn't intended but argue that doesn't matter. So every judge so far disagrees with you.

    And neither one of these cases challenge the Constitutionality of Obamacare. That has been litigated and those types of cases are regularly thrown out of the courts and don't even get this far anymore. BY FAR, the largest number of cases that reach SCOTUS have nothing to do with the Constitution but get there when the lower Appellate Courts disagree on a ruling interpreting laws. When that happens SCOTUS steps in. As pointed out above, there will be ni disagreement because the decision of the 3 Judge Panel of the DC Court where the 2 GOPers made the decision above that admits that it was a typo, will be appealed to the 11 Judge panel where it will be upheld. So, there will be no disagreements among the Appellate Courts.

    SCOTUS can still reach down, and against ALL precedent, hear the case but doing o would take a 5-4 vote along political lines and then it would be 5-4 decision again along political lines to over turn it.

    And, it would take away the Health Insurance of ~ million people while letting millions of others to martin their Fed Govt subsidized Healthcare.

    But what is obvious and is highlighted by your embarrassing attempt to gloss over it shows is that - even in the worst case, over the next year, nothing will change and Novartis and their buddies will leverage the Regulations that they helped craft and then spent $150M to get passed, to get rid of ~ 10,000 more Reps.
     
  7. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    "But what is obvious and is highlighted by your embarrassing attempt to gloss over it shows is that - even in the worst case, over the next year, nothing will change and Novartis and their buddies will leverage the Regulations that they helped craft and then spent $150M to get passed, to get rid of ~ 10,000 more Reps."

    Doesn't Obama's crony-capitalist society suck?
     
  8. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    The law’s latest legal problem is that, as written, people who enroll in Obamacare through the federal exchange aren’t eligible for subsidies. The text of the law only provides subsidies for people enrolled through “an Exchange established by the State,” according to the text of the Affordable Care Act. Only 16 states decided to establish the exchanges.

    President Obama’s old Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, said that he “wouldn’t bet the family farm” on Obamacare’s surviving the legal challenges to an IRS rule about who is eligible for subsidies that are currently working their way through the federal courts.

    “I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe told the Fiscal Times. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.”
     
  9. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    10.000 - that the number that important to us because that is the number that is the ~ number that will be gone before SCOTUS can even address it.

    Will that include you?

    Tribe predicted, in 2009, that Obamacare would never pass and predicted that it wouldn't be upheld in SCOTUS and since the 49,000 Reps are gone.

    I am sure glad that you "good guys" know who to listen to as it has worked so well for so far!

    50,000
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Obamacare and all his regulations have destroyed many different industries. Why would the pharmaceutical industry be any different?
     
  11. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Maybe just tooooo many reps?
     
  12. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Maybe just toooo many people are working generally. I mean, come on.... Surely we can reach that 50 million mark for food stamp recipients before Obama has left office.
     
  13. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    As is shown in these posts, Nonvartis and their buddies in PRMA are working with Obama to try and do so - thousands of Reps at a time.
     
  14. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Just like a rising tide lifts all boats, Obamacare is sinking all industries.
     
  15. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Wall Street does't seem to agree and your employer surely doesn't.
     
  16. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    My 401(k) loves it some Obamacare.
     
  17. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Wait until QE3 ends completely in October and the Fed eventually raises interest rates over near 0%. The performance of the stock market has had little to do with the success of companies. If it has had any, it has been due to mass-layoffs and outsourcing and the large savings in labor expenses, not because businesses exceptionally expanded year to year sales growth.
     
  18. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Yeah.... Nothing to see here.... Everything's fine. The economy is humming along like a finely tuned machine.
     
  19. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Corp profits as a percentage of the US economy is at an all time high. Noavrtis' profitably is much less correlated to interest rates than it is to its long planned ability to shed the costs of useless rep$.
     
  20. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    U.S. Labor Participation Rates are at all-time lows... Thanks Obamacare.