Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You are making my point, and I thank you- I'd forgotten this.
Americans go to Canada to buy drugs since the Canadian gov't artificially keeps the price down. Ain't no drug research going on there- so if the drug companies can't pay for research here- Guess what? NO NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
|
There is no doubt that Americans pay higher drug prices in part because of the price controls in Europe and Canada.
However, your point rests on the assumption that drug companies will not accept any less profit than they now make in order to remain in business, but will instead wither up and die (or take their money and run away) in the face of price resistance from the U.S. government. The complete lack of proof for this proposition fatally undermines your argument.
I'll assume that you intended to post a more nuanced and credible argument, but were typing quickly.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Again, exactly. The problem is that currently those without extra $$$, but nominal coverage get to treatment no. 2243. YOU WOULD LIMIT THAT WHICH THE MIDDLE CLASS NOW GETS.
|
I honestly don't understand exactly what you're trying to say. However, I will point out that there are many reform options which would or should not eliminate the ability of folks with money to buy insurance and get to treatment no. 2243 [or just to buy treatment no. 2243].
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the point is whats your predicator of sucess. A better educated country with a smaller percentage living in poverty and 1/10 the size of the States CAN'T PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.
|
As a side note, Canada has a lower percentage of population living in poverty precisely because of the social policies you deplore. On the main point -- Who sez? and acceptable to whom? With what costs and trade-offs?
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I tried to make a reasoned analysis of some shortcomings in your ravings, and you hurl invictive? Was this a homage to Govenor Dean? If we can't have rational, non-personally insulting exchange of ideas, I'm not sure further conversation with you is in order.
|
I hurled invective, after you may have tried, but miserably failed to perform as advertised above, and did indeed insult me.
J'accuse!
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Whatever- sell it and buy a yugo- take the money and give it to the poor, once you've done that you can ask me to risk my children's medical health on some hair brained campaign issue.
|
This is reasoned analysis?
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I must dare challenge SAM when you lay out this poorly reasoned drivel- surely a client or reviewing partner would not have approved or paid you for similar "work" How would it be fair to you to let this pass?
|
You'd be surprised. My poorly-reasoned drivel sells rather well.
S_A_M
