Drug Lobby Wins Again in Washington...

Excuse me? That's pretty much my thing. I say that in nearly every thread. I said it in this thread by the second page.

No, just pointing out that this is what you get when you let government regulate the free market -- unintended consequences.

To take from that I approve of such interference is stretching beyond the bounds of reason.

Oh please.

I want government out of the market, period. I don't want them to fix this little problem or that little problem that arose because they interfered in the first place.

How about being honest, garamet?

And? That's absolutely true.

And it doesn't represent me approving of such interference.

Are you out of your fucking mind?

This is getting pathetic.

No, I really don't like poor people.

This is plain sad, garamet.

For you I mean.

Seriously garamet, me pointing out the futility of you left wingers and right wingers arguing over how government should regulate the market doesn't imply consent of market interference.

And stating that a company has no power but what government gives them doesn't imply approval of government giving them power.

I really wonder why you'd stretch so far to make a point even the stupidest person on this board (hi gul!) could see through.

Let me put it even more simply ---


Your definition of implied consent is so broad that if it were applied to law then every rapist in America would be set free.

Garamet, hate to tell you this, but that annual yield is the only tale that actually matters.
Anything else you come up with is just blowing smoke up peoples' asses.

Listy, let me ask you which would be of more value to you, a 6% yield on your pharma stock portfolio year over year, or a cure for diabetes?

And, Storm, to me "you made your bed, now lie in it" implies acquiescence to existing gov't. regulation, not an effort to get it rolled back.

Without that 6% yield happening, there isn't going to be a cure for diabetes, or anything else for that matter, so I'll take the 6%.

No, it says specifically that what you see if the direct result of people demanding that government regulate the market.

Therefore, the solution is not regulation that you support, but the removal of regulation, period.

So once again, unless you can wave your magic wand and do away with ALL regulation, you're not interested in chipping away at it one reg at a time.

If everyone could read so very much -- no matter how wrongly -- as you do, into every written statement then books would only need to be two pages long.

But while we're at it, does this mean you agree that government shouldn't be regulating business?

I am more amazed that she believes unprofitable companies do R&D.

Sheesh. The way you yank the crooked numbers out of your ass it's amazing that you're able to sit.

Certainly no hypocrite. You have to have reasons for your opinions before they can be hypocritical, and Storm excels at not having reasons for anything. He has mantras, of course, but he never makes any effort to connect those mantras to facts or reason.

If he likes something, it's free market, regardless of facts or reason; if he dislikes something, it's what the commies do, regardless of facts or reason. And if you dare call him on his lack of reasons, you get the petulant name calling that qualifies as the highest form of argument in his universe. It's Coulter, without the penis.

This from the guy who defined rationality as agreeing with him politically!

Obviously she's not worthy. I'm an NL fan stuck in an AL town. While I can enjoy the show of strength that represents the entire offensive strategy in the AL, nothing beats scratching out runs by bunt, hit and run, and steal. And the pitching strategy in the AL seems to consist only of having a guy pitch until he's given up one too many homeruns, with no thought whatsoever to the batter to be faced by the relief staff.

It's not that hard to look up a company's yield numbers. Pharmas are averaging around 3% right now.

The difference in this case is that it is the corporation asking for regulation. I admit, it makes for a more difficult environment to understand for the economically challenged folks around here (listkeeper, O2C).

Don't they always?

Why beat your competitors fairly and live by the market's demands when you can pay off government to eliminate competitors and make customers accept your demands?

Ironic maybe, but the worst threat to free enterprise besides the socialist goons is unscrupulous mercantilists disguising as business men.

Having posted this, perhaps you can explain to Listkeeper why any corporation that's allowed by govt. regulation to artificially inflate prices on drugs for chronic illnesses like heart disease and diabetes is not interested in research into cures for this conditions, but in maintaining the status quo so that chumps like him will keep paying for their drugs for the rest of their unnecessarily shortened lives.

Ok, just picking 5 that make drugs in my house right now....
Company Symbol Yield
Eli Lilly LLY 2.91%
Merck MRK 2.96%
Glaxo SmithKline GSK 3.38%
Bristol Myers-Squib BMY 3.70%
Abbot Laboratories ABT 2.25%

Gee... That looks a LOT like an average of approximately 3% there....

Companies that aren't profitable have no interest in doing research at all. Or does Storm need to explain that to you?

And so what is the solution?

You know it. Just embrace it.

Ending government regulation.

In a free market, a drug company that doesn't seek a cure but rather a treatment will leave the demand for a cure unmet. And in doing so, they open the door to a competitor who will seek that cure; a competitor who will put them out of business.

That's how the free market would work without government interference.

That's why the market, when unfettered, is god.

Oh, no, no, no, you're not getting me into that trap, because I don't know what "all government regulation" entails in every single instance, so you'll excuse me if I prefer to limit myself to instances where I actually have some knowledge.

Precisely. Which is why Big Pharma in the U.S. is *not* finding cutting edge cures. As more and more insurers jettison their prescription coverage, sooner or later Big Pharma will end up doling out overpriced treatments to the upper middle class, while small biotech companies buy their cast-off molecules and, between them and overseas competitors, cures will eventually be found for the disease states that Big Pharma is propping up today.

I emphasize "eventually," because without the capital that Big Pharma has, the smaller companies are limited in their ability to fund research.

And eventually the U.S. will become a Third World country vis-a-vis new medical treatments.

In the meantime, those who can't afford to pay for the expensive drugs out of pocket will be prescribed the off-patent "dirty" drugs that have nasty side effects and are less effective. This will affect quality of life, if not length of life, for millions of Americans. Possibly including Listkeeper.

So, in the long term, Big Pharma will have to change its tune. But in the short and intermediate term, the American consumer suffers because the Congresscritters refuse to budge on propping up this one industry.

Perhaps. I don't know that for sure, and I'm not sure how you do.

In that case, I'm an atheist.

And if you believe that those glossy brochures they send you tell the whole story, I'd like to interest you in some waterfront property in Brooklyn.

Your monthly drug bill is just as likely to be paying for your endocrinologist's trip to Bermuda at BMS's expense as it is any R&D.

Last time I looked, US Big Pharma IS paying for the cutting edge research. Over 90% of diabetes research worldwide is being funded by companies like Eli Lilly, Glaxo, and others.

So in other words, Garamet, you're lying outta your ass.

Show us.

Indeed, I'd say it is the greater threat, though the "socialist goons" certainly get more press.