They're pulling the same crap the credit card companies are. Somehow, we're not supposed to notice.

US pharmaceutical companies have less desire to reduce drug costs than a Mexican drug cartel.

The drug companies were all: we gon save you some money yo

And then they were all:

I get all my pharmaceuticals from a discount source...
El Rushbo's maid!

Step One: Increase nations drug costs by $10 Billion
Step Two: Decrease nations drug costs by $8 Billion
Step Three:???
Step Four: We STILL Profit!

I love corporate America. I love them so much that I'd like to c*ntpunch or castrate every CEO.

Bill Weldon is a wanker.

Good thing Y'all have that single payer system coming in. Oh..that's right.

Mentat: They're pulling the same crap the credit card companies are. Somehow, we're not supposed to notice.

Same crap? They're reacting to government actions taken against them (whether or not you like said actions is FARKING IRRELEVANT) You're acting as though they're doing this in a vacuum.

We should definitely trust the private sector to take care of the whole health care mess. I'm starting to think it's all smoke and mirors and who dies in America because f no healthcare. No one, that's who.

We're in good hands.

ShavedApe: I love corporate America. I love them so much that I'd like to c*ntpunch or castrate every CEO.

They're really just guilty of *light* treason, though. So no enhanced interrogation.

culebra: ShavedApe: I love corporate America. I love them so much that I'd like to c*ntpunch or castrate every CEO.

They're really just guilty of *light* treason, though. So no enhanced interrogation.

Pharmaceutical companies are required by law, as it is, to set aside a portion of their profits for supporting low income Americans and their Rx needs. Go post-rape shower cry about treason somewhere else.

USP .45:

Pharmaceutical companies are required by law, as it is, to set aside a portion of their profits for supporting low income Americans and their Rx needs. Go post-rape shower cry about treason somewhere else.

And what is that percentage???

GodsTumor: USP .45:

Pharmaceutical companies are required by law, as it is, to set aside a portion of their profits for supporting low income Americans and their Rx needs. Go post-rape shower cry about treason somewhere else.

And what is that percentage???

.001%. But it IS a percentage.

Gyrfalcon: GodsTumor: USP .45:

Pharmaceutical companies are required by law, as it is, to set aside a portion of their profits for supporting low income Americans and their Rx needs. Go post-rape shower cry about treason somewhere else.

And what is that percentage???

.001%. But it IS a percentage.

Yep...they spend more money on ads saying they provide free drugs than they do providing free drugs!

Gyrfalcon: GodsTumor: USP .45:

Pharmaceutical companies are required by law, as it is, to set aside a portion of their profits for supporting low income Americans and their Rx needs. Go post-rape shower cry about treason somewhere else.

And what is that percentage???

.001%. But it IS a percentage.

Yeah, going by the baseline trigger for librage induced by profits, that being oil companies, they don't give away enough free stuff.



Just farking say you want to nationalize the pharma companies or put a gun to their heads and mandate 90% profit redistribution. Stop pretending to not be communists or fascists, respectively.

Just farking say that me, as a shareholder in both health service and pharama companies, no longer have a right to my investments and that the companies I invest in are no longer obligated to me, the shareholder, to make a profit so my investments can grow. Just farking admit it you rats.

USP .45: culebra: ShavedApe: I love corporate America. I love them so much that I'd like to c*ntpunch or castrate every CEO.

They're really just guilty of *light* treason, though. So no enhanced interrogation.

Pharmaceutical companies are required by law, as it is, to set aside a portion of their profits for supporting low income Americans and their Rx needs. Go post-rape shower cry about treason somewhere else.

Ah, that makes it much better, then. Whew. Wait...

They're not putting aside gross income, but net profit, right? So, say, when someone like GlaxoSmithKline abuses transfer prices to hide gross income from the United States and United Kingdom, that also affects the net going into that program, right? Or when Merck cheats the United States and Canada to the tune of at least $5.6 billion, that also screws the pooch on the low-income drug program, correct?

Please. Pharmaceutical companies have been ripping folks off for decades - not implicitly, through shoddy research, off-market usage, marketing madness, or outright fraud, but explicitly, through tax dodges, illegal financial actions, and outright lies.

USP .45: Just farking say that me, as a shareholder in both health service and pharama companies, no longer have a right to my investments and that the companies I invest in are no longer obligated to me, the shareholder, to make a profit so my investments can grow. Just farking admit it you rats.

Maybe! Will you admit that many of your profits for new, *actual* treatments, and not penis pills, come off the back of publicly funded research, driven not by profit, but by government grants at universities?

Plus, there's a different between "Profit that is reinvested in the company" and "Profit that, instead of being reinvested in the company, is used to line the pockets of the CEO, whether or not they're actually doing a good job."

Felgraf: Plus, there's a different between "Profit that is reinvested in the company" and "Profit that, instead of being reinvested in the company,

The former would be a non-profit, dumbass, closet fascist.

is used to line the pockets of the CEO, whether or not they're actually doing a good job."

If it has shareholders, then it's their call if the CEO is doing his/her job, you out of the picture crybaby.

USP .45: Just farking say that me, as a shareholder in both health service and pharama companies, no longer have a right to my investments and that the companies I invest in are no longer obligated to me, the shareholder, to make a profit so my investments can grow. Just farking admit it you rats.

Can we also hold you responsible for their appalling lack of business ethics and illegal activities, too? I mean, they're obligated to you, right - you must've, in some small way, either approved or contributed to those actions, right? You're a shareholder, after all - owner of an admittedly teeny, tiny fraction of the company, but an owner nonetheless.

USP .45: Just farking say that me, as a shareholder in both health service and pharama companies, no longer have a right to my investments and that the companies I invest in are no longer obligated to me, the shareholder, to make a profit so my investments can grow. Just farking admit it you rats.

You, as a shareholder in both health service and pharma companies, should no longer have a right to the companies in which you invest putting at absolute highest priority the increase of value of those investments, beyond the vital and necessary services and products they provide. You don't have a right to demand that the companies you back with your money collude with their competitors to keep prices artificially high. You don't have a right to demand that they scrape every last bit of service from their customers, when those denied services result in the death or damage of those customers. You don't have the right to demand that, because you are an almighty investor, your gratification is made the most important thing, beyond actually doing the farking things the companies in which you invest are paid to do.

Call me a communist. Call me a greedy liberal. I just think that in the vital "industry" of health care, there are more important things at stake than the dollar.

I'll say it before and I've said it again: Drug production is too important to the general welfare of the Republic to leave in the hands of private companies

Whoa there you knee-jerk reactionaries, if big Pharma has to reduce drug costs, they won't be able to pay $30,000 per day per legislator to swarm the capital with lobbyists.

YOU WANT TO PUT PEOPLE OUT OF JOBS?!?!? WE'rE IN A farkING RECESSION HERE, WE SHOULD BE PASSING BILLS TO FUND MORE LOBBYISTS.

FormlessOne: Can we also hold you responsible for their appalling lack of business ethics and illegal activities, too?

I can't comment on what degree ethics you might be referring to. Corporate charters can be written in any number of ways (Whole Foods, a super nice progressive company, has a corporate charter, as well as WalMart, an eeeeeevil company), and per their charters, they are ethically obligated to satisfy them. Whether it's really focused on the community, or more focused on the shareholder is up to the charter - you know, liberty. Don't like the corporate charter? Don't invest. Don't do business with that company.

As for genuinely illegal activities, the shareholders suffer too when the company pays a fine to the government / damages to affected consumers.

Stop crying in the shower.

USP .45: Just farking say that me, as a shareholder in both health service and pharama companies, no longer have a right to my investments and that the companies I invest in are no longer obligated to me, the shareholder, to make a profit so my investments can grow. Just farking admit it you rats.

I could not give less of a flying fark about your investments.fark your investments you stupid coont.

crab66: USP .45: Just farking say that me, as a shareholder in both health service and pharama companies, no longer have a right to my investments and that the companies I invest in are no longer obligated to me, the shareholder, to make a profit so my investments can grow. Just farking admit it you rats.

I could not give less of a flying fark about your investments.fark your investments you stupid coont.

What you think I'm moneybags McGee? I have very little and save and invest what I can. Come take my investments from me you little fascist fruit.

USP .45: I can't comment on what degree ethics you might be referring to. Corporate charters can be written in any number of ways (Whole Foods, a super nice progressive company, has a corporate charter, as well as WalMart, an eeeeeevil company), and per their charters, they are ethically obligated to satisfy them. Whether it's really focused on the community, or more focused on the shareholder is up to the charter - you know, liberty. Don't like the corporate charter? Don't invest. Don't do business with that company.

That old free market standard. "Don't like it? Don't give them your money." Unfortunately, in the real world, where certain economic sectors have developed into quite solid oligopolies, that doesn't work very well. As consumers, our options are limited and our information is scarce. For those of us who actually have ethical concerns about these groups, we're generally stuck between a rock and a hard place. We don't have many choices, and virtually all of the choices available are shiat. We don't have the ability to make those changes in the market, and we sure as fark can't realistically vote with our wallets.

Bloody William: USP .45: I can't comment on what degree ethics you might be referring to. Corporate charters can be written in any number of ways (Whole Foods, a super nice progressive company, has a corporate charter, as well as WalMart, an eeeeeevil company), and per their charters, they are ethically obligated to satisfy them. Whether it's really focused on the community, or more focused on the shareholder is up to the charter - you know, liberty. Don't like the corporate charter? Don't invest. Don't do business with that company.

That old free market standard. "Don't like it? Don't give them your money." Unfortunately, in the real world, where certain economic sectors have developed into quite solid oligopolies, that doesn't work very well. As consumers, our options are limited and our information is scarce. For those of us who actually have ethical concerns about these groups, we're generally stuck between a rock and a hard place. We don't have many choices, and virtually all of the choices available are shiat. We don't have the ability to make those changes in the market, and we sure as fark can't realistically vote with our wallets.

Want to talk about barriers to market entry, then let's talk about them. What you just commented on was not a free market scenario, by your own farking admission.

USP .45: Want to talk about barriers to market entry, then let's talk about them. What you just commented on was not a free market scenario, by your own farking admission.

That was his point.

USP .45: culebra: ShavedApe: I love corporate America. I love them so much that I'd like to c*ntpunch or castrate every CEO.

They're really just guilty of *light* treason, though. So no enhanced interrogation.

Pharmaceutical companies are required by law, as it is, to set aside a portion of their profits for supporting low income Americans and their Rx needs. Go post-rape shower cry about treason somewhere else.

Oh man! That post was so edgy and rad! I'm blown the fark away.
Next time try not responding to an obviously sarcastic remark, prick nose.

USP .45: Want to talk about barriers to market entry, then let's talk about them. What you just commented on was not a free market scenario, by your own farking admission.

That's my point. We don't have a "true" free market (indeed, such a thing isn't farking possible), and it's not because of the government, it's because of how the health care industry has developed in this country. Pharma and health care are dominated by a small number of very large groups, and that gives consumers very few realistic options.

USP .45: FormlessOne: Can we also hold you responsible for their appalling lack of business ethics and illegal activities, too?

I can't comment on what degree ethics you might be referring to.

Nice dodge. You're happy to comment on selected parts of their business, but abrogate on other parts of their business, depending on whether their behavior lines your pockets.

Corporate charters can be written in any number of ways (Whole Foods, a super nice progressive company, has a corporate charter, as well as WalMart, an eeeeeevil company), and per their charters, they are ethically obligated to satisfy them. Whether it's really focused on the community, or more focused on the shareholder is up to the charter - you know, liberty. Don't like the corporate charter? Don't invest. Don't do business with that company.

Obeying the law has nothing to do with their corporate charters - again, you're attempting to side-step that several major pharmaceutical corporations have broken the law. It's not a question in doubt - GlaxoSmithKline's shelling out $3.4 billion in a settlement to the IRS, and Merck's getting hammered in four separate actions related to their tax dodges, and they're not the only ones. Citing "corporate charter" as a way of saying, "hey, if you think they're evil, don't invest" is not only silly, but irrelevant.

As for genuinely illegal activities, the shareholders suffer too when the company pays a fine to the government / damages to affected consumers.

No, everybody suffers - see, when someone like GlaxoSmithKline spends $3.4 billion to avoid paying has been estimated at double that in taxes, the rest of us, all of us, pay for it. The investment value for shareholders goes down a wee bit - but all of us pitched in to cushion your loss. Good corporations - those that follow the law - benefit both their shareholders and society in general.

Has very little to do with the screams of fascism and more to do with corporate responsibility. I'm not the other poster, there, and I'm less concerned about the intangibles of morality than the tangibles of actual fiscal responsibility. The fact that you attempt to defend both responsible and irresponsible corporations with the same abrogation is disconcerting.

Stop crying in the shower.

Really?

inthrees: Whoa there you knee-jerk reactionaries, if big Pharma has to reduce drug costs, they won't be able to pay $30,000 per day per legislator to swarm the capital with lobbyists.

YOU WANT TO PUT PEOPLE OUT OF JOBS?!?!? WE'rE IN A farkING RECESSION HERE, WE SHOULD BE PASSING BILLS TO FUND MORE LOBBYISTS.

Those are jobs we can afford to lose.

USP .45: Pharmaceutical companies are required by law, as it is, to set aside a portion of their profits for supporting low income Americans and their Rx needs. Go post-rape shower cry about treason somewhere else.

now they know how mother theresa felt

Bloody William: USP .45: Want to talk about barriers to market entry, then let's talk about them. What you just commented on was not a free market scenario, by your own farking admission.

That's my point. We don't have a "true" free market (indeed, such a thing isn't farking possible), and it's not because of the government, it's because of how the health care industry has developed in this country. Pharma and health care are dominated by a small number of very large groups, and that gives consumers very few realistic options.

Come on. To say the health care industry and pharma have developed independently of government...come on.

But you raise another interesting side issue; where's all the overseas competition in pharma as far as product development and existing product distribution?

USP .45: Felgraf: Plus, there's a different between "Profit that is reinvested in the company" and "Profit that, instead of being reinvested in the company,

The former would be a non-profit, dumbass, closet fascist.

is used to line the pockets of the CEO, whether or not they're actually doing a good job."

If it has shareholders, then it's their call if the CEO is doing his/her job, you out of the picture crybaby.

I'm going to take it that the answer to my first question is "No, I will not admit that", then? Interesting that you didn't even address it. Ah well, I should have expected that.

Mmm. Interesting that you called me a crybaby, son. *I* don't seem to be the one pitching a hissy fit and lashing out with names.

Felgraf: USP .45: Felgraf: Plus, there's a different between "Profit that is reinvested in the company" and "Profit that, instead of being reinvested in the company,

The former would be a non-profit, dumbass, closet fascist.

is used to line the pockets of the CEO, whether or not they're actually doing a good job."

If it has shareholders, then it's their call if the CEO is doing his/her job, you out of the picture crybaby.

I'm going to take it that the answer to my first question is "No, I will not admit that", then? Interesting that you didn't even address it. Ah well, I should have expected that.

Mmm. Interesting that you called me a crybaby, son. *I* don't seem to be the one pitching a hissy fit and lashing out with names.

He's not addressing much - he's on a free market script. I'm probably going to have to ignore him, as he's not interested in useful debate.

USP .45: Don't like the corporate charter? Don't invest. Don't do business with that company.

And likewise, you're free to shift your investments elsewhere if you truly feel that threatened by whatever it is you imagine liberals are planning to do.

Bloody William: USP .45: Want to talk about barriers to market entry, then let's talk about them. What you just commented on was not a free market scenario, by your own farking admission.

That's my point. We don't have a "true" free market (indeed, such a thing isn't farking possible), and it's not because of the government, it's because of how the health care industry has developed in this country. Pharma and health care are dominated by a small number of very large groups, and that gives consumers very few realistic options.

That's exactly why we don't have a free market.

Felgraf: I'm going to take it that the answer to my first question is "No, I will not admit that", then

didn't mean to ignore it...

Will you admit that many of your profits for new, *actual* treatments, and not penis pills, come off the back of publicly funded research, driven not by profit, but by government grants at universities?

A loaded question, but I couldn't comment on the degree to which public funding compares to private R&D. I simply don't know.

USP .45: Come on. To say the health care industry and pharma have developed independently of government...come on.

But you raise another interesting side issue; where's all the overseas competition in pharma as far as product development and existing product distribution?

Okay, let's do this one at a time.

No, I didn't say the health care industry and pharma developed independently of government. I said that those industries' development into oligopolies is not because of anything the government did. Can you explain to me how exactly huge pharma companies could have been prevented from rising, without government action (nevermind with government action)?

Now... out of the top 10 pharma companies in the world, only 4 are American. GlaxoSmithKline itself is UK-based, Bayer is German, AstraZeneca is UK/Swiss, and I could go on. So... yeah, there's overseas competition. There ya go. Of course, that doesn't even go into the subject of the preliminary research into biotech, often performed not only by private firms but by research universities and governmetns.

relcec: That's exactly why we don't have a free market.

I would give that argument credibility if you could posit any scenario in which, without government action at all, the rise of the health care and pharma industries as oligopolies could have prevented.

Go ahead. Explain to me how, exactly, the government is what really caused those industries to form into a small number of large and powerful groups and present a virtually insurmountable barrier to entry for all other actors.

FormlessOne: He's not addressing much - he's on a free market script. I'm probably going to have to ignore him, as he's not interested in useful debate.

meh, at best I'm playing devil's advocate for pharma simply because I own a little stock, you know, to make this site interesting. I'll happily go back to sipping Maker's and looking at wiminz if it's really that much of a disruption.

USP .45:

But you raise another interesting side issue; where's all the overseas competition in pharma as far as product development and existing product distribution?\\

A better question is why do we pay more than any other country for drugs when most of them are developed (many using our tax money)and made here in the US.

Hopey change!

GodsTumor: USP .45:

But you raise another interesting side issue; where's all the overseas competition in pharma as far as product development and existing product distribution?\\

A better question is why do we pay more than any other country for drugs when most of them are developed (many using our tax money)and made here in the US.

what you pay for =/= what they cost. You've heard of subsidies yeah?

I become more worried about my 'restless leg syndrome' every day. I think I may need to up my anxiety meds. Hey, wait a minute. Maybe the anxiety may be caused because there are REAL problems and it is a rational response. Sigh, I think I need to up my thought clouding meds.

Lost Thought 00: I'll say it before and I've said it again: Drug production is too important to the general welfare of the Republic to leave in the hands of private companies

Oh PUHleeeze. What a steaming load of hooey.

USP .45: GodsTumor: USP .45:

But you raise another interesting side issue; where's all the overseas competition in pharma as far as product development and existing product distribution?\\

A better question is why do we pay more than any other country for drugs when most of them are developed (many using our tax money)and made here in the US.

what you pay for =/= what they cost. You've heard of subsidies yeah?

That is the question. You did not answer it. Or even, y'know, address it besides that lovely little transparent bit of marketspeak. "Uh... uh... costs! Different than prices! Yeah! That's why!"