McCain, Clinton win NH

**zraver** · 10 Jan 08,, 23:50

Originally Posted by Shek

1. Can you name these tax funded drugs? Provide some figures for the funding?

2. What is overcharging? Either you're willing to pay the price for a product or you're not. You cannot pay more for a product than you are willing to pay. The concept of price gouging, or overcharging, as you put it, is a red herring.

3. Private companies develop drugs, and the profit incentive, increased through price discrimination, is the motivation for these companies to sink billions of dollars each year into find the next miracle drug. Without patent protection, the incentive to find the latest and greatest compound to treat "fill in the blank" is reduced or eliminated.

4. Drugs sold in Canada are cheap because of price controls. Price controls reduce efficiency in the market.

You can try to fight the market and the role of incentives, but only if you want to face the consequences down the road.

In 1998 Pfizer the worlds largest research based pharmaceutical company company had profits totaling nearly 1.2 billion dollars but still received nearly 200 million in corporate welfare for a total negative tax rate of negative 16.5%. Had they paid the positive inversion of that negative rate- a very modest tax- on thier profit the federal treasury have had another 200 million added to the surplus. In fact if you add up corporate welfare you see that the rich get three times the giveaways that the poor do. Cheveron for example in 1998 had anegative 26.4% tax rate with 187 million of our money given to them when they already had profits of 708 million, not revenues- Profit

eRiposte Economy - Tax : Corporate Welfare

Why ***** about spending 50 billion on the poor, when we give the rich 150 billion plus a year. A give away is a give away so why the anger at helping the poor but not the rich. Even if we froze current spending and divided it evenly funding to help end and alleviate would double and the rich would still have massive profits.

dalem,

They have been prevented. And who cares anyway? Get a good job and you'll have a great plan.

1- that implies there are enough good jobs for everyone. There are not enough family wage jobs with benefits.

2- That implies you made it to adult hood with a sound mind and body capable of high-paying work. All proven to be negatively affected by poverty where the parents poverty endangers the innocent kids futures

3- Live in or move an area conducive to economic progress. So unless you live in such an area, if you do make it up- you move out leaving your community which invested in you holding the bag: brain/talent drain.

So unless you have access to good nutrition, health care, and education in an already economically viable area your screwed.

As for pension funds, if the company makes a promise to its workers, but then betrays that promise steals thier retirement funds and pawns the debt off on the tax payers the stockholders have jsut ripped off the workers.

Highspeed net acess, like roads the information super-highway is critical for economic growth. America the nation that invented the net now has some of the lowest high speed but highest cost access in the world.

The environment is not a closed system, we have exported pollution but not solved the ultimate problem

net loss over the last decade of 3.3 million family wage manufacturing jobs

Roads and bridges are national issues if we want our economy to keep growing.

**naturechild** · 11 Jan 08,, 00:13

There's a lot of angst running around amongst the news and those who make a living in elections. But, just as in any election, the electorate also includes the country folk as well as the city dwellers. So the vote isn't over until it's over. Declaring anything that is going on in the hearts and minds of a country who votes by secret ballot is amusing to watch. The candidate I favor is Fred Thompson. Whenever I've heard him speak in the past, he made good sense--important to an electorate that wants more than a soundbite to make a decision on. He's taken on some mighty big and noble tasks--and won--before he played with acting. His speech pattern is one that is easy to understand--important to an electorate that gets real tired of being spoken down to. The select-the-candidate horse races are fun to watch, but if you watch the horses run the end isn't always to the swiftest in the begining. The election will likely go to the candidate who doesn't screw up the worst. Hillary is too plastic as well as Guliani. Hillary also lives in a dreamworld. It isn't listed in the President's duties to give health care or anything else to the people. The people decide those issues. Obama's wife speaks better than he does. McCain we've listened to so much it goes in one ear and out the other. And so it goes. It seems to me that unless the Republicans really put their foot in it, they'll be in the white house again. The Democrats appear deeply divided.
I've a few requirements of a presidental candidate:
Respect--Information--True belief in the Constitution that all powers not specifically given to the government are reserved by the people--the ability to speak to foreign heads of state and not be cowed nor complacent nor a bully--strict understanding that the people run the country not the government nor the United Nations. The people can make sweeping changes every 4 to 6 years. The government cannot.

What are you looking for in a candidate?

Interesting note on Health care--I recently personally knew a person who was on welfare in California. She had to have bypass surgery 5 weeks ago. She did. Then systems began to fail. 3 weeks of intensive care, dialysis, and whatever goes with that had her well enough to leave to be heliocoptered to another hospital where she ended up with two more weeks of intensive care and dialysis before succumbing. Any idea how much all that costs? The state paid it. So before we worry about reforming health care as a blanket sound bite, I gotta ask how that stacks up to what Hillary wants to put in? Frankly, I'm astounded. We can't get that kind of care where I live--it isn't available at any price.

**Blademaster** · 11 Jan 08,, 00:24

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I believe what Zraver is pointing out is that our customers are paying much higher prices for the same drug than most people in other countries. Indeed, some third world countries have declared that certain patents are invalid because their people need that drug. The complaint that Americans are paying the price for the development of drugs that are sold at much lower prices in other nations is a valid one. Either we should force these nations to respect our patent laws on drugs, or we should prevent them from acquiring the drugs invented here in the United States until they do (the government would have to do this, as our companies will keep following short term profits over long term interest).

Well then, if that's the argument you will advocate, I am sure you will have no problem advocating for compensation of those whose land or resources have been plundered during the colonial days. After all, those resources were used to fund your Industrial Revolution at rock bottom prices and allowed you to create a middle class. Those people whose resources and land have been plundered have been and are still paying that price for that development.

Don't forget to compensate for the lost interest. Would be quite interesting to see the size of the bill.

**Blademaster** · 11 Jan 08,, 00:28

Originally Posted by zraver

In 1998 Pfizer the worlds largest research based pharmaceutical company company had profits totaling nearly 1.2 billion dollars but still received nearly 200 million in corporate welfare for a total negative tax rate of negative 16.5%. Had they paid the positive inversion of that negative rate- a very modest tax- on thier profit the federal treasury have had another 200 million added to the surplus. In fact if you add up corporate welfare you see that the rich get three times the giveaways that the poor do. Cheveron for example in 1998 had anegative 26.4% tax rate with 187 million of our money given to them when they already had profits of 708 million, not revenues- Profit

eRiposte Economy - Tax : Corporate Welfare

Why ***** about spending 50 billion on the poor, when we give the rich 150 billion plus a year. A give away is a give away so why the anger at helping the poor but not the rich. Even if we froze current spending and divided it evenly funding to help end and alleviate would double and the rich would still have massive profits.

Do you think those companies are sitting on wads of cash and watching their pot grow? Noooooooooooo not by a long shot. Instead they are using those money to invest in emerging markets or creating new markets. That's what drives the growth of the world economy. Investment, the desire to make more money is the root driver of capitalism. To do what you are advocating will simply stifle investment, and therefore innovation and hence the growth of the economy will stagnate. You are essentially killing the golden goose for the golden eggs. Not a good idea.

**zraver** · 11 Jan 08,, 01:59

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Well then, if that's the argument you will advocate, I am sure you will have no problem advocating for compensation of those whose land or resources have been plundered during the colonial days. After all, those resources were used to fund your Industrial Revolution at rock bottom prices and allowed you to create a middle class. Those people whose resources and land have been plundered have been and are still paying that price for that development.

Don't forget to compensate for the lost interest. Would be quite interesting to see the size of the bill.

Uhmm... America didn't plunder Canada, the UK, or Africa, but you think we owe them, but your against the people we do plunder Americans in poverty I don't get it?

Do you think those companies are sitting on wads of cash and watching their pot grow? Noooooooooooo not by a long shot. Instead they are using those money to invest in emerging markets or creating new markets. That's what drives the growth of the world economy. Investment, the desire to make more money is the root driver of capitalism. To do what you are advocating will simply stifle investment, and therefore innovation and hence the growth of the economy will stagnate. You are essentially killing the golden goose for the golden eggs. Not a good idea.

Do you understand profit- it is what is left over after all bills are paid. For publicly traded company that means the profit is divided among share holders in the form of dividends. The stockbrokers then profit again as good earnings increase stock prices. So in effect we are taking the publics money to prop up already profitable companies so that the publics money makes the rich richer.

**dalem** · 11 Jan 08,, 02:02

Originally Posted by Julie

The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that increased use of EC accounted for up to 43 percent of the total decline in abortion rates between 1994 and 2000. In addition, EC is often the only contraceptive option for the 300,000 women who are raped each year.

Did you know that one in three girls becomes pregnant before the age of 20, and 80 percent of these pregnancies are unintended? AND that teen mothers are less likely to complete high school.

Nope, didn't know any of that, which is why I asked.

Thanks for the data.

-dale

**dalem** · 11 Jan 08,, 02:08

Originally Posted by Ironduke

Dale, the federal government spent $406 billion on interest payments on the national debt in 2006.

That bothers me.

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp135.htm

I understand. It's just not a priority for me. I couldn't even tell you if it's automatically sound economic policy to have zero debt for the Federal govt.

-dale

**dalem** · 11 Jan 08,, 02:26

Originally Posted by zraver

dalem,

1- that implies there are enough good jobs for everyone. There are not enough family wage jobs with benefits.

I implied no such thing. Some people will have crappy jobs or no jobs. That's why we have a very mobile social and employment system. Look, I hate my job and am glad to whine all day long about how much I hate it. I haven't had any good hits on my search here in a while. But I have decided to keep my flag planted right here, in the Twin Cities area, for the near future.

I would have very different results if I were will to expand my search and/or move. Better jobs are out there for me (for instance), but am I willing to go to them?

2- That implies you made it to adult hood with a sound mind and body capable of high-paying work. All proven to be negatively affected by poverty where the parents poverty endangers the innocent kids futures

Actually it implies I was raised to not want to be poor. I was also raised to not want to go to jail and to not be a jackass. It is actually amazingly easy to avoid poverty, jail and jackassery if one exerts a small amount of effort.

3- Live in or move an area conducive to economic progress. So unless you live in such an area, if you do make it up- you move out leaving your community which invested in you holding the bag: brain/talent drain.

That mobility is a positive, not a negative.

So unless you have access to good nutrition, health care, and education in an already economically viable area your screwed.

Nahh.

As for pension funds, if the company makes a promise to its workers, but then betrays that promise steals thier retirement funds and pawns the debt off on the tax payers the stockholders have jsut ripped off the workers.

Sure, I agree with the facts of the case.

Highspeed net acess, like roads the information super-highway is critical for economic growth. America the nation that invented the net now has some of the lowest high speed but highest cost access in the world.

Sounds like a great business opportunity for someone.

The environment is not a closed system, we have exported pollution but not solved the ultimate problem

Oh Eff it. I'm so damned tired of people crying about the environment. It's doing FINE, trust me.

net loss over the last decade of 3.3 million family wage manufacturing jobs

As opposed to stasis?

Roads and bridges are national issues if we want our economy to keep growing.

Then rewrite the laws.

-dale

**dalem** · 11 Jan 08,, 02:28

Originally Posted by zraver

Do you understand profit- it is what is left over after all bills are paid. For publicly traded company that means the profit is divided among share holders in the form of dividends. The stockbrokers then profit again as good earnings increase stock prices. So in effect we are taking the publics money to prop up already profitable companies so that the publics money makes the rich richer.

So buy some pharma stocks.

-dale

**Shek** · 11 Jan 08,, 02:39

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I believe what Zraver is pointing out is that our customers are paying much higher prices for the same drug than most people in other countries. Indeed, some third world countries have declared that certain patents are invalid because their people need that drug. The complaint that Americans are paying the price for the development of drugs that are sold at much lower prices in other nations is a valid one. Either we should force these nations to respect our patent laws on drugs, or we should prevent them from acquiring the drugs invented here in the United States until they do (the government would have to do this, as our companies will keep following short term profits over long term interest).

lwarmonger,

Despite it's evil sounding name, price discrimination increases profits and increases the incentives for drug companies to invent life-saving and life-enhancing (and for the old, penis enhancing as well

) drugs.

Drug Industry Destruction
written by Dr. Walter E. Williams

Last week the House voted 324 to 101 to make it easier for Americans to import lower-priced prescription drugs sold in Canada and Europe for their own use. It rejected a more sweeping proposal to allow such imports by drug wholesalers and pharmacies. The fact of the matter is that U.S. manufactured drugs sell for 30 to 70 percent less in Canada, though the pills might have a different color and shape. Is Congress doing us a favor, particularly if they vote to permit wholesalers and pharmacies to import the cheaper drugs? Let's look at it, but first look at similar pricing practices.

Children typically fly at half the adult fare and that can't be explained by saying it's only half as costly to fly a 100 pound 12-year-old from New York to Los Angeles. From Philadelphia to Boston, Amtrak charges adults $74, senior citizens $63 and 2 to 15 year old children $37. Economists call this price discrimination - a practice where different people are charged different prices when the difference in price cannot be fully accounted for by differences in cost. There are numerous examples of various kinds of price discrimination: movies charge lower prices for matinees than evening performances, telephone companies charge lower prices for night calls, many colleges charge non-residents higher tuition than residents, whiskey or clothing manufacturers might charge lower prices for their off-brand products that are similar to the products bearing their brand name.

Would anyone in their right mind want Congress to enact a law requiring that airlines charge adults the same prices charged children? It would guarantee airline bankruptcy. It's the same with the pharmaceutical industry. Let's look at it.

Once a drug is produced, the cost of an additional pill is very low. The real cost of a new drug lies in developing it and getting it through Food & Drug Administration's (FDA) regulatory hurdles. FDA hurdles cost drug companies an average of $800 million per drug and then, according to a Tufts University study, only three in 10 drugs produce sales sufficient to allow the companies to recoup their development and FDA approval costs. Then there's a class of drugs known as "orphan drugs" that don't make it to the market. These are drugs effective in the treatment of a rare disease but coupled with FDA approval costs and their expected sales make them a losing economic proposition for the drug companies.

Though pharmaceutical CEOs lack the moral courage to say so, the drug price difference between the U.S. and Canada is simply price discrimination not unlike the thousands and thousands of other cases of price discrimination. In order to practice price discrimination sellers must be able to separate markets to prevent arbitrage, buying cheap and selling dear. In the case of airlines, they must prevent adults from using children's tickets. In the case of drug companies, they must prevent re-importation either through contracts or law, then they can charge foreigners drug prices that only have to cover the incremental costs of manufacture and distribution. Instead of making this argument, pharmaceutical CEOs have their lobbyists descend on Congress with the largely bogus argument about safety concerns related to Americans purchasing drugs from Canada. But given broad economic ignorance in Congress and among many Americans, talking about price discrimination might be hopeless.

If Congress enacts laws preventing price discrimination, both foreigners and Americans will lose because it will reduce the profitability of drug manufacture and hence drug development incentives. I ask you which is preferable: a life-saving drug at a high cost or no life saving drug at all? Americans would be much better served by trying to do something about FDA's costly approval process.

Here's another spin on it from Greg Mankiw:

Suppose a drug company offered an AIDS drug to a poor African country at slightly above marginal cost. (This is much below the US price, which includes a markup due to the monopoly power granted by the patent). Should American AIDS patients be allowed to buy the drug in Africa and bring it back to the United States? Jeff would say yes. But if policymakers followed this advice, arbitrage would prevent the drug company from price discriminating. A single price (or approximately so) would have to prevail worldwide. The result: The drug company wouldn't offer the low-cost drug to the poor African country.

**Ironduke** · 11 Jan 08,, 02:45

Originally Posted by dalem

I understand. It's just not a priority for me. I couldn't even tell you if it's automatically sound economic policy to have zero debt for the Federal govt.

-dale

Not economically sound? Who does a $406 billion outlay on debt interest servicing economically benefit? With an average median household income of about $44,000/year, the average household pays $1000/year on interest payments on the national debt alone. It's ridiculous that such a huge chunk of our federal budget is wasted on debt. Spending needs to be brought under control, we need to start running a surplus to eliminate this catastrophic waste.

**zraver** · 11 Jan 08,, 02:47

Originally Posted by dalem

I implied no such thing. Some people will have crappy jobs or no jobs. That's why we have a very mobile social and employment system. Look, I hate my job and am glad to whine all day long about how much I hate it. I haven't had any good hits on my search here in a while. But I have decided to keep my flag planted right here, in the Twin Cities area, for the near future.

I would have very different results if I were will to expand my search and/or move. Better jobs are out there for me (for instance), but am I willing to go to them?[/quote[nice to know you can pick up and move, not everyone can.

Actually it implies I was raised to not want to be poor. I was also raised to not want to go to jail and to not be a jackass. It is actually amazingly easy to avoid poverty, jail and jackassery if one exerts a small amount of effort.

wow, you just said all poor people are criminals.

That mobility is a positive, not a negative.

not all the time it isn't.

Nahh.

Like your views on the enviroment, your denying the reality that exists.

Sure, I agree with the facts of the case.

GM just recently dumped its retirement burden on the tax payer.

Sounds like a great business opportunity for someone.

Telecommunications has always been a federal issue becuase of interstate borders

Oh Eff it. I'm so damned tired of people crying about the environment. It's doing FINE, trust me.

No its not, and its not just warming issues but a whole host of problems that you seem blissfully willing to ignore.

As opposed to stasis?

as opposed to growth

Then rewrite the laws.

-dale

The roads belong to the feds via the constitution.

Just curious, but has anyone else ever doubted your grasp of reality? I am not trying to be offensive but your views are not supported by any tangible evidence.

**lwarmonger** · 11 Jan 08,, 03:22

Originally Posted by Shek

lwarmonger,

Despite it's evil sounding name, price discrimination increases profits and increases the incentives for drug companies to invent life-saving and life-enhancing (and for the old, penis enhancing as well

) drugs.

I understand that (I semi-recall hearing that you are a captain in the US Army?), but my objection comes from these incentives to develop being born largely by the US market.

I have similar problems regarding "free" trade. It is great for everyone's prosperity, but only if it is truly free trade. If it is just a fancy way of saying we are leaving our markets open to devastating competition while other nations protect theirs against the products we produce efficiently... well, I have a problem with that... however that is currently the way "free trade" is occuring.