Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
OK, I just shot down my own view of gov. run health care, well not really, Medicare is a fairly well run system. The value of a gov. run alternative to private insurance is that it provides a damper on excess profits that private companies strive for. Our goal is to hold down escalating costs of health care, right?
|
Ok, you tell me how pharmaceutical companies should be run. Are you a benevolent non-profit organization run by brilliant and giving chemists and microbiologists? Will your organization be able to map cancer genes? Run studies that will be safe for users and get an ok by the FDA?
Or will you grant that pharmaceutical companies have large expenses in research and trials, not to mention drug ingredients, processing, etc. If you do concede this, and you're the president of this pharmaceutical company, what do you do when the government mandates that the costs of your drugs go down? Does that magically erase your research and drug trial expenses? Probably not. So you have a choice. Do you continue developing drugs in the US, or do you go to some other country where they accept the realities of your business?
BTW, I bet of medical practitioners from clinics to insurance companies to pharmaceutical companies could lower a lot of their costs if Tort Reform were passed. Is that part of the health care bill? No! Why not? Aren't they interested in making health care affordable for everyone? Hmmm, maybe not. I think these lawmakers that you're depending on to provide you and everyone else in this country the health care we all need are on the take. Are those the people you want deciding what kind of health care you receive? No thanks!