FairTax

[Stereodude]

I'd be more than happy to argue that the job of any worthwhile government is to create and enforce social justice.

Ahh... but justice doesn't equal fairness, or equal outcomes.

 

[Mercutio]

Ahh... but justice doesn't equal fairness, or equal outcomes.

That's why we have to keep trying until we get it right. I'd go further and say that members of a society with a functional government need to subjugate their individuality in order to more fully allow that government to create a just and fair society. And in the case of wealthy people, that means being altruistic enough to allow an additional burden of taxation.

 

[ddrueding]

How much additional tax, Merc?

 

[Mercutio]

In my mind, as much as need be. I don't mind paying taxes when I can see a benefit.

 

[jtr1962]

It's probably not a bad idea for government to do some things to level the playing field a bit. For example, everyone should have access to decent education and transportation, whether or not they can afford tuition, or buy a car. So public education and public transit are good things to spend money on, provided there's enough oversight to limit the amount of graft. I start to draw the line at things like anything beyond basic medical care, however. Medicaid is a money pit largely due to fraud on the part of care providers, and abuse of the system on the part of recipients. Making something free creates near infinite demand for it. The same people who wouldn't go to a doctor if they had to pay unless they have a severe flu will go to one for every hanged nail or pimple when it's free. Beyond that, I just don't see why public money should be used to treat people who abuse their bodies to hell through drugs, smoking, overeating, not exercising. The minute you have any preventable conditions you should be forced to pay higher copays than someone who doesn't. Medicaid, or even nationalized public health care, might be affordable if we had a culture of health and preventive medicine in this country. It works in most European countries which have it for that reason. I can guarantee that once obesity and other preventable conditions creep up in those countries, they may well abandon universal health care as unaffordable.

Many of the same things about Medicaid can be said about Medicare. The prescription drug program, pushed by both parties, was a colossal mistake. The vast majority of seniors are on drugs for conditions which could be fixed by a lifestyle change. Eventually, the pills result in yet more health problems, starting a downward spiral which results in lots of people dying in the 70s or 80s, instead of 90s or 100s, and with huge medical bills. I don't blame conservatives for wanting to get rid of Medicare in its present form. Until people in this country start taking their health seriously, any money spent on any public health care beyond basic vaccinations is wasted.

 

[ddrueding]

The conclusion I keep coming to on these things is that no matter what the policy is, it won't work well and will cost a lot.

I had this pointed out to me at dinner the other day when I was advocating a less invasive foreign policy (pardon the pun). The other person pointed out, and rightly so, that not defending our interests elsewhere would also have ill effect, possibly as bad as our current policy.

I didn't disagree, instead I simply suggested we choose the least costly of the two bad ideas.

This is where my more libertarian viewpoint comes from. Not that I don't want everyone to be enducated and have healthcare, but that they won't get it regardless due to corruption, greed, and inefficiency. If they aren't going to get it, I'd rather not pay for it.

 

[jtr1962]

That's exactly the point. I think more people would support these programs if they actually worked as claimed. Case in point was LBJs $4 trillion (last I checked) "War on Poverty". It turns out the major beneficiaries of years of welfare/Medicaid spending were the service providers, especially those politically connected. As for the poor who were supposed to have been helped, things were worse than under the older systems of "home relief". The same can be said to a lesser degree about public education. All this money spent, yet our children consistently grow up to be moronic adults who can't even use proper grammar or spelling. Moreover, they lack critical thinking skills. Of course, this makes it easier for politicians to dupe them, or advertisers to sell them crap they don't need. Given this, it's hard to argue against things being this way precisely because that's how those in charge want them. A population of complacent, dumb sheep is very easy to mislead. Maybe a similar line of thought went into welfare. Let's make all these poor people dependent upon government, and we'll consistently get votes. Never mind that the precise purpose of helping them is so they can function on their own eventually.

So given a choice between spending a bucket of money on a program which won't work as intended, or not bothering at all, I'll also take the consequences of not bothering at all. The end result is probably equally bad either way, but I'll pay less taxes. And make no mistake, it's always the middle class, not the rich, who pays the largest percentage of their needed income for these programs. Even if a rich person pays 90% of $100 million, they still have $10 million left, most of it disposible income if you use normal cost of living standards. They're still very well off any way you look at it. A middle class family making $40,000 a year but paying only 20% in taxes loses $8,000, all of which it could definitely use.

 

[Stereodude]

That's exactly the point. I think more people would support these programs if they actually worked as claimed.

Well, that's just it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that gov't programs never work as claimed.

 

[Howell]

That's why we have to keep trying until we get it right. I'd go further and say that members of a society with a functional government need to subjugate their individuality in order to more fully allow that government to create a just and fair society. And in the case of wealthy people, that means being altruistic enough to allow an additional burden of taxation.

That can only achieve what you want if you could create and enforce a moral society.

 

[Mercutio]

That can only achieve what you want if you could create and enforce a moral society.

I think we can draw a distinction between a moral society and a fair society. Morality is a confusing topic for a lot of religious people; a lot of them seem to assume that morality is something that can only be established from (their own) religion. It's not a word I would wish to drag into this discussion.

Well, that's just it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that gov't programs never work as claimed.

A lot of government programs do work well. I think our public education system works very well. There are some failings (particularly in large cities) but overall, considering the number of different, and different kinds of people we educate, and the depth and breadth of education, I'd say we do a pretty good job. Students today learn things that, in my parents' time, weren't taught until college.

There are programs that certainly can work better, but whenever I hear small government types bitching about all the things the government does, I find myself wondering what life in the US would be like if we didn't have things like the FCC, FDA or the SEC. I wonder how we'd educate children (especially how well we'd educate in different parts of the country), or if we'd have national parks or maintain roads that aren't used frequently.

The main point I'd like to make is that there is no charity or organization that exists that can do as much as the collective tax dollars of the citizens of the United States. Most - certainly not all, but most of the money we pay in taxes is for the collective well being of citizens of this country. You or I might not agree with how that money is spent, but it is returned to us.

If your answer to everything is "let the market decide", or "the government doesn't work so let's just get rid of the whole thing", I'd just like to point out that there ARE pure libertarian/capitalist societies in the world. Places like, oh, Somalia. Look how well that works in practice.

 

[Bozo]

The tax is not "fair". People that make less than ~$25k per year or are on fixed incomes get screwed royally. Most of these people pay little or no income tax. (SS is taxed BTW). But, in our state, there is no sales tax on food and clothing. The so-called "fair" tax would have these people paying tax on these items.
Try living on $940.00 A MONTH, then have $20-$30 more lost to the so-called "fair" tax.
This is just another plan to give more to the rich, and have the middle class and poor pick up the tab.

Bozo :joker:

 

[Howell]

I think we can draw a distinction between a moral society and a fair society. Morality is a confusing topic for a lot of religious people; a lot of them seem to assume that morality is something that can only be established from (their own) religion. It's not a word I would wish to drag into this discussion.

I understand what you mean. Fairness is just as squishy a term as morality though.

If your answer to everything is "let the market decide", or "the government doesn't work so let's just get rid of the whole thing", I'd just like to point out that there ARE pure libertarian/capitalist societies in the world. Places like, oh, Somalia. Look how well that works in practice.

What are your thoughts on Venezuela and Zimbabwe and well that society is turning out?

 

[Stereodude]

What are your thoughts on Venezuela and Zimbabwe and well that society is turning out?

Lets not forget Cuba and the Soviet Union either.

 

[sechs]

You aren't really going to sit there and try to argue with me that the government is supposed to take money from the rich and give it to the poor?

No, and you are quite foolish to assume that.

The fact of the matter is, if you can't articulate exactly what the government is *supposed* to do, then there's really no way to determine what it is *not supposed* to do.

As ddrueding points out the job of the gov't isn't much. Other than protecting the people in the country from outside influences and aggression (like other countries) they don't have many jobs.

That's not an answer; it's a cop-out (to both of you).

 

[sechs]

It's probably not a bad idea for government to do some things to level the playing field a bit. For example, everyone should have access to decent education and transportation, whether or not they can afford tuition, or buy a car. So public education and public transit are good things to spend money on, provided there's enough oversight to limit the amount of graft.

The fact of the matter is, even if you don't subscribe to wealth redistribution as a job of the government, doing so is for the common good.

Especially now, an educated workforce is advantageous. Corporations don't want to hire dummies. Without a system of public education, we'd be importing a lot of goods and services because we couldn't do it here. And, as our oil importation habit has shown, we would end up sticking our heads in places which we otherwise would not, to defend ourselves. That's not a better place, even for the rich people.

How about if every road was toll? How fun would that be?

 

[sechs]

Well, that's just it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that gov't programs never work as claimed.

As long as there are people involved, government will never be perfect.

If you don't like what we have here, you are free to go to a nation with a better system. Let me know which one, if you do.

 

[Mercutio]

I understand what you mean. Fairness is just as squishy a term as morality though.

That may very well be true, but there's no reason to conflate this discussion with the possibility of attaching religious values. Since I've had the faithful tell me many times that unless my behavior is governed by their holy book I am by definition amoral, morality is a word I'd sooner avoid.

What are your thoughts on Venezuela and Zimbabwe and well that society is turning out?

Venezuela has somewhat charismatic but obviously paranoid authoritarian would like very much to replace Fidel Castro as the hobgoblin of American politics. Hugo Chavez has been doing some very interesting things with his oil wealth - including offering free heating oil to residents of the US, and free health care and post-secondary education to any Venezuelan citizen. He's a hard statist, having seized control of the media and electoral process (one might argue that Mr. Bush has done something similar in this country, through Roger Ailes' Fox Networks, Murdoch's media empire, and through the very obvious Republican control of Diebold, one of only two companies that make voting machines) and over time I suspect that he'll become more and more a dictator, but he was repeatedly elected to his office and had enough popular support to overcome a coup in recent memory. My understanding of present-day Venezuela is that it's on pretty stable ground economically, with the lives of poor citizens being improved greatly by Chavez's oil-funded social programs.

Most nations which successfully manage quasi-socialism have built it on the back of high taxes and state owned oil programs. I am well aware of that. They're also consistently ranked to be among the best places on Earth in which to live.

I'm less familiar with the situation in Zimbabwe, though I know it's presently in a state of crushing hyperinflation; I have no doubt that Zimbabwe has crushing foreign debt and a vast trade deficit. I know that Mugabe is essentially a warlord who is bent on engaging in tribal warfare in the Congo. I don't know anything about its social programs or the structure of its government.

Stereodude, the Soviet Union hasn't existed for over 15 years. If you're talking about Russia, I think that on the whole, the situation on the ground is essentially unchecked capitalism (inflation, unemployment, lack of regulation for most businesses and transactions) with a government that has some very strong authoritarian tendencies and a habit of seizing profitable private industries in the name of State Interest. Russia today in no way resembles a Socialist state; those state-owned businesses are turned over to cronies and run for the enrichment of the politically connected (Think Haliburton).

 

[Stereodude]

Stereodude, the Soviet Union hasn't existed for over 15 years.

I'm well aware of that, but it didn't exactly work out so well for the citizens. Yeah, they had all equal outcomes... Equally poor and miserable.

 

[Stereodude]

If you don't like what we have here, you are free to go to a nation with a better system. Let me know which one, if you do.

Just cause we have the best system doesn't mean it couldn't be better. To assume that just because we have the best system, that it can't be any better is foolish.

 

[Stereodude]

The fact of the matter is, if you can't articulate exactly what the government is *supposed* to do, then there's really no way to determine what it is *not supposed* to do.

You're out to lunch...

The gov't's job is to stay out of the way of its citizens and empower them, not run and control their lives. I don't have to be able come up with a comprehensive list of what gov't should do. I don't have one already thought up. That's not the way I think. The gov't isn't my god. I don't worship at the altar of big gov't. I could get up in the morning and survive if the gov't was shut down.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm well aware of that, but it didn't exactly work out so well for the citizens. Yeah, they had all equal outcomes... Equally poor and miserable.

I could suggest that the outcome might've been different had the Soviet Union not been trying to compete in an arms race with the US. The USSR also never really recovered from World War II; they sent a whole generation of men into a meat grinder against Hitler's troops, wasted another generation on imperialism and a third fighting uprisings like the one in Afghanistan. Having the outward and militaristic focus that it did, it is perhaps less than surprising that the welfare of its citizens suffered.

 

[Mercutio]

The gov't's job is to stay out of the way of its citizens and empower them, not run and control their lives.

Well, properly speaking the purpose of government - any government - is to provide a framework for behavior and interactions among its citizens. A government does this through force of law - which primarily exists as a set of rules and regulations for what individuals cannot do.

Laws and regulations are a necessary part of a functional society; the fewer laws we have, the closer we are to anarchy, a condition in which there is less control over what individuals can do and therefore a greater possibility of some uncontrolled inequity might exist. You, Stereodude, are thinking of that inequity as the possibility for some greater amount of wealth or additional expression of your religious beliefs. I'm thinking of it as the possibility that certain individuals with no responsibility for anyone else might gain so much power over others that they could act or not act with the force of law (Think Haliburton in Iraq, or the power that HMOs have over medical care in the US), and I find that idea loathsome.

 

[ddrueding]

Wow, I think I disagree with everyone on some pretty fundamental levels...let me step in and make an uneducated stab at it.

The problem we have is that smart (sometimes corrupt) people are finding more and more interesting ways to take money from dumb (sometimes innocent) people. A politician says that this is unfair and the dumb people agree (because it sounds like they will get a better deal). Since the dumb people are in the majority, the law or bill gets passed. Unfortunatly for them, the politician is one of the smart and corrupt people, and is using them to get more money and power for himself.

If the government controls everything, than they can do this with all the power and money. This worked well (for the smart ones) in the Soviet Union for a long time. Notice I didn't say what type of government above, because it really doesn't matter. Any type of government will do this with any power they are given.

With a minimal government, at least I have a fighting chance of keeping what I work for and setting my own quality of life. The government would love to take that away from me, give 10% to some tornado victim who lives in "tornado alley" or a fire victim who lives in a forest, and keep the rest for themselves and their friends.

What percentage of the upcoming $145B relief package is pork? Who knows? They will pass it so fast that no one will have a chance. This administration is running up a massive deficit and cutting taxes at the same time! The idiot masses are loving it. The same idiot masses, I might add, who run up their credit card bills without noticing or sign mortgages they could never afford! Meanwhile, the next administration will be forced to raise taxes and cut programs. But it really isn't them that did it, their hand was forced, like being the last guy from your group at the bar holding the tab.

Paranoid? Shouldn't I be? Anarchist? Just a little...

 

[Stereodude]

I could suggest that the outcome might've been different had the Soviet Union not been trying to compete in an arms race with the US. The USSR also never really recovered from World War II; they sent a whole generation of men into a meat grinder against Hitler's troops, wasted another generation on imperialism and a third fighting uprisings like the one in Afghanistan. Having the outward and militaristic focus that it did, it is perhaps less than surprising that the welfare of its citizens suffered.

Socialism and communism fail every time it's tried but yet people try to explain away the failures as the result of some outside pressure or some big conspiracy. Socialism and communism will fail every time they're tried until you can solve the "greed" of the people in the program. People are inherently greedy and a method of gov't that denies that fact will fail every time.

 

[Stereodude]

Any type of government will do this with any power they are given.

Isn't that the saying by Lord Acton? "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Yet people like Mercutio and Sechs think we should give more power to the gov't because they'll be more responsible with it than "evil" corporations.

 

[Stereodude]

or the power that HMOs have over medical care in the US)

First of all gov't involvement in the health care industry it what has "ruined" it. The health care industry is one of the most regulated industries in the US, yet costs keep going up. So the solution must be to regulate it more? I don't think so. The solution is to unregulate it and allow free market competition to work. The gov't of each state has a list of minimum services that all insurance providers in that state much provide. There are all sorts of crazy things they force insurance providers to cover. And, as a result the cost is high. Get rid of all the mandatory coverage and let people pick the level of coverage they want and there will be cheaper plans with bare bones coverage, and there will be expensive plans with extensive coverage. Let people decide what kind they want independent of what their employer currently offers and you'll see the cost of health care plummet. Make it a bit more like car insurance and people will shop around for their health care to make sure they're getting the best deal. Insurance providers will compete to make their plans more attractive to to consumers.

You can complain about the HMOs and their power, but ultimately the gov't gave the HMO its "power" by passing laws and restricting the market. A complete gov't take over of 1/5th of the US economy isn't the answer.

 

[jtr1962]

What percentage of the upcoming $145B relief package is pork? Who knows? They will pass it so fast that no one will have a chance. This administration is running up a massive deficit and cutting taxes at the same time! The idiot masses are loving it. The same idiot masses, I might add, who run up their credit card bills without noticing or sign mortgages they could never afford! Meanwhile, the next administration will be forced to raise taxes and cut programs. But it really isn't them that did it, their hand was forced, like being the last guy from your group at the bar holding the tab.

I almost went ballastic when I read about the "relief" package. Why should people who lived within their means bail out idiots who used every dime of equity in their homes to buy big-screen TVs, vacations, pools, game consoles, and other mostly unnecessary consumer crap that they couldn't afford? I say let these people face the consequences of their actions or they'll never learn to be responsible. While as I said earlier I feel government should level the playing field a bit by providing education and some public transportation, it has no business at all insulating people from the consequences of bad decisions. What makes this all the worse is that this aid pacakge is coming from a Republican. More and more I'm seeing less fundamental difference between both parties.

 

[jtr1962]

First of all gov't involvement in the health care industry it what has "ruined" it. The health care industry is one of the most regulated industries in the US, yet costs keep going up. So the solution must be to regulate it more? I don't think so. The solution is to unregulate it and allow free market competition to work. The gov't of each state has a list of minimum services that all insurance providers in that state much provide. There are all sorts of crazy things they force insurance providers to cover. And, as a result the cost is high. Get rid of all the mandatory coverage and let people pick the level of coverage they want and there will be cheaper plans with bare bones coverage, and there will be expensive plans with extensive coverage. Let people decide what kind they want independent of what their employer currently offers and you'll see the cost of health care plummet. Make it a bit more like car insurance and people will shop around for their health care to make sure they're getting the best deal. Insurance providers will compete to make their plans more attractive to to consumers.

You can complain about the HMOs and their power, but ultimately the gov't gave the HMO its "power" by passing laws and restricting the market. A complete gov't take over of 1/5th of the US economy isn't the answer.

The concept of health insurance is really what ruined the medical industry. We should go back to the user pays model which once existed. Once we do, medical costs will drop dramatically. Right now hospitals can pad their bills and the patient won't care since they're not paying. Try that if they're paying out of pocket. I guarantee there will be no more $10 aspirins added to the bill, or expensive but medically unnecessary tests which the doctors perform just to cover their asses from law suits. In fact, get the lawyers out of medicine also and the costs will come down further.

Insurance is a bad idea on many levels. That includes auto insurance especially as it makes good drivers pay for poor ones. The only kind of medical insurance which makes any sense is catastrophic coverage for things like cancer or major accidents. Anything else can be paid out of pocket. This would give people an incentive to lead healthier lifestyles. If they did, most people would live to their 90s or 100s without requiring major medical care, and then go quickly once their body finally gave out. Now you have too many people in their 60s and 70s lingering in nursing homes for decades. Poor lifestyle choices got them into the nursing homes to start with.

 

[mubs]

The coming financial collapse of the U.S. government: Fed papers reveal what's in store for Americans

I suggest y'all read this, and if possible the link to the Fed papers. Personally, this is nothing new to me; this was a major factor in my decision to move out of the U.S. in 2006 after having lived there for 22+ years. I contributed to SS all those years, but will surely never see a dime of it. China will also get hurt badly since the U.S. is their largest trading partner. But at least they are doing something about that; we are on the threshold of China displacing the U.S. as India's largest trading partner. These two countries were baring their teeth at each other a few years ago.

For the advocates of a sales tax replacing income tax, that is what the prof. (author of the Fed papers) suggests!

 

[mubs]

A similar article: The Fraud of Bushenomics: They’re Looting the Country

At least some people are beginning to notice and are writing about what's wrong.

 

[Mercutio]

First of all gov't involvement in the health care industry it what has "ruined" it.

No. Wrong. Completely. We practice medicine for profit. Medicine. The necessary practice of preventing or curing physical and mental ailments. A necessity for human well-being.

In terms of its social role, availability of heath care occupies roughly the same place as having functional law enforcement, sanitation, public education or emergency services. To put it bluntly, when we don't have those things we might as well not even live together as a community.

About 1/3 of Americans has been priced out of having health care. That is an indicator that something is broken about the way we live.

Has this happened to anyone else? You doctor writes you a prescription for a name-brand still-under-patent drug. You go to get it filled and find out that 20 pills costs approximately your entire weekly salary. You decide to live in pain instead.

And, OK, doctors and nurses and therapists and pharmacists need to make a living and I understand that. But that's not who gets the money, not really. The money goes to layer upon layer of bureaucrats whose job it is to say "no" to essentially anything but the most basic care. The money goes to advertising agencies whose job it is to convince you that you need a pill for your restless leg. The money goes to pharmaceutical reps and to lobbyists. I'm not suggesting that we tell health care workers to kiss off and accept a government-mandated salary of $40,000 a year. I'm suggesting that may we should ditch HMOs and PPOs (note to Stereodude: These are not parts of the government); they clearly do not serve their intended purpose, which was, once upon a time, to reduce the overall cost of health care.

 

[Mercutio]

Yet people like Mercutio and Sechs think we should give more power to the gov't because they'll be more responsible with it than "evil" corporations.

Absolutely. Corporations are amoral beings that have all the rights of an actual human being in our legal system yet serve no other purpose to enrich the tiny number of people who own enough shares to see meaningful profit in corporate activities.

Corporations can act outside the best interests and welfare of literally everyone else on Earth if that action serves the interests of those shareholders. That's why we get Steel mills arguing that they need to pollute the communities where their employees live more, since that would cost less money and therefore increase shareholder profits.

That is exactly what I mean by "the possibility that certain individuals with no responsibility for anyone else might gain so much power over others that they could act or not act with the force of law." De facto, that is exactly what happens with un- or under-regulated corporate activity.

 

[Mercutio]

Socialism and communism will fail every time they're tried until you can solve the "greed" of the people in the program. People are inherently greedy and a method of gov't that denies that fact will fail every time.

Thank you for that brilliant analysis. How do you then explain functional social welfare programs in places like Sweden or France?

 

[ddrueding]

Everything in society is practiced for profit. Everyone in society wants to profit from their labors. That is why we labor. Saying people shouldn't profit from medicine is crazy. Saying who should profit is the key. Right now the money goes to insurance bureaucracies and lawyers. How do we get them out of the system? How do we make sure that the money we pay goes to those who treat us? By getting rid of the bureaucracy. There are two ways to do this:

1. Make all healthcare govt. run and completely free for everyone always. No paperwork, no exemptions, just free. If the rules are the same for everyone, all the people that make money gaming the system are eliminated. Downside: System is flooded with calls, people are treated for minor crap, taxes go way up.

2. Eliminate all mandatory/subsidized/govt. funded healthcare. Make a doctor's visit a transaction between you and them. This causes competition and allows everyone to negotiate for their own deal. Downside? People too dumb to plan for contingencies might die.

I'll take either, but this middle of the road BS is just sapping money to the politicians and bureaucrats.

 

[ddrueding]

(Paraphrasing Merc)

Government is an amoral being that has more rights than an actual human being in our legal system and serve no other purpose than to enrich the tiny number of people who are in a position of power.

Government can act outside the best interests and welfare of the majority of their constituents if that action serves the interests of those close to the government. That's who gives Steel mills permission to pollute the communities where their employees live more, since it gives more profit to those in power.

Why is a company worse? At least you can sue a company...

 

[Mercutio]

No. Wrong. Again.
We elect people who represent us and who - if they take their dicks out of lobbyists' mouths long enough - can change the rules to suit the will of the people.

A government that does not serve its citizens is not going to be in power very long. A corporation that does not serve its employees/manager/local communities can continue to do whatever the fuck it wants for as long as it makes shareholders happy.

Also, you can sue the government. It happens all the time.

 

[ddrueding]

That is far too idealist, Merc. It's a lovely idea and all, and if it worked like that consistently, I would be all for it. But it just doesn't.

Things that would help?

1. Transparency
2. Limited terms in any public office - eliminate the "career politician"
3. Limit governments power

 

[Stereodude]

Thank you for that brilliant analysis. How do you then explain functional social welfare programs in places like Sweden or France?

Yeah, and the French economy is just booming! I'm sure those riots were really just celebrations of the functional social welfare program.

 

[Stereodude]

No. Wrong. Completely. We practice medicine for profit. Medicine. The necessary practice of preventing or curing physical and mental ailments. A necessity for human well-being.

Everything is done for profit. You fix computers for profit. So what? You don't see me trying to tell you how much you can charge for your services.

Has this happened to anyone else? You doctor writes you a prescription for a name-brand still-under-patent drug. You go to get it filled and find out that 20 pills costs approximately your entire weekly salary. You decide to live in pain instead.

You want drug companies to develop new drugs, you have to give them a financial motive. They aren't going to develop new drugs out of a sense of responsibility to society.

 

[Bozo]

You want drug companies to develop new drugs, you have to give them a financial motive. They aren't going to develop new drugs out of a sense of responsibility to society.

Odd, these same drugs are sold in other countries at a third the price.
Odd, when the patent runs out, the drug companies change the color of the tablet, call it improved, and the patent is extended. Gouge the consumer some more.
Odd, it cost $0.002 to manufacture a pill, but the drug companies charge $40.00 per pill. Just so the CEO gets his big bonus.

Drug companies are no better than the oil companies.

BTW, did you notice that Ms Clinton got some HUGE campain funds from Big Oil and Big Drug?

Bozo :joker: