gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Eeyore on 20 May 2007 21:35 Joe the Aroma wrote: > "Eeyore" wrote: > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: > >> > > >> > Are Boeing's pork-barrel military contracts a subsidy ? > >> > >> Boeing's military contracts are in its military aircraft division. > > > > Obfuscation. > > > > I'll take that as a "Yes, military contracts are a (hidden) subsidy". > > > > Graham > > Errr, no. Errr, yes. Graham
From: Eeyore on 20 May 2007 21:36 John Mara wrote: > Fred G. Mackey wrote: > > > > But the ones who can afford it, do get private insurance. That's > > telling, isn't it? > > Those who can afford BMWs get them instead of Toyotas. If someone wants > luxury health care let them pay for it. Indeed. It's their choice after all. If you want gold-plated hospitals you can pay for them, otherwise you don't have to. Graham
From: Free Lunch on 20 May 2007 21:39 On Sun, 20 May 2007 18:02:35 -0700, in misc.transport.road "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in <4650EFAB.FC227A70(a)yahoo.co.uk>: > > >Jeffrey Turner wrote: >> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >> > Eeyore wrote: >> > >> > >> >>In short, the US health care market is >> >>being manipulated against the comsumers' interest. >> > >> > Is limiting the amount of money companies can make with new drugs, and >> > therefore can invest in research for even more new drugs, really in the >> > consumers' interest? I think that all first world countries should >> > equally share this burden. So I do think that Americans are being >> > treated unfairly. >> >> Because who knows where we'd be without another new drug for "erectile >> dysfunction." >> >You make a valid point that drug manufacturers go after lucrative >markets that maybe aren't as important to the well being of the entire >society as they are to their own bottom line. One idea is to subsidize >drugs that would be effective for diseases that otherwise might not pay >enough for them to be created. That is also partially done, at least in the US. What I would recommend is that insurance companies be allowed _not_ to pay for any drugs that are advertised to the general population and that all marketing expenses of drug companies not be deductible for tax purposes. Encouraging people to select more expensive drugs when they don't pay for them is completely contrary to all concepts of a free market. >> Of course, the drug companies spend a lot of their income >> on advertising, not to mention executive salaries and profits. >> >That's the free market at work. They seem to think that "Go ask your >doctor" about their product that they then give a list of side effects >for that seem maybe worse than the actual disease makes you want to do >that. The side effects are one of the few requirements by the FDA. Advertising to people who are not competent to make a decision about their pharmaceutical choices is utterly irresponsible. There's nothing remotely free market about it. >> So the >> idea that without being able to charge what the traffic will bear they'd >> never have enough money to develop another new drug is just silly. >> >If there's no choice, then letting them charge any amount isn't probably >the best thing. If there is choice, just don't buy their new fancy drug. >And a lot of this sort of thing is me-too meds which by definition >aren't the only choice. The drug companies live with price and advertising controls in other countries. They have the highest profit margin of any business. They depend on governments for the right to enforce their intellectual property. They will survive with sensible regulations.
From: Joe the Aroma on 20 May 2007 21:48 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4650F787.6D570B26(a)hotmail.com... > > > Joe the Aroma wrote: > >> "Eeyore" wrote: >> > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: >> >> Eeyore wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Are Boeing's pork-barrel military contracts a subsidy ? >> >> >> >> Boeing's military contracts are in its military aircraft division. >> > >> > Obfuscation. >> > >> > I'll take that as a "Yes, military contracts are a (hidden) subsidy". >> > >> > Graham >> >> Errr, no. > > Errr, yes. > > Graham Well, I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't call military contracts in and of themselves to be subsidies. Is every public/private contract a subsidy?
From: Joe the Aroma on 20 May 2007 21:50
"Free Lunch" <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:kqt153dk1mn1qeiaopu9rb9me4bmlt24e9(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 20 May 2007 18:02:35 -0700, in misc.transport.road > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > <4650EFAB.FC227A70(a)yahoo.co.uk>: >> >> >>Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>> >>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>> > Eeyore wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> >>In short, the US health care market is >>> >>being manipulated against the comsumers' interest. >>> > >>> > Is limiting the amount of money companies can make with new drugs, and >>> > therefore can invest in research for even more new drugs, really in >>> > the >>> > consumers' interest? I think that all first world countries should >>> > equally share this burden. So I do think that Americans are being >>> > treated unfairly. >>> >>> Because who knows where we'd be without another new drug for "erectile >>> dysfunction." >>> >>You make a valid point that drug manufacturers go after lucrative >>markets that maybe aren't as important to the well being of the entire >>society as they are to their own bottom line. One idea is to subsidize >>drugs that would be effective for diseases that otherwise might not pay >>enough for them to be created. > > That is also partially done, at least in the US. > > What I would recommend is that insurance companies be allowed _not_ to > pay for any drugs that are advertised to the general population and that > all marketing expenses of drug companies not be deductible for tax > purposes. Encouraging people to select more expensive drugs when they > don't pay for them is completely contrary to all concepts of a free > market. > >>> Of course, the drug companies spend a lot of their income >>> on advertising, not to mention executive salaries and profits. >>> >>That's the free market at work. They seem to think that "Go ask your >>doctor" about their product that they then give a list of side effects >>for that seem maybe worse than the actual disease makes you want to do >>that. > > The side effects are one of the few requirements by the FDA. Advertising > to people who are not competent to make a decision about their > pharmaceutical choices is utterly irresponsible. There's nothing > remotely free market about it. > >>> So the >>> idea that without being able to charge what the traffic will bear they'd >>> never have enough money to develop another new drug is just silly. >>> >>If there's no choice, then letting them charge any amount isn't probably >>the best thing. If there is choice, just don't buy their new fancy drug. >>And a lot of this sort of thing is me-too meds which by definition >>aren't the only choice. > > The drug companies live with price and advertising controls in other > countries. They have the highest profit margin of any business. They > depend on governments for the right to enforce their intellectual > property. They will survive with sensible regulations. I always thought drug reimportation would be a nice way to solve the problem. If the drug companies do not want it, they should consider that before they sell out with these massive bulk buying deals. |