|
08-02-2007, 03:07 PM
|
#1 | |
|
Angling in the Deep
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains
Posts: 24,281
|
WSJ Poll: Sobering Numbers For Republicans
The cost of healtcare the number one issue for most Americans (along with Iraq).
From the article.. Quote:
America's Economic Mood: Gloomy Broad Public Pessimism Spurs Democratic Candidates To Target Business Interests By JOHN HARWOOD August 2, 2007; Page A4 WASHINGTON -- Americans are feeling decidedly sour about the economy and those in charge of it, fueling Democratic efforts to target business interests in the 2008 election campaign. More than two-thirds of Americans believe the U.S. economy is either in recession now or will be in the next year, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows. That assessment comes despite the fact the economy has experienced sustained growth with low inflation and unemployment and generally rising stock values ever since the recession that ended early in President Bush's tenure.  In addition, the poll shows a lack of confidence in economic leaders. That includes not just Mr. Bush and Congress, both of whom have the approval of fewer than one-third of all Americans, but the financial industry, large corporations in general and energy, drug and insurance companies in particular. Some other measures of Americans' economic attitudes, such as the Conference Board's consumer-confidence measure, have risen lately, and the Journal/NBC poll reflected some mixed feelings about the economy. Yet growth in consumer spending has slowed, and concerns about health costs, job security and the gap between the rich and poor have left Americans downbeat about the road ahead. "They're ambivalent about the current economy but pessimistic about the future," said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducts the Journal/NBC survey with Democratic counterpart Peter Hart. One consequence is anger at leading economic actors, who respondents believe are failing to protect ordinary Americans' interests. "There's a combination of anxiety and loathing," Mr. Hart said. "There's a sense that every single one of these institutions is totally out for their own betterment, versus the public they serve." Democratic politicians are reflecting those sentiments in the 2008 presidential campaign and in legislative proposals in Congress. Populist lawmakers in the House and Senate have targeted oil-industry tax breaks, and challenged pharmaceutical companies on issues from drug prices to generic substitutes to imports from foreign companies. The chairmen of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees, and all three leading Democratic presidential candidates, have endorsed higher taxes on hedge-fund and private-equity managers or firms. Efforts by Republicans and the business community to raise fears about Democratic tax increases, spending excesses or economic mismanagement have proved unsuccessful. In what Mr. Newhouse called a "world turned upside down," Democrats enjoy an edge in public approval that extends beyond such party strengths as health care and education, where Republicans trail by more than 20 percentage points. Democrats lead by 35 percentage points on handling gas prices, by 24 percentage points on energy policy and 10 points on dealing with immigration. Even more notably, Republicans lag by 16 percentage points on controlling government spending, 15 percentage points on dealing with the economy and nine percentage points on dealing with taxes. Both top Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, lead Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani in a prospective November 2008 matchup by six and five percentage points, respectively. Mr. Giuliani has strengthened his position in the Republican nomination race; the former New York mayor leads with 33%, up from 29% in June, compared with former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson's 20%, which is unchanged. Notwithstanding his struggles with campaign staff and fund raising, Sen. John McCain of Arizona ticked up to 17% from 14% in June, while former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts fell to 11% from 14%. The telephone survey of 1,005 adults, conducted July 27-30, carried a margin for error of 3.1 percentage points. "These are sobering numbers for the Republican brand," Mr. Newhouse noted. With Republicans weighed down by Mr. Bush's 31% approval rating, he said, "These party comparisons aren't going to change anytime soon until we get a nominee." The biggest drag on Republican fortunes remains the Iraq war, which has depressed the nation's mood across the board. Just 19% of Americans say things in the nation are headed in the right direction, while 67% say the country is off on the wrong track. When those who expressed pessimism were asked to identify a reason, the Iraq war was cited by the highest proportion, 56%. For the first time since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a plurality of Americans say the U.S. is less safe than before the attacks. Failures in the health-care system are next on the list at 31%, as Americans continue to struggle with rising costs and coverage gaps. Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey, in Washington yesterday to lobby for higher federal health-care spending, argues that the two concerns feed on each other since Americans "think the war is pre-empting our ability to deal with health care and other issues." "The macroeconomy is reasonably healthy," said Mr. Corzine, former chief executive of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. "But the reality for the majority of America is they're lucky if they hold on....The numbers are different from what the feel is on Wall Street." Poll respondents expressed limited anxiety about the effects of either the housing-market decline or stock-market turbulence on their personal circumstances. Just 20% said shifting stock values lately have had a negative impact on their finances, while 17% said the same about home price declines. The poll shows Wall Street itself is a target of public ire. Just 16% expressed substantial confidence in the financial industry, slightly below those expressing confidence in the energy industry (18%) or the pharmaceutical industry (17%). Large corporations (11%) and health-insurance companies in particular (10%) fared even worse. One bright spot for the world of commerce: 54% of Americans expressed high confidence in small businesses, which tied with law-enforcement agencies for the second ranking behind the U.S. military among institutions rated by respondents. About 67% of Americans expressed high confidence in the military. By comparison, local governments drew expressions of high confidence from 34%, public schools 32%, religious leaders 27%, the national news media 18% and the federal government 16%. Last edited by Bronco_Beerslug; 08-02-2007 at 03:09 PM.. |
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
08-02-2007, 03:15 PM
|
#2 |
|
Armchair Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Topeka, KS
Posts: 22,076
|
I don't think Republicans should shy away from the health care debate. They'll win if they convice Americans that frivolous lawsuits are a big factor in the high cost of healthcare. Hillary already proved in the early 90s that Americans weren't ready for universal healthcare...at least her view of it. Maybe times have changed, but it's a debate the respective nominees should hold.
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2007, 03:48 PM
|
#3 | |
|
Bleedin' orange!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mile High
Posts: 20,018
Adopt-a-Bronco: Howard Griffith |
Quote:
Horse manure. as if that were the only MAJOR factor. Insurance fraud and overbilling to insurance companies. Insurance company profits Pharmaceutical profits Covering un-insured Covering illegals etc.......etc..... |
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2007, 04:07 PM
|
#4 | |
|
Sauced...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,120
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2007, 04:43 PM
|
#5 | |
|
Armchair Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Topeka, KS
Posts: 22,076
|
Quote:
Tailgate Nut, you're right that there are other factors involved in the high cost of healthcare. However, turning over healthcare to the highly complex government bureaucracy is not the way to go. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2007, 04:47 PM
|
#6 | ||
|
Tastee Freeze
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 9,464
Adopt-a-Bronco: Champ Bailey |
Quote:
profits are the biggest costs in health care. Quote:
company lobbyists went to work with a massive dis-information campaign that was wildly successful. It remains to be seen if the public is sucked in by them again or if Hillary can get her message across this time around. |
||
|
|
|
|
08-02-2007, 05:00 PM
|
#7 | |
|
Sauced...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,120
|
Quote:
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/200...3/prsa0223.htm Tort reform wouldn't dent health spending -- CBO report Changes should focus on fairness to both patients and physicians, the study concludes. By Tanya Albert, AMNews staff. Feb. 23, 2004. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Medical liability reforms proposed in Congress likely wouldn't have a big impact on overall health care spending in the United States, according to the latest in a series of Congressional Budget Office reports on the subject. The estimated $24 billion in malpractice costs in 2002 accounted for less than 2% of health care spending. "Thus, even a reduction of 25% to 30% in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4% to 0.5%, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparatively small," the CBO stated in its report, "Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice." |
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2007, 08:56 PM
|
#8 | |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 19,601
|
Quote:
It's the consumption of health care resources by the elderly and those with chronic health problems (including lifestyle-related diseases like heart disease, lung cancer, and diabetes) that are driving health care costs skyward. The whole system is perverse, with the incentives all wrong. I realize it's easiest to take the populist stance and bash profits, but that's not the primary reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2007, 10:05 PM
|
#9 |
|
It is what it Is.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in a bunker
Posts: 54,371
Adopt-a-Bronco: Julius Thomas |
De-fang big Pharm., that is the biggest problem with health care today. Too much power too much profit.
The root problem though is the Standard American Diet (SAD). The nation will never be healthy until citizens start to eat more whole foods. |
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 03:28 AM
|
#10 | ||
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 19,601
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 04:07 AM
|
#11 |
|
It is what it Is.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in a bunker
Posts: 54,371
Adopt-a-Bronco: Julius Thomas |
Drug Companies Maintain "Astounding" Profits
4 May 2002 by Scott Gottlieb, New York, BMJ 2002 Pharmaceuticals again ranked as the most profitable sector in the United States, topping the annual Fortune 500 ranking of America's top industries, released this month. The pharmaceutical industry topped all three of Fortune magazine's measures of profitability for 2001, making this decade the third in which the industry has been at or near the top in all the magazine's measures of profitability. The occasion was seized by critics of the industry as reflecting corporate greed. Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch, said: "During a year in which there was much talk of sacrifice in the national interest, drug companies increased their astounding profits by hiking prescription prices, advertising some medicines more than Nike shoes, and successfully lobbying for lucrative monopoly patent extensions. Sometimes what's best for shareholders and chief executive officers isn't what's best for all Americans, particularly senior citizens who lack insurance cover for prescription drugs." Overall profits of Fortune 500 companies declined by 53% in 2001, while the top 10 US drug makers increased profits by 32% from $28bn (20bn; 31bn) to $37bn, according to Public Citizen's analysis of the Fortune 500 data. Together the 10 drug companies in the list had the greatest return on revenues, reporting a profit of 18.5 cents for every dollar of sales, eight times higher than the median for all Fortune 500 industries, which was 2.2 cents. The drugs industry says it needs extraordinary profits to fund risky research and development of new drugs and to absorb the high cost of drug failures in clinical trials. The industry's output of new drugs has risen only modestly in the past two decades, despite a more than sixfold increase, after adjustment for inflation, in spending on research and developmentto more than $30bn a year. In the past few years output has actually declined. Many industry supporters blame tougher scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration. The time spent to develop a drug, not counting the months consumed by government review, has lengthened from about nine years in the 1980s to more than 11 years, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, and the cost has more than doubled, after adjustment for inflation, to $800m. Public Citizen notes that the Tufts Center gets money from drug companies and maintains that the centre's figures are inflated to justify high drug costs. |
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 04:15 AM
|
#12 |
|
It is what it Is.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in a bunker
Posts: 54,371
Adopt-a-Bronco: Julius Thomas |
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve5/1090pharm.html
Pharmaceutical profits make us sick In a year that saw a drop in employment rates, a plunge in the stock market and symbols of America's economy literally come crashing down, the pharmaceutical industry continued its reign as the most profitable industry in the annual Fortune 500 list. While the overall profits of Fortune 500 companies declined by 53 percent — the second steepest dive in profits the Fortune 500 has listed in its 47 years — the top ten US drug makers increased profits by 33 percent. Collectively, the 10 drug companies topped all three of the magazine's measures of profitability in 2001. These companies had the greatest return on revenues, reporting a profit of 18.5 cents for every $1 of sales, which was eight times higher than the average for all other listed industries. Commercial banking, for example, only returned 13.5 percent on revenue. The drug industry also dominated others by realising a return on assets of 16.5 percent — almost six times the average of 2.5 percent for all other industries. Pharmaceutical companies completed the sweep with a return on shareholders' equity of 33.2 percent which was more than three times the average for other industries (9.8 percent). Drug companies attained this triple crown, in part, by hiking pill prices, advertising some medicines more than Nike shoes and spending much less on R&D. Through its huge lobbying presence in Washington the drug industry staved off congressional efforts to moderate rising drug prices. In fact, the industry went on the offensive last year in Congress, fighting for lucrative extensions of monopoly patents on drugs like Cipro, the antibiotic used to treat anthrax. Congress was all too willing to help, as it approved a patent extension program for pediatric drugs that will give drug companies $592 million a year in added profits, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA acknowledges that this is a conservative estimate based on a limited sample of drugs. Public Citizen has identified 15 drugs that alone could net an additional $2 billion in profits from the six-month patent extensions. No wonder Fortune says that the pharmaceutical industry "showed some impressive gains." The latest figures reflect a trend that has been continuing for three decades. In the 1970s and '80 the profitability of the medicine merchants was two times greater than the average for other industries. In the 1990s, when the intellectual property protections of the landmark Hatch-Waxman Act kicked in, the drug industry's profitability grew to almost four times that for all industries in the Fortune 500. The industry begins the 21st century with even better prospects — an ageing population and annual increases in national spending on pharmaceuticals makes the future for top drug companies look healthier than ever. Pharmaceuticals crusade for the "Holy Grail" Together the ten drug companies listed by Fortune earned $37.2 billion in profits in 2001, up from the $28.0 billion they reported in 2000. Americans spent $154 billion on prescription drugs last year, an increase of more than 17 percent, according to a study by the National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM). More prescriptions were written, prescriptions were shifted to newer, more costly drugs and prescription prices jumped by an average of 10 percent. That 10 percent hike in the average prescription price was six times greater than the inflation rate of 1.6 percent reported by the federal government. Stephen Schondelmeyer, a professor of pharmaceutical economics at the University of Minnesota, said drug companies sought to raise prices before the government imposed some form of price controls and before their blockbuster drugs lost patent protection. Take Bristol-Myers Squibb and its diabetes drug Glucophage. Last year, Glucophage had sales of $1.7 billion, which ranked 14th among all pharmaceuticals. In 2001 the average price of a Glucophage prescription rose 14.4 percent from $63.00 to $72.06, which contributed to an additional $105 million in sales for the drug. But Bristol-Myers Squibb didn't stop there. By agreeing to test the safety and efficacy of Glucophage in children, the company gained a six-month monopoly patent extension from the federal government worth an estimated $136.8 million in additional profits. The company also employed elite lawyers to argue that its Glucophage tests in children should result in three additional years of monopoly patent protection. So far those efforts have not succeeded. "The Holy Grail of this industry is intellectual property protection," said Nancy Chockley, president of NIHCM, pointing out that many pharmaceutical companies raise drug prices so they can squeeze more profits out of blockbusters facing patent expiration. Recent examples of this trend are companies like Schering-Plough, which raised the price of its oral antihistamine Claritin by 12 percent in 2001, while it was anticipating releasing the similar drug Clarinex. Blockbuster drugs — bumper profits Pfizer led U.S. pharmaceutical companies with $7.8 billion in profits in 2001, which is more than the profits of all the Fortune 500 companies in the homebuilding, apparel, railroad and publishing industries combined. Pfizer earned 24 cents on each dollar of sales and owned the highest- selling drug, a cholesterol reducer called Lipitor, which had sales of $4.5 billion last year. The company also produced other blockbuster drugs such as Zoloft ($2.1 billion in sales), Norvasc ($1.7 billion) and Neurontin ($1.4 billion). That means Pfizer derived almost one-third of its revenue — and profits — from these four drugs. Pfizer raised its prices on these four drugs by an average of 4.9 percent last year — three times the rate of inflation. Merck was the second most profitable pharmaceutical, netting $7.3 billion, which is more than the profits of all the Fortune listed companies in the semiconductor, pipeline, food production, crude oil production, and hotel, casino and resort industries combined. Merck netted 15 cents on the sales dollar and had the second highest selling drug, also a cholesterol reducer called Zocor that grossed $2.7 billion. It manufactured three other blockbusters: Vioxx ($2.0 billion in sales), Fosamax ($1.0 billion) and Singulair ($1.0 billion). Merck raised the prices on these four drugs by an average of 6.5 percent last year — or four times the rate of inflation. But Pfizer and Merck weren't the only companies with blockbusters. In fact, last year there were more companies with more blockbusters than ever before. In 2001, 29 drugs broke the billion-dollar barrier — nearly double the 1999 tally of 15. These 29 drugs garnered more than $52 billion in retail sales last year — or 34 percent of the total US pharmaceutical market. These 29 drugs were far more expensive than most drugs. They had an average prescription price of $97.71 last year — almost double the national average of $49.84 per prescription. The price hikes for these 29 drugs alone — out of 9,400 drugs on the market — accounted for 15 percent of the entire $22.6 billion increase in national drug spending last year. But while blockbuster drugs have flourished in recent years, some analysts say that 2002 and 2003 may be even more successful. During these years the FDA is scheduled to finish testing 15 drugs that have great potential to become blockbusters. These drugs, if approved, could allow patients to treat illnesses like schizophrenia, multiple-sclerosis and even cancers like prostate, breast and colorectal cancer. One reason for the popularity of blockbuster drugs is that they are among the most heavily advertised drugs. The five drugs that were most advertised via mass media in 2000 were all blockbusters in 2001. (The five drugs were Vioxx, Prilosec, Claritin, Paxil and Zocor.) Merck spent more to advertise Vioxx ($160 million) than PepsiCo spent pitching Pepsi ($125 million). Each of the top seven most heavily advertised drugs topped Nike's ad budget for its shoes ($78 million). Some critics are questioning the marketing practices behind these billion- dollar drugs. During 2001, the FDA either reprimanded or warned three companies for marketing their blockbuster drugs with "misleading" advertisements, brochures or other materials. The FDA sited Pfizer, Inc. for two separate violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in just a two-week period in 2001. In a July letter, the FDA stated Pfizer misled the public by making false claims in an eight- page advertisement for Lipitor. The FDA said the "ad creates an overwhelming impression that Lipitor is indicated to reduce the risk of developing coronary heart disease," when there is nothing to substantiate the "effect of Lipitor on cardiovascular morbidity." In a separate case, the FDA claimed Pfizer used a marketing brochure for Neurontin that was misleading. In June of 2001, the FDA wrote a letter to the company telling them to stop using the brochure, which used a series of false claims to advertise the $1.4 billion drug. The FDA wrote similar letters in 2001 to Merck about misleading materials marketing Vioxx and Pharmacia for false or misleading statements made during promotional audio conferences about Celebrex. Marketing not R&D The annual reports of the drug companies reveal where their revenues go — and what their priorities really are. The drug industry has long maintained that it needs extraordinary profits to fuel risky R&D into new medicines. But the reports show that the companies plow far more into profits and marketing and administration than into R&D. Drug companies channeled 18.5 percent of revenue into profits last year says the Fortune 500 report. Yet they spent just 12.5 percent of revenues on R&D. |
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 04:23 AM
|
#13 |
|
It is what it Is.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in a bunker
Posts: 54,371
Adopt-a-Bronco: Julius Thomas |
Does that answer your question Wags?
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 09:07 AM
|
#14 |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 19,601
|
Those articles are from 2002 or earlier. How 'bout something more recent?
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 09:23 AM
|
#15 | |
|
Angling in the Deep
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains
Posts: 24,281
|
Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------- Big Pharma’s Profit Pursuit Means Fewer New Drugs, Report Says by Shreema Mehta Dec. 22, 2006 – Although drug makers typically justify the high cost of medicines by citing research expenses, a new government report says their research investments are mostly funding highly profitable modifications of existing drug designs, not new treatments. Spending on research and development has increased over the past ten years, but a combination of factors has led the pharmaceutical industry to submit fewer drugs to the FDA for review, according to an investigation by the Government Accountability Office, which handles such inquiries for Congress. The report blames the slowdown on a shortage of research scientists, the slow adaptation of expensive new technologies, and an industry-wide focus on profit. Out of the "new" medicines that companies have submitted for review, 68 percent are so-called "me-too drugs" – modified versions of existing drugs, which generate generous profits while carrying little risk of rejection. "This strategy has led pharmaceutical companies to pursue development of blockbuster drugs, which are usually for large patient populations and have the potential to reach $1 billion in annual sales," wrote the report’s authors. SNIP: A report released by the National Institute of Healthcare Management, a US government-funded nonprofit that researches healthcare issues, concluded that legislation passed in the past two decades has given drug companies enormous patent protections that have offered them tremendous market advantages. That report’s authors wrote that the intellectual-property protections have created an "oligopolistic market" that has increased the cost of drugs to consumers and limited innovation by encouraging companies to create and market me-too drugs instead. CONT. ------------------------------------------------------------- Pharmaceutical Industry Profits Increase by Over $8 Billion After Medicare Drug Plan Goes Into Effect This analysis examines the profit reports of the ten largest pharmaceutical manufacturers for the six-month period following the start of the new Medicare drug program. It finds that in the six months after January 1, 2006, when the Medicare drug program went into effect, pharmaceutical industry profits increased by over $8 billion. The Medicare drug program contributed to this surge in drug industry profits through a combination of increased utilization, higher prices, andswitching “dual-eligible” beneficiaries from Medicaid to Medicare. Background The new Medicare drug plan was passed by the Republican Congress and signed into law by President Bush in December 2003. Since its inception, the program has been seen as a potential boon for the pharmaceutical industry. Analysts predicted that because of the privatized structure of the program and the ban on federal negotiations with drug manufacturers for price discounts, taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries would be forced to pay high prices for prescription drugs. Several investigations have confirmed these predictions. Reports released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman have showed that the private Medicare drug plans have been unable to negotiate low prices for brand-name drugs,and that drug manufacturers have raised prices rapidly after the commencement of the new program. Some analysts have estimated the high prices paid by the Medicare drug plans would mean tens of billions of dollars in additional profits for drug manufacturers. The release of second quarter profit reports by large pharmaceutical companies represents one ofthe first opportunities to gauge the impact of the new Medicare drug program on drug industry Last edited by Bronco_Beerslug; 08-03-2007 at 09:26 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 11:00 AM
|
#16 | |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 19,601
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 11:02 AM
|
#17 | |
|
Angling in the Deep
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains
Posts: 24,281
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 11:06 AM
|
#18 | |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 19,601
|
Quote:
"Obscene" is a subjective judgement. Your populist streak is showing. What's a "reasonable" profit for pharmaceutical companies to make? |
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 11:14 AM
|
#19 | |
|
Angling in the Deep
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains
Posts: 24,281
|
Quote:
When pharma dictates policy (Bush Medicare Fraud Program) knowing they are going to make billions and billions off of it, that is obscene. Clear enough for you? |
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 12:53 PM
|
#20 | |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 19,601
|
Quote:
Now explain what a "reasonable" profit is. And how, if you ran a pharmaceutical company, how you would do it so that populists couldn't smear you with the same "obscene profit" label... |
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 12:59 PM
|
#21 |
|
Guerrilla Ontologist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 42,723
Adopt-a-Bronco: Prima Materia |
Question:
Did Newscorp's buyout include the WSJ? |
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 01:05 PM
|
#22 | ||
|
Angling in the Deep
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains
Posts: 24,281
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 01:37 PM
|
#23 | |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 19,601
|
Quote:
I don't think any level of profit is "obscene", indeed, all profit of any amount is "reasonable". The only exception would be if it was obtained via fraudulent or coercive means. If "Beerslug Inc." makes $100 billion profit, so be it. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 02:08 PM
|
#24 | |
|
Guerrilla Ontologist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 42,723
Adopt-a-Bronco: Prima Materia |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2007, 03:20 PM
|
#25 | |
|
It is what it Is.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in a bunker
Posts: 54,371
Adopt-a-Bronco: Julius Thomas |
Quote:
I should have considered they have some how reversed their decades long practices and become a great asset to American's health care. maybe you could tell me what you think has happened since 2002 to exonerate big Pharm. Wags you clearly have no ability or no desire to engage in legitimate discussion. |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
Linear Mode
