Therefore, reducing costs below the level where companies can recoup their investment [etc]
I was asking for evidence that these `forced price reductions' would put them below the level where companies can recoup their investment, causing them to stop the production of new drugs.
The parent post to my post stated that B holds, I asked what evidence is there for B, and you replied "if A then B". That is not evidence.
Quoth that report: ``It's not a surprising conclusion, said Steve Morgan, an expert on the economics of the pharmaceutical industry at the University of British Columbia.''
Of course. This is what will happen when entities whose only objective is to maximize the earnings of stockholders is in charge. I find it amazing that this is not absolutely obvious to anyone, except maybe those still proposing going back to the gold standard and such.
Have you not considered the possibility that the fact that the prices in Canada are lower is because they have socialized medicine? I am quite sure you'll find the same phenomenon in other countries with similar medicine systems. Yet, against the available experimental data, you insist with the purely idiological `any form of socialized medicine is undesirable'.
You seriously think that pharmaceutical companies operate at a loss in places like Canada?
No one gets into war over perceived slights from 500 years ago. They may say they do, but it is absurd to take their word. Much as experience has told us to demand more than words when justifying an invasion of a country and asking our participation, even, with the argument of `spreading freedom', `finding weapons of mass destuction', and so on.
Only a fool trusts in what someone arguing for war says.
Actually, if you realy read the book (that is, you get past the pretty imagery presented in the first few pages) you will find stuff that governments did not and do not want to hear.
Let me guess: you are a proponent of going back to the gold standard...
If anything, the fact that people fail to see a difference between carrying a first aid kit and spare oil in your car, and carrying a gun, makes me more grateful of not having to live there.
Have you ever been to pretty much anywhere outside of the US? Have you ever read the news of any other country but the US? Your response leaves me little option but to think that your knowledge of the outside world is quite distorted...
This is probably going to be seen as trollish, but it honestly isn't...
When this kind of subject comes up on/., reading through the comments of quite a lot of people really makes me grateful I do not have to go live in the US. There mere thought of living somewhere it is considered that women, the elderly (and men!) should carry arms makes me scared, really.
Of course, I know/. is not exactly representative of the general populace, but anyways...
You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
The goto statement should be unacceptable where it unacceptable and acceptable elsewhere. Grand statements like the one in your sig do nothing but harm.
I honestly regard the whole issue of an armed insurgency in the US as purely theoretical and absurd. It may or it may not have made any sense when the constitution was written, but it certainly does not now. In reality, it is nothing more than an excuse for those that want to own arms. The whole idea, to the best of my knowledge, is only found in the US.
No one is debating that. What this subthread is about is the fact that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that it is not reasonable to propose that all kind of arms be legal.
Slashdot Mirror
I was asking for evidence that these `forced price reductions' would put them below the level where companies can recoup their investment, causing them to stop the production of new drugs.
The parent post to my post stated that B holds, I asked what evidence is there for B, and you replied "if A then B". That is not evidence.
Anyone with taste will tell you that experience shows that being tasteful is almost detrimental to the success of anything...
What is the evindence for this, pray tell?
Wow. What you say is goes so much against reality that it is difficult to tell whether you are trolling or just plainly utterly confused.
Well, the private sector has not done that well...
On one hand, I doubt that. On the other, it makes me certain you've not been out of the US much.
I gather neither your life nor any close relative's depends on buying any expensive drug...
Quoth that report: ``It's not a surprising conclusion, said Steve Morgan, an expert on the economics of the pharmaceutical industry at the University of British Columbia.''
Of course. This is what will happen when entities whose only objective is to maximize the earnings of stockholders is in charge. I find it amazing that this is not absolutely obvious to anyone, except maybe those still proposing going back to the gold standard and such.
Have you not considered the possibility that the fact that the prices in Canada are lower is because they have socialized medicine? I am quite sure you'll find the same phenomenon in other countries with similar medicine systems. Yet, against the available experimental data, you insist with the purely idiological `any form of socialized medicine is undesirable'.
You seriously think that pharmaceutical companies operate at a loss in places like Canada?
No one gets into war over perceived slights from 500 years ago. They may say they do, but it is absurd to take their word. Much as experience has told us to demand more than words when justifying an invasion of a country and asking our participation, even, with the argument of `spreading freedom', `finding weapons of mass destuction', and so on.
Only a fool trusts in what someone arguing for war says.
You can do the next most useful think, which has withstood centuries of real world testing: you provide a reference.
Off-line documents are a fact of life.
Actually, if you realy read the book (that is, you get past the pretty imagery presented in the first few pages) you will find stuff that governments did not and do not want to hear.
Let me guess: you are a proponent of going back to the gold standard...
If anything, the fact that people fail to see a difference between carrying a first aid kit and spare oil in your car, and carrying a gun, makes me more grateful of not having to live there.
Have you ever been to pretty much anywhere outside of the US? Have you ever read the news of any other country but the US? Your response leaves me little option but to think that your knowledge of the outside world is quite distorted...
This is probably going to be seen as trollish, but it honestly isn't...
When this kind of subject comes up on /., reading through the comments of quite a lot of people really makes me grateful I do not have to go live in the US. There mere thought of living somewhere it is considered that women, the elderly (and men!) should carry arms makes me scared, really.
Of course, I know /. is not exactly representative of the general populace, but anyways...
I'm curious: Has this view of citizenship ever been espoused by anyone outside of the US?
So women and the elderly are currently armed?
And your argument for that answer is what, exactly?
In the same line: what's the basis of your second statement?
Well, he would not be distributing the code in most likelyhood, so the GPL does not even apply to him...
A stalking hermaphrodite?
So, when you used MySpace, were you (a) a middle school/high school girl, (b) a guy, or (c) a stalker?
Or, maybe, both could have done it solo but were not possible because of those patents...
The goto statement should be unacceptable where it unacceptable and acceptable elsewhere. Grand statements like the one in your sig do nothing but harm.
I honestly regard the whole issue of an armed insurgency in the US as purely theoretical and absurd. It may or it may not have made any sense when the constitution was written, but it certainly does not now. In reality, it is nothing more than an excuse for those that want to own arms. The whole idea, to the best of my knowledge, is only found in the US.
No one is debating that. What this subthread is about is the fact that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that it is not reasonable to propose that all kind of arms be legal.