Administrator/owner: John (Dragonslayer) Administrator: Melinda (mig) WebAdmin: Timo (Timo) Administrator: Brad (wolverinefan)
· Tim (Dotyisle)
· Chelsea (Kiwi)
· Megan (Megan)
· Wendy (WendyR)
· John (Cheerful)
· Chris (fyrfytr187)
If you want to use this QR code (Quick Response code) just save the image and paste it where you want. You can even print it and use it that way. Coffee cups, T-Shirts etc would all be good for the QR code.
Profits would be an issue for them I'd guess. The top line number (revenue) might be an issue though before the profit consideration. It might just be justification (in their eyes) for cutting R&D. The purpose or scope of the organization may shrink, not only R&D. Employees might get lopped off. Maybe they drop whole lines of medications (e.g. maintenance meds for arthritis). If you don't have the revenue to sustain the purpose or activities of the organization, it will not continue in its current incarnation. Perhaps that is a good thing from some points of view. All I know is that they have no obligation to be in business.
It would be nice if they scaled back those CEO salaries, but I wouldn't hold my breath. However, if all these CEO salaries are scaled back, don't you lose some of your “rich” people to subsidize all of your social programs? Personally, I don't have much a problem with the way by which CEO salaries are set. Is the compensation unnecessarily excessive? Absolutely. However, those salaries, and overall compensation, are set and approved by the boards of those corporations, if public. You need to go much further than the supposed villainous CEO to root out the excessive compensation that bothers you so much. Also, if we are going to target the CEOs, we might as well target all professional athletes (I mean, they get paid millions a year to play games) and the multi-million dollar earning movie and television stars and personalities (I mean, they get paid millions to largely play make believe). Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-pharma. However, all of these types of actions will have implications. Then again, perhaps it doesn't matter. The members of government have already sold themselves, and us indirectly, out to big business, therefore any lines that exist are rather blurred. Perhaps this is why the president brokered a deal with big pharma while this whole healthcare thing was heating up late this summer.
That's the first I've heard of significant medical research (for direct use by pharma) being done at the university level. Perhaps this is what is heard about all these university professors who have ties with big corporations. It wouldn't surprise me though to understand universities making scientific breakthroughs (through research) that can be incorporated into pharmaceuticals as well as utilized by other industries. I've also been aware of members of universities doing studies that, for example, support or refute the efficacy of a methodology of treatment. Is this what you mean? If not, could you elaborate/clarify? You may also get arguments from the students themselves, as well as the university administrators, about the financial benefits of this research. They may not benefit directly, but one would imagine that there is an indirect benefit to the students and the university.
I heard last night before I went to bed and briefly read this morning that the public option might be dead. Wow! Apparently the authors of this bill and their cohorts couldn't get it more wrong. I understand the legislation is not final, but if that is true, this fabulous bill is headed in the direction of mandating than an individual must carry health insurance and implementing a new tax upon the public if they don't. Yet, with an elimination of a public option, the individuals are given no viable means to acquire adequate insurance at a reasonable price. Granted, the government has no business running an insurance scheme, however unless this mandate for insurance, and the accompanying tax, are eliminated, the citizens are being hamstrung without a government option. Wow!
Since you elect to include Sarah Palin in the debate, it makes me wonder if they'd (the Chinese) be interested in someone who has no experience as a community organizer and doesn't keep questionable anti-American company. Actually, I was thinking that the Chinese would be interested in the natural resources they could extract from the land. Perhaps you have read about their acquisition of natural resources in their own exploitation of Africa?
Kind Regards, Jay
Almost all of us long for peace and freedom; but very few of us have much enthusiasm for the thoughts, feelings, and actions that make for peace and freedom. - Aldous Huxley
Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. - Thomas Jefferson