Originally Posted By: Jaybird
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.

Personally, I think that it would be empty threat, they might try to scare us by threatening to cut R&D, but to really stop developing new products, which is the business they are in, would only hurt themselves. And don't forget, the US isn't their only customer, they sell their medications to the rest of the world at a lower price than here, they are not being forced to do that, yet they still do

Originally Posted By: Jaybird
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.

I think it's good that you keep bringing this up, the fact that government and corporations are connected by an umbilical cord, even if it is to shine an equally bright spotlight on all parties.

Don't agree with the argument that the tax paid by executive CEO's should be considered a plus in regards to using those taxes for socially helpful programs. First, they and their lawyers know all the loopholes.. 2nd, those taxes aren't earmarked in any way for social programs, they could just as easily go to buying bombs as buying Remicade 3. It would be much better that the same dollars stayed in the hands of the people that need it the most, the ones that need the health care, but can't afford it, every time a dollar passes through another set of hands, somehow some of the money always disappears

Also, I'm not suggesting that because those CEO's are making a lot of money, that there is anything fundamentally wrong with that in itself.

Originally Posted By: Jaybird
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 didn't do any personal research here, so didn't hunt down any links to validate it, but it makes sense to me, what the person was talking about was not private universities, but state financed ones, which are largely funded by the taxes collected by individual states. Suggested it as something to become more aware of, a way to possibly get some of the investment made into education to return to the state

Originally Posted By: Jaybird
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!

keeping an eye on it, nervously..

Originally Posted By: Jaybird
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?

well, I was just being silly, suggesting that Sarah Palin would come with the purchase of Alaska, as you were, when you suggested the state could be traded against our national debt

I'm sure that China would be very keen on Alaska's resources!