Jump to content
sactowndog

Is agreement on healthcare possible?

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

I think it's 67 if you are born in a certain year or later.  Probably be 70 by the time I retire.

I would opt out of SS in a second if they would lump sum me.

Social security is 65, 66 or 67 depending on your date of birth.  I think you can apply for medicare only at 65.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pokebball said:

Trump is part of the solution, no doubt.  But it's really the GOP in congress, and particularly the house, that needs to engage the Dems vs the freedom caucus.  Can the house moderates come together?  Unfortunatly, I don't see it from either side.  I hope I'm wrong.

This area is where Trump really does need to lead.  But will he and will Congresspeople grow up.   Hard to believe they will either. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/10/13/four-reasons-drugs-are-expensive-of-which-two-are-false/#5a56a3c04c3b

This is a long read, but well worth it. The guy does a good job laying out the complexities of the problem. He doesn't deliver any solid answers by the end, but you're like it.

Only people who are very young or very religious like looking at the exact same book over and over again. In contrast, doctors do not get bored of prescribing the same drug, day after day. Many drugs become more valuable over time, as their risks are managed and their benefits explored. Drugs also get much cheaper at the point at which their patents expire and generic versions enter the market. The drug industry is creating an ever-improving back catalogue of virtually free and highly effective medicines, against which new inventions compete.

I have called this “The Better than the Beatles Problem.” It would be hard to sell new songs if every new song was compared for quality against the Beatles’ discography, if everyone already owned the Beatles’ records, and – importantly – if no one ever got bored of listening to Strawberry Fields or Hey Jude. This is the situation in the drug industry; an intellectual property business, where patents expire yet the classics become neither boring nor unfashionable.

The Better than the Beatles Problem is a huge economic drag on the industry. It is the main reason why R&D has been pushed towards rarer and generally serious diseases where regulators are more risk tolerant and where payers have the least ability to resist the companies’ pricing power.

The Better than the Beatles Problem: “Stop griping, you ingrates. While you were moaning about our greed, we have built you a fantastic collection of almost free generic medicine. All that old stuff that actually works is making it near impossible to find anything that makes us money. You think you have got problems with drug prices! We are cutting our throats here!”

Drug companies have a point. Patents come and go but generics are forever (for non-infectious diseases, at least). The generic pharmacopoeia has become a medical wonder. I don’t know for sure, but I would guess that one can buy today, at rock bottom generic prices, a set of small-molecule drugs that has greater medical utility than the entire set available to anyone, anywhere, at any price in 1995.

Nearly all the generic medicine chest was created by firms who invested in R&D to win future profits that they tried pretty hard to maximize; Short-term financial gain building a long-term common good. This strikes me the strongest defence of the current system. But unfortunately for the drug industry, it is a tough defence to sell to the jury, no matter what Abraham Lincoln thought about patents and progress.

  • Like 2

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/10/13/four-reasons-drugs-are-expensive-of-which-two-are-false/#5a56a3c04c3b

This is a long read, but well worth it. The guy does a good job laying out the complexities of the problem. He doesn't deliver any solid answers by the end, but you're like it.

Only people who are very young or very religious like looking at the exact same book over and over again. In contrast, doctors do not get bored of prescribing the same drug, day after day. Many drugs become more valuable over time, as their risks are managed and their benefits explored. Drugs also get much cheaper at the point at which their patents expire and generic versions enter the market. The drug industry is creating an ever-improving back catalogue of virtually free and highly effective medicines, against which new inventions compete.

I have called this “The Better than the Beatles Problem.” It would be hard to sell new songs if every new song was compared for quality against the Beatles’ discography, if everyone already owned the Beatles’ records, and – importantly – if no one ever got bored of listening to Strawberry Fields or Hey Jude. This is the situation in the drug industry; an intellectual property business, where patents expire yet the classics become neither boring nor unfashionable.

The Better than the Beatles Problem is a huge economic drag on the industry. It is the main reason why R&D has been pushed towards rarer and generally serious diseases where regulators are more risk tolerant and where payers have the least ability to resist the companies’ pricing power.

The Better than the Beatles Problem: “Stop griping, you ingrates. While you were moaning about our greed, we have built you a fantastic collection of almost free generic medicine. All that old stuff that actually works is making it near impossible to find anything that makes us money. You think you have got problems with drug prices! We are cutting our throats here!”

Drug companies have a point. Patents come and go but generics are forever (for non-infectious diseases, at least). The generic pharmacopoeia has become a medical wonder. I don’t know for sure, but I would guess that one can buy today, at rock bottom generic prices, a set of small-molecule drugs that has greater medical utility than the entire set available to anyone, anywhere, at any price in 1995.

Nearly all the generic medicine chest was created by firms who invested in R&D to win future profits that they tried pretty hard to maximize; Short-term financial gain building a long-term common good. This strikes me the strongest defence of the current system. But unfortunately for the drug industry, it is a tough defence to sell to the jury, no matter what Abraham Lincoln thought about patents and progress.

 

Examples include but are not limited to miracle drugs like lisinopril, metformin, many of the statins, dozens of forms of birth control.  In a few years a whole crapload of cancer drugs will be basically free.

The only way to screw this shit up is to let socialism into the system.

 

It is actually criminal that we let the rest of the world have these drugs for nothing.  We should call up France and Canada and Great Britain and tell them their next 10 years of medical expenditure needs to come to the United States as payment for all these drugs.  Even the drug companies that call these countries home can only function because of the United States.   You want to talk about China's intellectual property thievery it doesn't even come close to what the EU and rest of the world has done with our Drug markets.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/10/13/four-reasons-drugs-are-expensive-of-which-two-are-false/#5a56a3c04c3b

This is a long read, but well worth it. The guy does a good job laying out the complexities of the problem. He doesn't deliver any solid answers by the end, but you're like it.

Only people who are very young or very religious like looking at the exact same book over and over again. In contrast, doctors do not get bored of prescribing the same drug, day after day. Many drugs become more valuable over time, as their risks are managed and their benefits explored. Drugs also get much cheaper at the point at which their patents expire and generic versions enter the market. The drug industry is creating an ever-improving back catalogue of virtually free and highly effective medicines, against which new inventions compete.

I have called this “The Better than the Beatles Problem.” It would be hard to sell new songs if every new song was compared for quality against the Beatles’ discography, if everyone already owned the Beatles’ records, and – importantly – if no one ever got bored of listening to Strawberry Fields or Hey Jude. This is the situation in the drug industry; an intellectual property business, where patents expire yet the classics become neither boring nor unfashionable.

The Better than the Beatles Problem is a huge economic drag on the industry. It is the main reason why R&D has been pushed towards rarer and generally serious diseases where regulators are more risk tolerant and where payers have the least ability to resist the companies’ pricing power.

The Better than the Beatles Problem: “Stop griping, you ingrates. While you were moaning about our greed, we have built you a fantastic collection of almost free generic medicine. All that old stuff that actually works is making it near impossible to find anything that makes us money. You think you have got problems with drug prices! We are cutting our throats here!”

Drug companies have a point. Patents come and go but generics are forever (for non-infectious diseases, at least). The generic pharmacopoeia has become a medical wonder. I don’t know for sure, but I would guess that one can buy today, at rock bottom generic prices, a set of small-molecule drugs that has greater medical utility than the entire set available to anyone, anywhere, at any price in 1995.

Nearly all the generic medicine chest was created by firms who invested in R&D to win future profits that they tried pretty hard to maximize; Short-term financial gain building a long-term common good. This strikes me the strongest defence of the current system. But unfortunately for the drug industry, it is a tough defence to sell to the jury, no matter what Abraham Lincoln thought about patents and progress.

So I read your article which is probably more courtesy then you afforded me on the links I posted. Having read it and 5-10 other articles this weekend, I found it laughably biased towards the pharmaceutical industry.  ( not a surprise for Forbes)  

Problem 1: bogus examples

Article except:

Power is exercised in various other industries where intellectual property matters. Books are similar. If you copy a new book without permission, you infringe copyright. If you copy and sell a new drug without permission, you infringe patents. While books can be hard to write and new drugs are hard to discover, each extra copy or dose is cheap to manufacture. If you want an English-French dictionary, you won’t be tempted by a Korean-Italian dictionary. If you are a woman with acne, you won’t be tempted by a cure for male pattern baldness. Thus direct price competition often makes little sense for producers.

This book analogy is almost laughable.  No one's like is at risk if they choose one book over another.  The demand curve for books represent a true market situation with viable substitutes and purchaser choice.  

A better analogy would be energy where the rise in gas prices or electricity prices results in little demand changes as consumer are unable to change their usage.  Even in that case consumers have more options than choosing a life saving drug or not.  

Problem 2: missing data

the article talks about reduced pricing for generics.  It fails to mention common industry practice of matching price hikes for generics.

Because price changes have little impact on sales volume and the industry is highly consolidated, manufacturers have made it an industry practice to match price hikes for generics.  From an industry standpoint this practice makes sense as total sales volume moves little relative to price.   Any price reduction just reduces total industry revenue while any price increase increases total industry revenue.  The result is price fixing:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/business/generic-drug-price-lawsuit-teva-mylan.amp.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

So I read your article which is probably more courtesy then you afforded me on the links I posted. Having read it and 5-10 other articles this weekend, I found it laughably biased towards the pharmaceutical industry.  ( not a surprise for Forbes)  

Problem 1: bogus examples

Article except:

Power is exercised in various other industries where intellectual property matters. Books are similar. If you copy a new book without permission, you infringe copyright. If you copy and sell a new drug without permission, you infringe patents. While books can be hard to write and new drugs are hard to discover, each extra copy or dose is cheap to manufacture. If you want an English-French dictionary, you won’t be tempted by a Korean-Italian dictionary. If you are a woman with acne, you won’t be tempted by a cure for male pattern baldness. Thus direct price competition often makes little sense for producers.

This book analogy is almost laughable.  No one's like is at risk if they choose one book over another.  The demand curve for books represent a true market situation with viable substitutes and purchaser choice.  

A better analogy would be energy where the rise in gas prices or electricity prices results in little demand changes as consumer are unable to change their usage.  Even in that case consumers have more options than choosing a life saving drug or not.  

Problem 2: missing data

the article talks about reduced pricing for generics.  It fails to mention common industry practice of matching price hikes for generics.

Because price changes have little impact on sales volume and the industry is highly consolidated, manufacturers have made it an industry practice to match price hikes for generics.  From an industry standpoint this practice makes sense as total sales volume moves little relative to price.   Any price reduction just reduces total industry revenue while any price increase increases total industry revenue.  The result is price fixing:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/business/generic-drug-price-lawsuit-teva-mylan.amp.html

Your problem is you aren't capable of understanding economic principles.

It has been a continual theme of every thing you have posted about the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

So I read your article which is probably more courtesy then you afforded me on the links I posted. Having read it and 5-10 other articles this weekend, I found it laughably biased towards the pharmaceutical industry.  ( not a surprise for Forbes)  

Problem 1: bogus examples

Article except:

Power is exercised in various other industries where intellectual property matters. Books are similar. If you copy a new book without permission, you infringe copyright. If you copy and sell a new drug without permission, you infringe patents. While books can be hard to write and new drugs are hard to discover, each extra copy or dose is cheap to manufacture. If you want an English-French dictionary, you won’t be tempted by a Korean-Italian dictionary. If you are a woman with acne, you won’t be tempted by a cure for male pattern baldness. Thus direct price competition often makes little sense for producers.

This book analogy is almost laughable.  No one's like is at risk if they choose one book over another.  The demand curve for books represent a true market situation with viable substitutes and purchaser choice.  

A better analogy would be energy where the rise in gas prices or electricity prices results in little demand changes as consumer are unable to change their usage.  Even in that case consumers have more options than choosing a life saving drug or not.  

Problem 2: missing data

the article talks about reduced pricing for generics.  It fails to mention common industry practice of matching price hikes for generics.

Because price changes have little impact on sales volume and the industry is highly consolidated, manufacturers have made it an industry practice to match price hikes for generics.  From an industry standpoint this practice makes sense as total sales volume moves little relative to price.   Any price reduction just reduces total industry revenue while any price increase increases total industry revenue.  The result is price fixing:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/business/generic-drug-price-lawsuit-teva-mylan.amp.html

Only you could construe my posting of a link that attacks my position for at least 75% of the article, with the only exception being a half-hearted defense that admits it falls on deaf ears, and think "this is biased." You don't want compromise, you don't even want discussion. You can't stand anything that presents you any data that refutes or doesn't coincide with yours or the EPI's view.

And yes, I read your links. In fact, I read the actual studies and not just the conclusions, and even went so far as to read the other studies that are cited within the study when necessary. That's how I know that less than a third of rising drug costs is due to pricing. Considering retail drug prices are only 10% of total healthcare costs, I know that it equates to much less than 1% of total costs in healthcare spending. And also considering the profits from said drug pricing are the entire motivation for drug innovation, I know you just want to sell out the future so you can benifit off of past generations paying your way. You're the shitty parts of both the baby boomers and the millenial generations.

As for part one of your dummy claims, the author was trying to introduce a metaphor to help a laymen understand what is going on with the vertical demand curve you so love to roll shitballs with. It's not meant as a perfect approximation. In any case, your examples are stupid, as they are one of a government mandated monopoly for the public's benefit and a vertical demand curve which shows competition lowers prices. Both of which I have formally undressed your position on earlier in the thread. Who doesn't understand economics now?

Part two is a lawsuit that predates the article. I don't know how you expect the author to anticipate the legal system in a country not his own ahead of time. Maybe you just don't read the articles I link. Oh well, I tried.

  • Like 3

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm tired of hearing about medication being too expensive.

Most of it is not.  Newer medications, niche medications, sure. 

I can treat hypertension quite cheaply, in fact.  I can treat diabetes equally as cheap.  Same with high cholesterol and a large variety of infectious diseases, all for under ten dollars a month.  I don't think that's unreasonable.  If someone wants to charge 1800 dollars for doxycycline, there are plenty of other options available, and they will quickly be priced out of that market.  I would just use azithromycin or augmentin instead; both of which have similar bacterial coverage.  In fact, I remember when that happened back in 2013, and we didn't write for it for a bit until the price came back down, which it did. 

Consumers won't pay a lot for a medication that is overpriced or has a reasonable alternative.  Consumers won't pay for the high end hypertension drugs or blood thinners when they can use the cheap ones that cost 5 dollars a month.  The higher end ones are usually better and beat the cheap ones head to head in studies.  I still frequently write for the cheaper alternatives due to cost.  They don't care if there's a 1% less chance of getting a brain bleed on Xarelto vs taking Coumadin.  It's not worth the huge difference per month in cost.  Same thing with hypertensives, you can get slightly better protection from heart events and other complications by taking higher end medications, per the studies.  People still take generic lisinopril because it's cheaper.

I've seen examples of certain companies that produce generics price setting, but people just switch to a cheaper option and the price regulates itself and comes back down. 

In fact, the whole epi pen drama is easily avoided if you just buy a bottle of epinephrine and some needles you can use at home, it's quite an inexpensive way to do it.  People don't because they like the convenience and porability of the epi pen, but there are ways around it.

 

 

  • Like 3

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

I'm tired of hearing about medication being too expensive.

Most of it is not.  Newer medications, niche medications, sure. 

I can treat hypertension quite cheaply, in fact.  I can treat diabetes equally as cheap.  Same with high cholesterol and a large variety of infectious diseases, all for under ten dollars a month.  I don't think that's unreasonable.  If someone wants to charge 1800 dollars for doxycycline, there are plenty of other options available, and they will quickly be priced out of that market.  I would just use azithromycin or augmentin instead; both of which have similar bacterial coverage.  In fact, I remember when that happened back in 2013, and we didn't write for it for a bit until the price came back down, which it did. 

Consumers won't pay a lot for a medication that is overpriced or has a reasonable alternative.  Consumers won't pay for the high end hypertension drugs or blood thinners when they can use the cheap ones that cost 5 dollars a month.  The higher end ones are usually better and beat the cheap ones head to head in studies.  I still frequently write for the cheaper alternatives due to cost.  They don't care if there's a 1% less chance of getting a brain bleed on Xarelto vs taking Coumadin.  It's not worth the huge difference per month in cost.  Same thing with hypertensives, you can get slightly better protection from heart events and other complications by taking higher end medications, per the studies.  People still take generic lisinopril because it's cheaper.

I've seen examples of certain companies that produce generics price setting, but people just switch to a cheaper option and the price regulates itself and comes back down. 

In fact, the whole epi pen drama is easily avoided if you just buy a bottle of epinephrine and some needles you can use at home, it's quite an inexpensive way to do it.  People don't because they like the convenience and porability of the epi pen, but there are ways around it.

 

 

I have ran 30+ years on an ambulance service and worked in ER's before that.

I have used an epi-pen or injected epinephrine for an allergic reaction less times then there are fingers on one hand.  I have rarely seen a citizen use an epi-pin, again less then the number of fingers on one hand and every time it was not warranted.  When you are treating rare events it costs a lot.

I have to laugh because it is so common for people to tell me they are allergic to this or allergic to that.   They are afraid of bees because they are allergic or they are allergic to peanut butter.  I had a lady tell me the other day her child was allergic to peanuts.  The next day I see the kid coming out of the grocery store munching down on a reese's peanut butter cup.  Her mother had to have that epi-pin though.   You aren't allergic to bees because your hand swells up a little when you are stung.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Only you could construe my posting of a link that attacks my position for at least 75% of the article, with the only exception being a half-hearted defense that admits it falls on deaf ears, and think "this is biased." You don't want compromise, you don't even want discussion. You can't stand anything that presents you any data that refutes or doesn't coincide with yours or the EPI's view.

And yes, I read your links. In fact, I read the actual studies and not just the conclusions, and even went so far as to read the other studies that are cited within the study when necessary. That's how I know that less than a third of rising drug costs is due to pricing. Considering retail drug prices are only 10% of total healthcare costs, I know that it equates to much less than 1% of total costs in healthcare spending. And also considering the profits from said drug pricing are the entire motivation for drug innovation, I know you just want to sell out the future so you can benifit off of past generations paying your way. You're the shitty parts of both the baby boomers and the millenial generations.

As for part one of your dummy claims, the author was trying to introduce a metaphor to help a laymen understand what is going on with the vertical demand curve you so love to roll shitballs with. It's not meant as a perfect approximation. In any case, your examples are stupid, as they are one of a government mandated monopoly for the public's benefit and a vertical demand curve which shows competition lowers prices. Both of which I have formally undressed your position on earlier in the thread. Who doesn't understand economics now?

Part two is a lawsuit that predates the article. I don't know how you expect the author to anticipate the legal system in a country not his own ahead of time. Maybe you just don't read the articles I link. Oh well, I tried.

Pharmaceuticals are 10% of total healthcare costs but they are also ~20% of out of pocket spending.   They are also the only component of healthcare spending growing at double digits.  

Jack's correct. We have ran this cat over enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jack Bauer said:

I'm tired of hearing about medication being too expensive.

Most of it is not.  Newer medications, niche medications, sure. 

I can treat hypertension quite cheaply, in fact.  I can treat diabetes equally as cheap.  Same with high cholesterol and a large variety of infectious diseases, all for under ten dollars a month.  I don't think that's unreasonable.  If someone wants to charge 1800 dollars for doxycycline, there are plenty of other options available, and they will quickly be priced out of that market.  I would just use azithromycin or augmentin instead; both of which have similar bacterial coverage.  In fact, I remember when that happened back in 2013, and we didn't write for it for a bit until the price came back down, which it did. 

Consumers won't pay a lot for a medication that is overpriced or has a reasonable alternative.  Consumers won't pay for the high end hypertension drugs or blood thinners when they can use the cheap ones that cost 5 dollars a month.  The higher end ones are usually better and beat the cheap ones head to head in studies.  I still frequently write for the cheaper alternatives due to cost.  They don't care if there's a 1% less chance of getting a brain bleed on Xarelto vs taking Coumadin.  It's not worth the huge difference per month in cost.  Same thing with hypertensives, you can get slightly better protection from heart events and other complications by taking higher end medications, per the studies.  People still take generic lisinopril because it's cheaper.

I've seen examples of certain companies that produce generics price setting, but people just switch to a cheaper option and the price regulates itself and comes back down. 

In fact, the whole epi pen drama is easily avoided if you just buy a bottle of epinephrine and some needles you can use at home, it's quite an inexpensive way to do it.  People don't because they like the convenience and porability of the epi pen, but there are ways around it.

 

we get the Dr's to switch the viagra 100 to the generic sildenafil 20 mg...plus, since it comes in 20mg instead of 100mg we'll tell our folks to try 80mg and see if it works...if it does, you can get an extra dose that way out of your script.

it's also 1/4 the cost of Viagra.

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UofMTigers said:

we get the Dr's to switch the viagra 100 to the generic sildenafil 20 mg...plus, since it comes in 20mg instead of 100mg we'll tell our folks to try 80mg and see if it works...if it does, you can get an extra dose that way out of your script.

it's also 1/4 the cost of Viagra.

Exactly.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jackrabbit said:

The lefties can laugh all they want about the struggling gop.    This debate is good.  The problem is that the dem party is too far out there to be part of it.  Now the gop can't act because half the party would make good democrats.

Your stance is the problem with the ideologues of both parties, there is no compromise even within their own party. If you are unwilling to make any concessions or compromises within your own party, it is pretty hopeless to expect any deals with the other side. There are factions like this on both sides, although those on the right seem more powerful and better organized. 

  • Like 4

I'm a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns, and money
The shit has hit the fan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mano said:

Your stance is the problem with the ideologues of both parties, there is no compromise even within their own party. If you are unwilling to make any concessions or compromises within your own party, it is pretty hopeless to expect any deals with the other side. There are factions like this on both sides, although those on the right seem more powerful and better organized. 

For some, their world view is "black and white" and compromise is a four letter word.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2017 at 10:56 AM, Mano said:

Your stance is the problem with the ideologues of both parties, there is no compromise even within their own party. If you are unwilling to make any concessions or compromises within your own party, it is pretty hopeless to expect any deals with the other side. There are factions like this on both sides, although those on the right seem more powerful and better organized. 

Organizing the Republican party has always been like herding cats.  Nothing new.   Very different with the dems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jackrabbit said:

Organizing the Republican party has always been like herding cats.  Nothing new.   Very different with the dems.

It has been very easy to get the GOP in lockstep to vote against things, the voting for something, not so much.

  • Like 1

I'm a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns, and money
The shit has hit the fan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2017 at 0:30 AM, thelawlorfaithful said:

Only you could construe my posting of a link that attacks my position for at least 75% of the article, with the only exception being a half-hearted defense that admits it falls on deaf ears, and think "this is biased." You don't want compromise, you don't even want discussion. You can't stand anything that presents you any data that refutes or doesn't coincide with yours or the EPI's view.

 

As for not wanting compromise, given I am willing to listen to any approach to address the problem I fail to see how you reach that conclusion.  If your point is I am unwilling to compromise in stating a problem exists depending on market demand curves for segments of the pharmaceutical industry, guilty as charged.  

It would seen to me the person who is unwilling to compromise is the person who consistently argues their is no problem when the evidence clearly shows otherwise and numerous articles are written pointing to the problem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...