Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
yes, you said that beforei've already siad what needs to be done to fix the drug companiesNow you've gone and made me hungry.
Drug companies should be next. Did you see my link I posted in the thread last night?
stop allowing them to over charge Americans to give cut rate prices to citizens of other countries
if a detrol pill costs $10 here, it should cost $10 everywhere
(no, i dont know how much detrol costs, thats just an example)
Yes, and then there is this:
A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industrys claim.
The researchers estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of $235.4 billion.
Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1398928-post2.html
i know, it was a bad amendment and it needs to be repealed, just like prohibition wasnow your talking about election reform'Course not. Pharma and Insurance are spending hundreds of millions to lobby congress.
So.
Change the law so that elected officials cannot receive money or any gift in any form from anyone. Individuals or groups can lobby them to their hearts content. They just can't give them a damned thing but their opinion.
Candidates are limited to contributions from individual citizens ONLY, and cap it at $3000 per candidate per campaign.
i've been asking for this for YEARS
lets go back to having state governors appoint senators and give advise and consent to the state legislatures the way it used to be
then lets expand the house so one member doesnt have to represent so many people
i would say we should add about 150 to 200 to the house and have the diustricts redrawn to match by population, with the stipulation that districts follow geographic lines as opposed to who (ethinicity, political party not counted) lives there
hows that sound for a start?
A change in how Senators are elected would require an amendment; that's not going to happen. I'd rather keep them as directly elected; they're removed enough from the people they represent. I don't want to add to that.
yes, you said that beforei've already siad what needs to be done to fix the drug companies
stop allowing them to over charge Americans to give cut rate prices to citizens of other countries
if a detrol pill costs $10 here, it should cost $10 everywhere
(no, i dont know how much detrol costs, thats just an example)
Yes, and then there is this:
A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industrys claim.
The researchers estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of $235.4 billion.
Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1398928-post2.html
and i dont think they should be advertising either
but, how do you stop that and not violate their first amendment rights?
as to the lobbying, i'm all for that reform as well
see my above post
that change would make it one hell of a lot harder to "BUY" enough congress people
i dont disagree in principleyes, you said that before
and i dont think they should be advertising either
but, how do you stop that and not violate their first amendment rights?
as to the lobbying, i'm all for that reform as well
see my above post
that change would make it one hell of a lot harder to "BUY" enough congress people
There is NO reason for pharmaceutical companies to be spending anything in marketing beyond what it would take to publish updated PDR entries (online or in print). Allow consumers to have access to that information as well as docs.
Get rid of drug reps. Get rid of advertising in all forms, to include "sponsoring" events for healthcare professionals.
Develop the drugs. Manufacture them. Sell them. Period.
and i dont think they should be advertising either
but, how do you stop that and not violate their first amendment rights?
i dont disagree in principleyes, you said that before
and i dont think they should be advertising either
but, how do you stop that and not violate their first amendment rights?
as to the lobbying, i'm all for that reform as well
see my above post
that change would make it one hell of a lot harder to "BUY" enough congress people
There is NO reason for pharmaceutical companies to be spending anything in marketing beyond what it would take to publish updated PDR entries (online or in print). Allow consumers to have access to that information as well as docs.
Get rid of drug reps. Get rid of advertising in all forms, to include "sponsoring" events for healthcare professionals.
Develop the drugs. Manufacture them. Sell them. Period.
but, again, there is that first amendment that gives them the right to advertise
Yepper.I remember the time when drug ads weren't legal. Now it's ubiquitous. By the time they get to the side effects it's a wonder everybody isn't ill from just listening and would rather have the illness and avoid the side effects...........
And then the drug companies push out tried and true stuff because there aren't any patents. They just stop producing them and introduce some new crap that has some additive that makes it eligible for a patent but you don't need it, or maybe you don't even want it. It costs $50 a dose and of course insurance won't pay for it............
they still have ads for alcoholi dont disagree in principleThere is NO reason for pharmaceutical companies to be spending anything in marketing beyond what it would take to publish updated PDR entries (online or in print). Allow consumers to have access to that information as well as docs.
Get rid of drug reps. Get rid of advertising in all forms, to include "sponsoring" events for healthcare professionals.
Develop the drugs. Manufacture them. Sell them. Period.
but, again, there is that first amendment that gives them the right to advertise
So how did we stop tobacco and alcohol from doing so?
yeah keep right on lying Jillian it's not like you being a lawyer trying to justify your existence even to your self has anything to do with reality.
again, requiring them to charge Americans the SAME price they charge citizens of other countries would make a huge dent in thatYepper.I remember the time when drug ads weren't legal. Now it's ubiquitous. By the time they get to the side effects it's a wonder everybody isn't ill from just listening and would rather have the illness and avoid the side effects...........
And then the drug companies push out tried and true stuff because there aren't any patents. They just stop producing them and introduce some new crap that has some additive that makes it eligible for a patent but you don't need it, or maybe you don't even want it. It costs $50 a dose and of course insurance won't pay for it............
We can reform health care delivery until the cows come home, but until we knock those bastards to their knees, it's not going to make a damn bit of difference.
and i do believe that pesky first amendment was the reason they were allowed to advertiseI remember the time when drug ads weren't legal. Now it's ubiquitous. By the time they get to the side effects it's a wonder everybody isn't ill from just listening and would rather have the illness and avoid the side effects...........
And then the drug companies push out tried and true stuff because there aren't any patents. They just stop producing them and introduce some new crap that has some additive that makes it eligible for a patent but you don't need it, or maybe you don't even want it. It costs $50 a dose and of course insurance won't pay for it............
Yepper.I remember the time when drug ads weren't legal. Now it's ubiquitous. By the time they get to the side effects it's a wonder everybody isn't ill from just listening and would rather have the illness and avoid the side effects...........
And then the drug companies push out tried and true stuff because there aren't any patents. They just stop producing them and introduce some new crap that has some additive that makes it eligible for a patent but you don't need it, or maybe you don't even want it. It costs $50 a dose and of course insurance won't pay for it............
We can reform health care delivery until the cows come home, but until we knock those bastards to their knees, it's not going to make a damn bit of difference.
yes, keep on demonizing the drug companies
that figuresyes, keep on demonizing the drug companies
Thank you , and yes I will........
and i do believe that pesky first amendment was the reason they were allowed to advertiseI remember the time when drug ads weren't legal. Now it's ubiquitous. By the time they get to the side effects it's a wonder everybody isn't ill from just listening and would rather have the illness and avoid the side effects...........
And then the drug companies push out tried and true stuff because there aren't any patents. They just stop producing them and introduce some new crap that has some additive that makes it eligible for a patent but you don't need it, or maybe you don't even want it. It costs $50 a dose and of course insurance won't pay for it............
damn those founders for putting that in the constitution /sarcasm
