Again, a clinical trial drug. Pulled because of complications. Watch this one, it will fall flat with no award.
I'm talking about approved precription drugs that other countries buy. I have never seen a lawsuit from people in other countries for the same drugs US people sue over. I don't know the mechinism, weather contactual, or other nations knowing a lawsuit would change the risk assessment in the price. I think since they take on the burden of approving and distributing the drugs, theyb take on the risks. Whatever it is, the simple fact we don't see such lawsuits changes the liability risk a,d helps in reducing the price.
That's a slippery way to shift the burden of proof, isn't it? You could show that other countries sign contracts with Pharma to receive drugs at a discount in exchange for relinquishing their rights to civil actions. According to your assumtion, those should exist, and being that they are signed by government agencies, should be a matter of public record.
VIOXX Lawsuits in Canada
Celebrex class action lawsuit in Canada
I still don't see any no-sue agreements that SHOULD be a matter of public record since they would be relinquishing one of the citizen's basic rights (the right to justice).
I think you're full of ...
This may have been a clue:
Cool, you found some lawuit going forward, but you are still "stuck on stupid." Isn't it obvious I mispoke when I used that term? I already retracted it long ago.
Now that we ahve some lawsuits from other countries, you can expect them not to get the same discounts on drugs in the future. The cost of business whith them has now changed.
Hey Nostradamus, why should we accept your future sagacity when your descriptions of the present are so profoundly mistaken?
Asking us to accept the facts that refute your claims in this thread as proof that you will be right in the future, strains credulity and verges on hilarity.
Drugs are still discounted. Fact.
Has nothing to do with liability. Fact.
You keep on talking out of your ass. Fact.
Now we can move on...
Nice bill
Ezra Klien toda
Republicans are learning an unpleasant lesson this morning: The only thing worse than having no health-care reform plan is releasing a bad one, getting thrashed by CBO and making the House Democrats look good in comparison.
Late last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its initial analysis of the health-care reform plan that Republican Minority Leader John Boehner offered as a subs ute to the Democratic legislation. CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.
But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.
The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It's already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It's already made its compromises with reality. It's already been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet it saves more money and covers more people than the blank-slate alternative proposed by John Boehner and the House Republicans. The Democrats, constrained by reality, produced a far better plan than Boehner, who was constrained solely by his political imagination and legislative skill.
This is a major embarrassment for the Republicans. It's one thing to keep your cards close to your chest. Republicans are in the minority, after all, and their plan stands no chance of passage. It's another to lay them out on the table and show everyone that you have no hand, and aren't even totally sure how to play the game. The Democratic plan isn't perfect, but in comparison, it's looking astonishingly good.
fricking brilliant Repug "principle" leading to LESS insurance for all, so you can "Feel your financial pain along with your physical distress"
"This is the essence of the Republican plan: the fact that you're insured and aren't directly feeling the cost of individual tests and procedures is the problem and getting rid of the insurance concept is the solution.... [T]he problem according to most Republicans in Congress isn't that there's not enough insurance or that it's not good enough. It's that there's too much. The problem is that you have insurance. And good policy will take it away from you."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc....php?ref=fpblg
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/1...paign=alternet
"hey, Doc, I'm pissing and coughing blood daily, but you got any cheaper renal and pulmonary tests?
And how about that $200/hour you charge me, can't we take a look at that,too?"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote