Reply With Quote
Cannot prove a negative.
I never heard of an incident where in socialized medicine in a different country, that a US presription drug maker is sued. How can I prove one wasn't?
That's why I ask to show one was.
We're still waiting for proof you're not talking out of your hat.
Cannot prove a negative.
I never heard of an incident where in socialized medicine in a different country, that a US presription drug maker is sued. How can I prove one wasn't?
That's why I ask to show one was.
The burden lies on you to support your own claims, not on us to disprove them. Do your own homework, WC.
You just whining because you cannot find any lawsuit examples?
Should be easy to find!
I could care less about your attempted hijack. I'm just tired of you being too lazy to back up your own bs.
Excuses, excuses...
Admit it. You looked for an example of other countries citizens suing US drug makers for what was prescribed through their socialized medicine, and cannot find a single example.
I suppose you with me to prove that 2+2=4 also.
As for hijacking a thread?
I thought we were talking about alternatives to the democrats plans. Want to reduce costs, the biggest way is to reduce litigation. Because of no litigation, our drug makers sell to other countries cheaper than to us.
I did not, and will not. This is your hobby horse.
Can you verify the hypothesis, or is this yet another threadbare conjecture?
"Because of no litigation, our drug makers sell to other countries cheaper than to us"
incredible bull . Other countries have national single-buyer that forces US drug traffickers to lower the prices, forcing the Repug-exposed US patient to pay so much for the same drugs, the US pay-shint SUBSIDIZES BigPharma profits they can't suck out of other countries.
As usual, no facts from WC to support his idea that tort reform and drug shield laws would reduce the costs of prescription drugs. Just more self-spun faith-based fantasy (also a robotic Repug protect-the-corps/screw-the-citizens check box).
This is an oxymoron. Please present the no-sue agreements.
They're a much less litigious society?
BTW, here's another case, this time for 'tested and approved' prescription drugs: LINK
It works the other way around. You make a claim, then you support it.
Otherwise, you're merely talking out of your ass.
@ well founded assumption.
Hmm...
A lawsuit dealing with advertisement.
Not exactly a lawsuit dealing with the use and side effects of a medication.
You still fail.
A lawsuit is a lawsuit is a lawsuit...
A no-sue agreement is a no-sue agreement...
Then again, where are the no-sue agreements? I kept my end of the bargain, where's yours?
Don't tell me you can't back up your 'well founded assumption'
Stop moving goalposts and show me the no-sue agreements...
Are you missing the point purposely or are you daft?
All along I meant injury/liability lawsuits. Can you show me a single instance of a citizen in a different country using their socialized system suing a US drug maker, for harm done to them for taking the medication?
I know the answer is NO! Even if I'm wrong, and an incident or two can be found, you will find the frequency is so low compared to lawsuits in the USA that it may as well be zero.
Believe what you want, but when a corporation doesn't have the added costs of paying for the laywers, time lost in court, and redculous payouts, the clients who are a smaller risk, get a better rate.
Liability/litigation is a minor cost driver. A useful wedge issue, maybe. But it isn't nearly as significant as you suggest.
I do not believe that. You can parse it to show the payouts are just a small percentage, but that leaves out lost wages, doctors performing extra procedures to protect themselves, and other factors.
When corporations have to deal with a powerful negotiator like a national government, the clients get a much better rate. I don't see what's so hard to see about that. Seems like you're the one missing the obvious point.
No, I understand that concept completely, but that is only one small piece of the puzzle. There is no one single item.
What exposure do they have to financial losses selling to other countries medical systems?
What exposure do they have to financial losses selling to US citizens?
Would you say theye is a difference, or not?
You make it sound like the fed is taking from the rich and giving to the poor in some kind of noble deed.
Still no 'no-sue agreements'? I guess I'll have to give up any hope of ever seeing one of those...
WC likes to make up.
My God you are pathetic.
How may posts ago did I give that prase up? For you to hang on that, as if that's my agument...
You are such a loser.
Agreement or not, show me what I ask or sit your silly ass in the corner.
Misery loves company, huh? Don't poke your eye out with that pointy hat.
You make the claims, you back them up. That's how you play this game.
And I'm going to stay above the personal insults. I won't call you a loser because you form opinion on completely unfounded and delusional claims.
At the end of the day, it's your credibility on the line, not mine. Every time you bring up the liability excuse with absolutely nothing to back it up, the only one looking like a fool is you, not me.
Lawsuit filed against Bayer over drug risks -Canada
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...81203/20081207
How am I do show something doesn't exists?
Don't you get it. You disagree with me saying a certain problem is nonexistsnt. It is impossible to prove a negative. That's why it is up to you to show me it does exist.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
