Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Don't Let Obama Kill "Pills for Profit"

canetoad Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 10:20 PM
What is the basis for your argument that Obamacare will stifle pharmaceutical development of cost effective drugs. Ransom tried to make one but failed miserably. Marie you wouldn't know a commie if you tripped over one.
In response to:

Don't Let Obama Kill "Pills for Profit"

canetoad Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 10:16 PM
Obviously Marie you failed to read the article or else you would have seen the connection. Once again a failure to comprehend on your part.
In response to:

Don't Let Obama Kill "Pills for Profit"

canetoad Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 6:41 PM
In addition, the PricewaterhouseCoopers ten year report (BioForum, Oct 2012) shows the Australian Life Sciences Index has consistently outperformed the NASDAQ Composite Index and the All Ordinaries since mid-2006. Despite the GFC and the reduction in venture capital availability, biotechnology has delivered to investors. See socialized medicine works.
In response to:

Don't Let Obama Kill "Pills for Profit"

canetoad Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 6:39 PM
On the one hand you have corporate profit for factory farmed low nutrition products, while on the other hand is big pharma with a pill to reverse the damage. Ultimately though it is a personal responsibility thing!
In response to:

Don't Let Obama Kill "Pills for Profit"

canetoad Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 6:35 PM
Johnny............. telling fibs again. " In regards to Australia's biotech industry. There are currently 100 ASX-listed life sciences companies, with a market capitalisation of $40.7 billion (BioForum, Oct 2012). In a global context, the Australian biotech sector boasts the largest listed biotechnology sector as a proportion of GDP in the world (Beyond Borders, 2011)."' In regards to regulation, just one word....thalidomide. Would you have the American population be the guinea pigs for profit driven pharmaceuticals.
You gotta love it! Republicans starting to eat their own.
In response to:

The Last Clinton Lie Makes a Difference

canetoad Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 11:01 PM
Yep they didn't believe their own intelligence, there was plenty of warning, yet the Bush administration preferred a wait and see approach. We know how well that worked out.
In response to:

The Last Clinton Lie Makes a Difference

canetoad Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:55 PM
Or the morons who think it is actually an issue at all.
In response to:

The Last Clinton Lie Makes a Difference

canetoad Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:39 PM
Where was the outrage when Bush went back to his golf game after being warned Bin Laden was preparing to attack. The four diplomats in Libya were aware of the dangers, the three thousand in America really believed the administration had their backs. Faux outrage from a bunch of faux news victims.
Almost seems like he was applauding the ponzi scheme approach to the national economy along with a slam to the productive capabilities of anyone who isn't born and bred in the US.
John, have you factored in the costs of reducing environmental, economic and social regulations. How do you account for the external costs of reducing regulation, such as increases in health care costs due to increased pollution or loss of productive fisheries due to unregulated agricultural runoff. Let's factor in the cost of the GFC, which came about partly because of inadequate regulation. In case after case the costs of reducing regulation far outweigh any short term savings to our economy. While you say we need "some regulation", you fail to elucidate what regulation and how it will affect the bottom line and what the external costs of reducing said regulation would be.
Previous 11 - 20 Next