A good example of why southern conservatives are not trusted.

Mott the Hoople said:
As long as it's free association who gives a rats ass who they work for? I would of gladly worked for the Goverment as a doctor if they had paid for my education.
Click to expand...

look, I know its' a lot to expect that you would actually have an understanding of what our argument with apple has been about, but let's just leave it at this.....if you knew what we were talking about you wouldn't have posted what you just posted.....if you didn't know what we were talking about you shouldn't have posted what you just posted.....fair enough?....
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Your hypocrisy is that you keep promoting a health care plan; but you are OK with people being denied care from that same plan.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get that idea.

Are you suggesting drug companies charge the government any price they want and the government has to buy their pills?
 
Ice Dancer said:
So you neg repped your liberal pals who use the f-bomb too?...(rhetorical question) you BIG FAT FUCKING SELF-RIGHTEOUS HYPOCRITE :cof1:

ZAPASS~the self appointed board monitoring hypocrite cry-baby
Click to expand...

It's not good to hold your emotions in, Ice Dancer. You have to let them out. :D
 
PostmodernProphet said:
- you have agreed that it would be wrong for a panel of people you do not work for to set your income....
Click to expand...

Yes, to set my income.

- your initial claim was that there was no problem with the government setting the prices that doctors can charge, because "panels set wages all the time"...and you gave air traffic controllers and taxi drivers as examples....
Click to expand...

That's right.

- doctors do not work for the government.....
Click to expand...

Right now they don't.

explain how there is not a contradiction.....
Click to expand...

There is no contradiction in the case of doctors because the government would be paying the doctor's bill. If I hire a general contractor and he hires a sub-contractor to do some work for me who is the sub-contractor working for? Is he working for the general contractor or for me?

One could say he's working for the general contractor but when the general contractor shows me how much the sub-contractor is going to charge for a job I can refuse to pay that amount. I will insist on a cheaper sub-contractor.

The sub-contractor then has a choice. He can do the job for what I'm willing to pay him or he can refuse to do the job. It's the same thing with doctors and a universal plan. Ultimately the person is working for the individual/institution that pays the bill.
 
apple0154 said:
I don't know where you get that idea.

Are you suggesting drug companies charge the government any price they want and the government has to buy their pills?
Click to expand...

You seem to be suggesting that the Government has the right to determine what a companies product can be worth.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You seem to be suggesting that the Government has the right to determine what a companies product can be worth.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about drug companies, no. PmP said something to the effect that assuming there is a universal medical plan and the government does not pay for the pills a drug company makes the government would be denying a person medical treatment.

That's illogical. If that were the case the drug company could charge any price it wanted knowing the government was obliged to buy the pills.
 
apple0154 said:
If you're talking about drug companies, no. PmP said something to the effect that assuming there is a universal medical plan and the government does not pay for the pills a drug company makes the government would be denying a person medical treatment.

That's illogical. If that were the case the drug company could charge any price it wanted knowing the government was obliged to buy the pills.
Click to expand...

Untrue, you dumbass.
It's called negotiaion and it doesn't mean an "offer they can't refuse"; ie:........Take it or leave it.
Which is what you first suggested.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Untrue, you dumbass.
It's called negotiaion and it doesn't mean an "offer they can't refuse"; ie:........Take it or leave it.
Which is what you first suggested.
Click to expand...

Not at all. My goodness you are a maroon. I said the government would take a look at the cost of producing the medication and other related costs and offer a competitive price. That's exactly what countries do that have universal plans.

I really do wish you would do some research. It's like talking to a child.
 
apple0154 said:
Not at all. My goodness you are a maroon. I said the government would take a look at the cost of producing the medication and other related costs and offer a competitive price. That's exactly what countries do that have universal plans.

I really do wish you would do some research. It's like talking to a child.
Click to expand...

Untrue.
What you said was:

Originally Posted by Apple0154
Here's an example. Let's say a drug company charges $10.00 for one tablet of XYZ medicine. The government sets up a drug plan specifying the medications they cover. The government approaches the drug company and asks why the the price is so high. The drug company, like every other business, gives the standard reply, "We charge what the market will bear." In other words, "We charge what ever the hell we want and see if it sells."

The government replies with, "Good for you. In that case we will not cover your medicine. That means every patient in the US who requires that drug will be able to receive a similar, older version made by your competitor which will be covered. I hope you'll be satisfied with the few who do choose to pay for your pills."
Click to expand...

Now, can you show me where you said a single word about "OFFERING A COMPETITIVE PRICE"??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Untrue.
What you said was:

Now, can you show me where you said a single word about "OFFERING A COMPETITIVE PRICE"??
Click to expand...

I wrote, "The drug company, like every other business, gives the standard reply, "We charge what the market will bear." In other words, "We charge what ever the hell we want and see if it sells."

That's what businesses do. That's what doctors do. Fine. They just won't expect to sell or work for the government unless their prices/wages are reasonable.

I don't know why you have a problem with this. Our culture is based on what the market will bear. If you have no problem with someone offering their products/labor to the highest bidder and they are under no obligation to offer them to the government why take issue with the government having no obligation to deal with them?
 
apple0154 said:
I wrote, "The drug company, like every other business, gives the standard reply, "We charge what the market will bear." In other words, "We charge what ever the hell we want and see if it sells."

That's what businesses do. That's what doctors do. Fine. They just won't expect to sell or work for the government unless their prices/wages are reasonable.

I don't know why you have a problem with this. Our culture is based on what the market will bear. If you have no problem with someone offering their products/labor to the highest bidder and they are under no obligation to offer them to the government why take issue with the government having no obligation to deal with them?
Click to expand...


Nice attempt at a spin; but can you show me where your original offering you said a single word about "OFFERING A COMPETITIVE PRICE"??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Nice attempt at a spin; but can you show me where your original offering you said a single word about "OFFERING A COMPETITIVE PRICE"??
Click to expand...

I thought you knew more about universal plans and how governments operated and didn't feel I needed to spell it out.

Obviously, governments do not dictate how drug companies run their business re: prices. Governments do not confiscate the drugs. They offer a price and if the drug company does not agree the government does not buy the medication. In all likelihood if the government does not cover the medication the company will lose millions of customers. On the other hand the government does not want to company to stop production.

It's no different than how Wal-Mart operates. They purchase from a small supplier. If the price goes up Wal-Mart visits the company to see what caused the increase. If the small company co-operates Wal-Mart keeps buying their product. If the owner thinks he's going to get rich by raising the prices to Wal-Mart......well, there are a few stories about that.

No one objects to anyone making a decent living. It's those, like the guy who flew the plane into the IRS building, who are the problem.
 
apple0154 said:
I thought you knew more about universal plans and how governments operated and didn't feel I needed to spell it out.

Obviously, governments do not dictate how drug companies run their business re: prices. Governments do not confiscate the drugs. They offer a price and if the drug company does not agree the government does not buy the medication. In all likelihood if the government does not cover the medication the company will lose millions of customers. On the other hand the government does not want to company to stop production.

It's no different than how Wal-Mart operates. They purchase from a small supplier. If the price goes up Wal-Mart visits the company to see what caused the increase. If the small company co-operates Wal-Mart keeps buying their product. If the owner thinks he's going to get rich by raising the prices to Wal-Mart......well, there are a few stories about that.

No one objects to anyone making a decent living. It's those, like the guy who flew the plane into the IRS building, who are the problem.
Click to expand...

So, in your world; the Government offers a business a price and they either have to accept it or not!! You still haven't shown where you said anything about Now, can you show me where you said a single word about the Government "OFFERING A COMPETITIVE PRICE", in your original offering.
 
apple0154 said:
PmP said something to the effect that assuming there is a universal medical plan and the government does not pay for the pills a drug company makes the government would be denying a person medical treatment.
Click to expand...

/boggle......I didn't say anything even remotely similar to that.....what are you going on about.....
 
That means every patient in the US who requires that drug will be able to receive a similar, older version made by your competitor which will be covered.
Click to expand...
I find it convenient that the older, cheaper version happens to be as effective in treating the illness....I think in real life pharmaceutical companies spend very little time developing new drugs that don't do something different than what is already being done cheaper....
 
apple0154 said:
and they are under no obligation to offer them to the government why take issue with the government having no obligation to deal with them?
Click to expand...

because they aren't offering them to the government.....they are offering them to people with illnesses who should be the ones making the choice what they want to use....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top