Jeff Fairman wrote:
>
\
>
> The right wing religious element screams a lot, but lets face it they have
> very little power when they would be in opposition to the pharma/biotech
> companies.
In a national election, perhaps, but what promises have been made in the
primaries? How about the composition of the Supreme Court that will be in
power for a generation? There will undoubtedly be decisions that very much
concern your industry, would you prefer a justice with a flexible viewpoint or
one determined to oppose change The wrong decision could set the industry
back years.
In a sense there are negatives for the industry no matter who
> gets elected... You are right in stating that as a concern for the
> Republicans, on the Democrats side if we went to a system such as Canada or
> Australia corporate R&D would suffer greatly, not to mention specialist
> related patient care. You think an HMO is bad! Try waiting three months to
> see a specialist for a non-life threatening condition! It is again the
> question of who is less objectionable.
>
I agree with you here. Whatever system we end up with, I hope it avoids these
pitfalls. On the whole though, I think a Democratic administration would
would be far more open to the positive but often controversial manifestations
of your industry. Just think about how each of the candidates answered
questions about how they would handle energy problems. Bush said he would
drill for more oil (including violating our pristine preserves), and improve
coal gasification. That's it. He has extremely strong ties to the oil
industry and anything that would stand in the way of more and greater profits
for them is obviously against their (and by association his) interests. Gore
stresses efficiency (another thing the oil companies are none too keen on),
conservation, and new technology. Bush is inward-looking and one
dimensional. Gore is forward-looking and multi-dimensional.
Pick your poison I guess, but the Shrub looks deadly to me.
Doug
