My sides break down like this. Many countries have price controls limiting the amount of profit a company can make over the cost of production. This limits the amount of money that company would have to reinvest in itself. Now the US doesn't have these controls, and so they charge us what the market will support, and use it for R&D. So basically the price controls from overseas are already hurting us, because it makes us pay more since they are not supporting the costs involved in research.
On the other hand as a supporter of free trade, I don't see how you can really prevent people from ordering things from other countries (this gets complicated as we are talking about things that are potentially illegal in the US without a prescription). I don't think this going to help anything. I would prefer to see us attempt to get other countries to lift their profit limits off of the drugs, there by equaling out some of the burden being placed on the American consumer right now. I would say that it would even be in our interest to penalize nations that continue this practice by charging extra tariffs on goods imported from their countries. Timothy Heald Information Systems Specialist Overseas Security Advisory Council U.S. Department of State 571.345.2235 -----Original Message----- From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:16 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Drug reimportation Yeah it is tough to pick a side. A couple of random thoughts, then I gotta go... 1) I don't see the big deal about the abortion pill. We are talking about something that prevents an egg from implanting, maybe four cells at that point. In my mind this does not amount to killing babies. Furthermore the technique is already available in the US, just not in exactly the right dosage as this would be. 2) if you re-import from countries that have price controls aren't you benefiting from those price controls? 3) Seems to be I looked into it a while back and drub companies were making pretty good profits. WHy not have them pay some of their own r&d costs? They are tax deductible anyway... 4) If I didn't have coverage my family would be paying about $500 a month for prescriptions and that's for nothing more than allergies and adhd. The interferon I am supposed to start taking next month would be out of the question. Dana Heald, Tim writes: > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/politics/22DRUG.html?ex=1059451200&en=b529 > 7c3f83c9c335&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE > > Interesting article. Tough to pick a side really. > > Timothy Heald > Information Systems Specialist > Overseas Security Advisory Council > U.S. Department of State > 571.345.2235 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:52 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: And we Americans are sue happy? > > > Actually alcohol can be good for you. Small quantities have a beneficial > health impact. > > For some reason tea-total people don't live as long as people that enjoy a > glass of wine every so often. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 22 July 2003 14:49 > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: And we Americans are sue happy? > > > > > > Well, litigation seems to be the only form of checks and balances > > available > > against the private sector. It's better than the alternative, > > which is more > > government regulation. I actually think the tobacco company lawsuits did a > > fair amount of good. If nothing else it probably kept taxes lower in a > > number of states. > > > > Dana > > > > Adam Reynolds writes: > > > > > I like this. > > > > > > Unfortunately I think that this type of action is sometimes necessary to > > > make an industry more responsible for itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Erika L Walker-Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: 21 July 2003 23:16 > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > Subject: And we Americans are sue happy? > > > > > > > > > > > > http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030720-100147-7083r.htm > > > > > > > > "A dozen alcoholics ranging in age from 18 to 60 are going to > > sue drink > > > > makers for not warning them about the dangers of alcohol." > > > > > > > > Of course, the attorneys are using US law examples from the tobacco > > > > suits. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
