oooooo kaaaaayyy.... you want to be the one to tell the big three they have to move their auto plants?
Dana Tim Heald writes: > Trees, apples, cars, minerals. Everything would be subject to tarrifs. > Canada could not survive without goods from the US also. Cut off their > supply of Ameirican goods (drugs too). > > Tim > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:47 PM > Subject: Re: Drug reimportation > > > > <g> you want to stop importing from Canada because you don't like their > > medical system? I can hear the giggles in Ottawa now :) The US needs the > > water and oil more than Canada needs the revenue imho :) > > > > Dana > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: 22 July 2003 15:21 > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > Subject: RE: Drug reimportation > > > > > > > > > > > > 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=10594512 > > > > 00&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
