Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Rick Santorum Tells Sick Kid Market Should Should Set Drug Prices

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/ri ... -news.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We've known in PA that Santorum isn't very good - I still get irritated everytime in a debate they call him "Senator" Santorum. He's not a Senator from PA - he was beat in that election years ago.... He wouldn't come in the top 2 in his home state.

What do you suggest Jeff?

You've been over at AGS too long MJ. This thread SHOULD be titled FUCK YOU RICK SANTORUM!!!!!

andy7171 wrote:You've been over at AGS too long MJ. This thread SHOULD be titled FUCK YOU RICK SANTORUM!!!!!

That is right!



FUCK YOU MAINE JEFF for not getting the thread title right!

Hey, it's a FVCK YOU party over at mj's place.









No offense, mj, but I'll knock on the front front door.

A drug company wants to make a profit? The horror! Jeff, why don't you and dback start a crusade against the patent system.

mainejeff wrote:Rick Santorum Tells Sick Kid Market Should Should Set Drug Prices

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/ri ... -news.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's right.

If the market sets drug prices, then drug companies will continue to aggressively invest in finding new meds to cure diseases afflicting sick kids. If not, then we wait for governments to fund universities to do the drug research, and generic firms to manufacture these drugs at controlled prices.

Emphasis on "wait"...

While Santorum is a prick for a whole wide range of reasons, he's not necessarily a prick when it comes to medicines and the like. We can't expect people to come up with new drugs and cures and what not without the expectation that they can profit off of those discoveries. All you need to do is look at the vaccination market and how we struggle to develop and distribute things there as an example of what happens when you price control profit so much - basically, no one wants to stay in that market because you can't make money. While people certainly pursue these fields for things more than monetary gain, to take that gain away means you won't have enough people in those fields and advances will slow down considerably. Santorum's a prick for not having a single shred of tact in his body to make that point, and he's a prick for a ton of other stuff. He's not wrong, though.

GOP contender Rick Santorum had a heated exchange with a mother and her sick young son Wednesday, arguing that drug companies were entitled to charge whatever the market demanded for life-saving therapies.

Santorum, himself the father of a child with a rare genetic disorder, compared buying drugs to buying an iPad, and said demand would determine the cost of medical therapies.

"People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad," Santorum said, "but paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with - it keeps you alive. Why? Because you've been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it."

The mother said the boy was on the drug Abilify, used to treat schizophrenia, and that, on paper, its costs would exceed $1 million each year.


--------------------------
If you guys don't see a problem with him picking a fight with an emotional mother and her sick child then you guys are fvcked in the head.

I don't think that comparing buying IPads to life saving drugs is a very smart move either. And I also think that any words coming out of the mouth of a guy that has a child afflicted with a disease but gets drugs paid for by U.S. taxpayers means absolutely NOTHING! FVCK YOU RICK SANTORUM!!!

mainejeff wrote:If you guys don't see a problem with him picking a fight...

The left goes for more hyperbole.

“Look, I want your son and everybody to have the opportunity to stay alive on much-needed drugs,” Santorum insisted. “But the bottom line is, we have to give companies the incentive to make those drugs. And if they don’t have the incentive to make those drugs, your son won’t be alive and lots of other people in this country won’t be alive.”

89Hen wrote:

mainejeff wrote:If you guys don't see a problem with him picking a fight...

The left goes for more hyperbole.

“Look, I want your son and everybody to have the opportunity to stay alive on much-needed drugs,” Santorum insisted. “But the bottom line is, we have to give companies the incentive to make those drugs. And if they don’t have the incentive to make those drugs, your son won’t be alive and lots of other people in this country won’t be alive.”

And he should have added......thank-you 'Mam for subsidizing my son's drugs with your tax dollars.

Loser needs to start his own tele-church or something.........

“Look, I want your son and everybody to have the opportunity to stay alive on much-needed drugs,” Santorum insisted. “But the bottom line is, we have to give companies the incentive to make those drugs. And if they don’t have the incentive to make those drugs, your son won’t be alive and lots of other people in this country won’t be alive.”

And we need to give companies incentives to make the drugs that are best for patients... and not just best for the pharmaceutical companies' profits.

And also make it easier for generics in the US.

Skjellyfetti wrote:And we need to give companies incentives...

Like tax breaks?

89Hen wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:And we need to give companies incentives...

Like tax breaks?

Exactly like tax breaks.

And, if you didn't cut the rest of my quote out, you'd see that my condition wasn't met.

He's right. This thing where people in this country think that the fact that you need something means you're ENTITLED to it is one of the biggest problems this nation has. It's the primary reason why we have the chronic fiscal problems we have.

A drug company SHOULD be allowed to charge whatever it wants for a drug it develops. And no one has a true, legitimate right to demand that something they need be priced so that they can afford it.

It's the same old thing of people thinking they're born with the world oweing them what they need. It's crap.

The reality is that what Santorum said will hurt him politically because the entitlement mentality is so entrenched. But the real problem is that the entitlement mentality is so entrenched.

JohnStOnge wrote:He's right. This thing where people in this country think that the fact that you need something means you're ENTITLED to it is one of the biggest problems this nation has. It's the primary reason why we have the chronic fiscal problems we have.

A drug company SHOULD be allowed to charge whatever it wants for a drug it develops. And no one has a true, legitimate right to demand that something they need be priced so that they can afford it.

It's the same old thing of people thinking they're born with the world oweing them what they need. It's crap.

The reality is that what Santorum said will hurt him politically because the entitlement mentality is so entrenched. But the real problem is that the entitlement mentality is so entrenched.

"Entitlement"........or a realistic price that people can afford?

Hey......if we're not going to develop drugs to help people and just do everything for profit.......bring it on. But I don't want any whining and complaining from CONKS when they have to drain their bank accounts because their little devil spawn needs drugs to keep them alive.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

89Hen wrote: Like tax breaks?

Exactly like tax breaks.

And, if you didn't cut the rest of my quote out, you'd see that my condition wasn't met.

I just found it interesting to see a Lib asking for tax breaks for corporations. That is all.

-
Looks like it should have been

Rick Santorum Vs A world Class prick

I would guess that most don't even know who Santorum is but they do know who has failed the country


Nationwide Rasmussen: Rick Santorum 45%, Barack Obama 44%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This thread isn't about Obama, Conk.

"Entitlement"........or a realistic price that people can afford?

To me, a person thinking that the price of something should be based on them being able to afford it is part of the entitlement mentality. If somebody tries to sell something at a price that not enough people can afford they are not going to make money off of it.

And, frankly, I think the price of medical care including drugs has been inflated by the fact that we have a system to help people pay for it. If there were no health insurance and no government involvement in health care health care providers could not charge what they charge. They are able to do it because people think in terms of not having to pay the full cost of it.

Not that I would suggest banning health insurance as long as it's voluntary participation. But I think that if it didn't exist...if the situation with health care services was the same as it is when someone goes and buys other things during their day to day lives with whatever money they have...I don't think health care would be nearly as expensive as it is.

There would probably be less advanced care in some areas. Some of the more expensive options wouldn't be practiced. But I suspect we'd be better off on balance.

JohnStOnge wrote:

"Entitlement"........or a realistic price that people can afford?

To me, a person thinking that the price of something should be based on them being able to afford it is part of the entitlement mentality. If somebody tries to sell something at a price that not enough people can afford they are not going to make money off of it.

And, frankly, I think the price of medical care including drugs has been inflated by the fact that we have a system to help people pay for it. If there were no health insurance and no government involvement in health care health care providers could not charge what they charge. They are able to do it because people think in terms of not having to pay the full cost of it.

Not that I would suggest banning health insurance as long as it's voluntary participation. But I think that if it didn't exist...if the situation with health care services was the same as it is when someone goes and buys other things during their day to day lives with whatever money they have...I don't think health care would be nearly as expensive as it is.

There would probably be less advanced care in some areas. Some of the more expensive options wouldn't be practiced. But I suspect we'd be better off on balance.

Fine.......only millionaires should be able to afford life saving medicine. Let's get to that point and see how the world turns out.

89Hen wrote:What do you suggest Jeff?

What would Jesus do, asshole.

There's a difference between "entitlement" and the need to have access to life-savings drugs at a reasonable price, IMO. I understand the fact that there has to be financial incentive for the pharmaceutical companies to continue researching new drugs. Something does tell me, however, that the majority of those companies are not even remotely close to losing money. To me, the inherent problem with the health-care system in this country is that it is big business, and I'm not sure that's really all that responsible from a moral sense. In practice, it's like saying everyone has the right to have access to life saving drugs, but if you can't pay for it, you're shit out of luck. And while I understand that there will always be the haves and have-nots, (I'm far from being a spread-the-wealth guy) I just don't understand what makes one person's life more valuable than another's. As far as the ridiculous Ipad comparison goes - not having access to the latest gadget isn't a social injustice. Not having access to needed drugs because they are astronomically expensive IS. I believe that the pharmaceutical companies are charging fair market prices for drugs about as much as I believe the oil companies are charging fair
market prices for gas. Both have had record profits in recent years. You do the math.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk