I'm going to disagree with that assessment. I don't think Merck's problems stem from the government messing with their 'cozy arrangements' but rather Merck's and Phizer's loss of patent protection and in some cases, lawsuits:

Merck in 2005:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/jobs-d02.shtml

Phizer now:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/business/23pfizer.html?ex=1327208400&en=abd4172adfab4e70&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

>>I wouldn't get my hopes up... The way the pharmaceutical and medical lobby works in this country we (the tax payer) will get screwed either way. Even if it get 'socialized' the actual treatment isn't going to be handled by the government - it'll go straight to those same large HMO's etc. except that now they get paid from taxes collected. What do you think will happen once this is accomplished? Your taxes will go up and you've just gone from a some-what of an opt-out system to a mandatory payment system which is likely not goging to be any cheaper - if anything the HMO's etc. will happily raise their outrageous rates and yearly profit margins even more because the congress and senate is already bought off by that lobby...
>>
>>Health care reform in Washington means distributing more of your tax dollars to the medical/pharmaceutical companies...
>
>And when you mess with their cozy arrangements, as the House of Representatives did recently, you get them laying off 10,000 people... one company so far.
>
>
>>
>>+++ Rick ---
>>
>>
>>>My mother is on a fixed income and she was born in 1938 so she has had plenty of recent experience with this. All I can say is that I am more and more inclined to vote for socialized health care here in the U.S. After so many years of hard work (I know of few in my generation who have worked as hard as she has her whole life) it is difficult at best to pay for medicine and medical care. I (along with my 3 sisters) pay her medical costs and it is running just me a couple of hundred a month. With the amount of money I pay in taxes I find it very difficult to believe that we cannot have medical care for everyone.
>>>It costs me very little for my own medical care because I have good insurance through where I am employed. That is not available to everyone in this country though unless they are fortunate to work for a company which provides it. Even so, if my employer switches coverages or companies (as most do to negotiate the best deal annually) or I lose my job or switch jobs, then I have to be concerned with any pre-existing conditions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>**The insurance companies are part of the largest lobbiest AGAINST nationalized health care**
>>>>>
>>>>>We keep hearing that government is inefficient. Private enterprise can do it better.
>>>>>
>>>>>Government does not have to pay millions in executive compensation.
>>>>>
>>>>>A statistic I hear over and over.
>>>>>
>>>>>Medicare's administrative expense is only 2%
>>>>>Medicare's administrative expense is only 2%
>>>>>Medicare's administrative expense is only 2%
>>>>>
>>>>>They do not compete with that.
>>>>
>>>>Consider being on a fixed income. You have medicare so you have no problems concerning medical care. Or do you?
>>>>
>>>>Part A deductible $992
>>>>
>>>>I think that Part B costs $88 a month perhaps more.
>>>>
>>>>Part B deductible $131
>>>>
>>>>I do not know the details about part D but it is a difficult thing to understand at best.
>>>>
>>>>Is Medicare that great a deal? How does that average person on a fixed income pay for medical expenses? Just do not get sick!
>>>>
>>>>In 99 days,15 hours and 45 minutes I will be 65 so this topic is of interest to me. :)