>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'd like to see a system of health care, organized by the community at any level, even if it's through its government, as a non-profit, running at cost price, and not as a retail outlet for the pharmaceuticals. There's something deeply wrong when they make money from one's illness, and have a financial incentive to grow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why would any company invest million of dollars in research to develop life savings drugs if they are not going to reap a profit from it? Part of the cause of the high cost of drugs is the limited amount of time that the governement allows them to be patented before the makers of generics (who have invested nothing in the R&D) come along and make a profit on the work of others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If the length of time that a patent stayed in force was longer, the drugs could be cheaper because the manufacturers would have a longer period of time in which to recover their investment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't mind them making a profit. I mind them making an OBSCENE profit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Imagine if a person or a company comes up with the true cure for cancer. Do you mind if they make OBSENE, OBSENE, OBSENE profit?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yup, I do
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>For a cure for cancer? I can't think of anything more deserving than that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The developers still aren't 'deserving' of an obscene profit on it, no. Most of the major advancements in medicine (up to the last 30 years or so) were made by people who weren't looking at the bottom line. They were looking to find remedies for diseases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I want to expand on your point. Most of the basic research done in this country for quite a long time has been at least partially funded by tax dollars (NSF, NIH, etc.). When a pharmaceutical company comes up with a new medication, they're generally building on that research. Sure, they deserve to make a profit, but they didn't do it on their own. They started out with knowledge that we all paid for.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just for the record, I'm not saying that the pharmacos shouldn't make a profit, I'm just saying they shouldn't make an obscene profit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oddly enough, I agree with you :P
>>>>>
>>>>>Oddly enough I disagree with both of you. Some things are worth the super obscen profits. Example. Say a researcher works on finding a cure for cancer, 20 year, or maybe 2 months. She finds the cure; validates it with 100% certainty. Then she says; unless I get 10 billion dollars I won't share my findings with the world. Of course, being that messiah won't apply water boarding, what do you do? I would give her 10 billion and then take her to dinner <g>.
>>>>
>>>>According to the definition of the word "obscene", no-one wants any company to make "obscene" profits. The only thing to discuss is what different people consider obscene :)
>>>
>>>Exorbitant sounds better? :)
>>
>>Exact same argument applies. It sounds like you wouldn't necessarily consider $10B exorbitant, especially if she was cute :)
>
>The older I get the more I find young women cute <g>

Which makes you unique among men ;-)

Oddly enough, I like women my own age. Maybe it's just realism. Let's face it, Scarlett Johanssen is not going to be sleeping over tonight.