Replies

No, I didn't make you point at all! The reason being, that those whom you just callesd "poor", were considered to be THE MIDDLE CLASS, back then.

The poverty that you talk about, was far worse back then, than it is now. Living conditions were such, that it is almost unimaginable today, to OUR own poor.

Forget the drug industry! All of those super-dooper machines and tests and LAW SUITS are what has mostly increased the disastrously high costs of health care today. And the overuse and misuse has been of criminal proportions for the last 30 years.

You really have to drop your inclination to unadulterated MARXISM. This IS a CONSERVATIVE forum. All if this damned class warfare and replies filled by same, is just out of order here. And it REALLY would be of help to you if you did some actual research about stocks and stock options, before you start talking about them. It is patently and blatantly obvious that you have no knowledge of that area.

When CEOs are given stock options, they DO have a time limit ( usually of several years ) that they MUST be held, before the options can be exercised.

"Forget the drug industry! All of those super-dooper machines and tests and LAW SUITS are what has mostly increased the disastrously high costs of health care today. And the overuse and misuse has been of criminal proportions for the last 30 years."

The lawsuits are a major problem with the delivery of health care by providers; doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. And personal injury attorneys really have done a lot of harm in that regard. But though they have had some effect upon the increases in prescription drug costs, they are not the major source of the rise in prices. The figures gleeaikin has put up about profit margins must be considered part of the mix. The prescription drug industry does enjoy a higher margin of profit than most other industries by comparison, and that fact cannot be divorced from the rising prices of the goods they sell.

". . . You really have to drop your inclination to unadulterated MARXISM. This IS a CONSERVATIVE forum. All if this damned class warfare and replies filled by same, is just out of order here. . . ."

There is nothing Marxist about asking questions of the social impact of current policy. The "Marxist test" is in the solutions one advances and I saw nothing in gleeaikin's posts which suggests public ownership of the means of production. What I see in gleeaikin's argumentation is a call for more intelligent regulation. Now the subject of regulation does bring conservative principles into view, because we conservatives do not favor an intrusive government that interferes with market forces, but there must be limits. To say there can be no regulation is to deny that there is such a thing as "price gouging," and that goes too far.

To judge whether or not the prescription drug industry is engaging in price gouging requires the presentation and examination of two types of evidence; external, or what we can see "from the outside looking in," and internal, or what we can see "from the inside." To go to the internal evidence first, there has been very little argument advanced in this thread thus far to show that, by an examination of the individual prices for specific medications prescription drug manufacturers are charging, that their pricing policies either are or are not justified. gleeaikin has presented the external evidence, which is their profit margin. And on that basis we can say that we at least have reason to question whether or not price gouging is taking place, given that the profit margins the prescription drug industry is enjoying are quite a bit above other major industries.

So do we leave conservative principles behind whenever we raise the question of the regulation of prices charged for prescription drugs? My clear answer to this question is "no we do not because unregulated prescription drug prices directly impact federal spending, which true conservatives wish to control." A significant portion of the costs of prescription drugs are borne by a segment of our population, the elderly, who are in large part dependent upon the federal government for their material well being. Many of them count upon Social Security and Medicaire to make their lives affordable. We are already seeing that the Medicaire prescription drug benefit will be much more expensive than anticipated -- this will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars of unforeseen costs over the next 10 - 15 years -- and fiscal responsibility, a true conservative value if ever there was one, demands that we address the problem. I will not deny that a true conservative can advance the argument that the federal government never should have taken on the responsibility of funding prescription drug costs for seniors, but the fact of the matter is that the legislation is in effect and there is no political will to repeal it. So if we operate within the realm of the possible, we must come to grips with the fact that rising prescription drug costs threaten the fiscal integrity of the federal budget and that could potentially lead to tax increases. And I know of few issues that separate conservatives from liberals more readily than tax policy. We must get prescription drug prices under control because, if we do not, taxes will be raised destroying a significant part of what we conservatives have accomplished over the past 25 years for America.