Posted on 06/21/2006 4:49:02 PM PDT by paudio
NEW YORK - It's a novel approach in the long battle between brand name drugs and their generic rivals: Merck & Co. is slashing the price of its cholesterol drug Zocor so low for one insurance plan that members will actually pay less for the original pills than for the generic.
That tactic has some consumer advocates fearing the practice will spark a movement among Big Pharma, compounding other pressures they fear will weaken the generic industry and compromise the country's source of low-cost drugs.
Under the deal, members of UnitedHealth Group Inc. will pay around $10 for a month's supply of brand name Zocor and $40 for a generic after the drug loses patent protection on Friday. Both Merck and UnitedHealth say the arrangement demonstrates how market competition drives down costs, and that's good for patients.
Consumer advocates typically cheer lower prices but in this instance they worry that a short term benefit for patients will ultimately result in long term problems. They say moves such as Merck's undermine generic companies' chances to generate the profits that fuel their ability to conduct research and challenge drug company patents — eventually resulting in fewer cheap medicines.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
You'd like to limit pharma profits?
"Trade protected" means that pharma companies have bought from the federal government a specific set of laws that prevent consumers from shopping around for the best deal on drugs.
So your answer is yes?
Yes, that is true but look at what goes into proving bioequivaleny and bioavailablilty. It still takes years and millions of dollars for a generic. A generic still has to file an Abbreviated New Drug Application (which by theway is over 12,000 pages long) and it can take anywhere from 12 to 24 months for FDA approval. All the time you are knowing that the competition is doing the same thing. Generics run on low margins and are gouged by their customers but to be in the market and get your product sold/distributed you have to play the game.
My comments were sarcastic and directed to the large contingent on FR who believe there is a conspiracy between the drug companies and doctors to never cure a disease but treat it in a way that keeps the patient alive, using the drug for life, and making as many visits to the doctor as possible. These same folks tend to also believe that President Bush is going to abolish the Constitution, instill Kofi Annan as the leader of the New World Order who will then drain us of all our vital bodily fluids. To think that the big drug makers are lowering their prices below cost to drive the generics out of business follows this same line.
I stole all those pictures from someone else, so don't give me too many props! ;-)
How do you feel about governments telling businesses what they can charge for a product in their country? Is it ok with you as long as you get to buy your drugs for a cheaper price thanks to the false economy they've created?
It's just that I also support the right of consumers to shop wherever they want for bargains
And if the drug business was managed the same as the book business no one would have a problem with it. The fact that foreign governments impose price controls on drugs changes everything.
Whereas I think government should stay out of BOTH sides of this market
I agree but that's not the world we live in, is it?
you want it to come down in aid of the side you favor.
You don't support enforcing the law? If drug company profits are regulated, where will the R&D come from to create new classes of drugs? If profits drive innovation, and they do, what will keep the pipeline full once you've limited that profit? Or are you one of the people who doesn't care about the future of others as long as you get yours? I see lots of that down here in God's waiting room where I live.
This one is about the special ability of drug companies to get government help in enforcing differential pricing.
You don't think the government would help Hollywood or Microsoft if their products were being resold by price controlled countries to non price controlled countries? Even if it violated the terms of their contracts? Now who's being naive? Why do you keep calling it differential pricing? Is that how you justify breaking the law? This isn't about differential pricing, it's about government mandated price controls.
"Protection of consumers!" Tell me another funny one
And you believe that Canada has a good handle on all those one man internet operations selling drugs across the border? Now that's funny! Nope, no adulterated, counterfeit, subpotent or diverted drugs are being sold to us from there. The government has control of all the sellers. Sheesh.
No, this was a pure free-market operation: the textbook company sold books cheaper to Canadians, perhaps printing them there if that saves money. Pharma companies are never forced to sell to Canada either, even though it does control domestic drug prices; if suppliers feel that the government offers them too little for a product, they can just choose not to sell it in Canada.
Sure. And when they refuse to sell in Canada at the government mandated price, the government allows a generic manufacturer to produce and sell a copy without the approval of the patent holder. Now you've really got problems with the protection of intellectual property. Would you also support this? When it comes to pharmaceuticals, is your mantra: Pharmaceuticals for people not for profit? Do you miss the 60's?
The drug reimportation issue is not about free trade. In price controlled countries, there is no free market where suppliers of goods and services can compete. Prescription drugs priced in Canada are not based on fair market value; they do not reflect an equilibrium price between supply and demand. Canadian policy does not create a truly competitive and level market for pharmaceuticals.
Around here we do a lot of dealing with a relatively small number of Mexican suppliers
You buy drugs from Mexico under the belief that they wouldn't do anything to hurt consistent business? Roll the dice. I would never risk my health with a system that is corrupted at every level. It only takes one mistake, one mishandling or one unscrupulous supplier. No thanks.
Let pharma companies sell wherever they can make the best deals, and let consumers buy wherever they can cut the best deals.
But do you believe that governments should determine the price companies can charge for their products thereby controlling their profits? If you do support this, which you apparently do, where will the new drugs come from? That's all this really boils down to.
Actually, it's a conspiracy between drug companies and Washington. Doctors, in this day of HMO peonage, can only wish they still had that kind of power.
Your big problem seems to be with countries that impose price controls on drugs. I agree that this stinks, but price controls are a problem for THEIR OWN drug manufacturers, not ours. American drug companies are free to sell to any country they like; if they don't like Canadian fixed prices, they can flog the goods elsewhere. As I pointed out yesterday, Canadians only buy 43% of American drugs offered for this very reason.
You don't support enforcing the law? If drug company profits are regulated,
In this case, no. It's like the DMCA - they only way to get rid of it is to bust it through applied guerrilla technology. No, I wouln't support a law that controls drug company profits, either. Fortunately, no such law exists in the US.
You don't think the government would help Hollywood or Microsoft if their products were being resold by price controlled countries to non price controlled countries?
In fact, it doesn't. It enforces intellectual property, not differential pricing. Software companies use technology to support differential pricing: I can order the cheap, fully-legal, licensed Chinese version of Microsoft Office if I want to, but I would have to know Chinese to use it.
And when they refuse to sell in Canada at the government mandated price, the government allows a generic manufacturer to produce and sell a copy without the approval of the patent holder. Now you've really got problems with the protection of intellectual property. Would you also support this?
If a country sells reverse-engineered copies of an American drug still in patent, the American company can declare its contracts breached and refuse to sell ANY product to that country. On the other hand, pharma companies love to abuse the patent process by playing the me-too game (well documented elsewhere in this thread) to reregister trivial variations on expiring patents. Consumers figure they can play games too, and will go for generic versions of what they need. It's all a matter of how much you need the st ff, compared with what risks you're willing to take.
The drug companies do have their lobby and supporters in Washington. However, Washington reacts to public opinion and the socialists/industry haters have done a good job, with the help of their willing allies in the MSM, at painting the drug makers as greedy SOB's who could care less about sick people and, therefore, are deserving of controls on their industry. If you believe that there is a lot of love between Washington and Pharma, then you're seeing things that just don't exist to the degree with which you believe they do. If the drug makers had all this imaginary support, they'd be a much better investment than they are. All this government preference and largesse you think exists should be reflected in their earnings multiples. It isn't.
Of course they don't like the Canadian fixed prices. They can still make money selling drugs to Canada. But the agreement they made included no reselling to America.
You have no problems with foreign countries reneging on contracts with US companies? As long as you benefit?
In every other industry, the leverage a company has in enforcing a sales agreement is loss of continued business. Why are drug companies not content with that?
So far as I'm concerned, it's the Canadians' choice whetehr or not the want to resell drugs across their border. It's also the drug manufacturers' free choice to keep selling to Canada. The dirty little secret going on here is that the markup on drugs is so high that they're still making plenty of money selling to the Canadian single payer. If they can convince a significant number of simpletons south of the border that bending over and getting sodomized by their price structure is the moral, "law-abiding" thing to do, then so much the better. Feel better now that you're spending your kids' college fund to support those double-page magazine ads full of tiny unreadable type extolling the merits of some preparation that everybody else in the world can already get over-the-counter?
As you know, if the drug companies don't sell, Canada will let its generic companies manufacture the products. Then the drug company gets zero and the generics would probably also make their way to the US market.
The dirty little secret going on here is that the markup on drugs is so high that they're still making plenty of money selling to the Canadian single payer.
As long as those drugs don't undercut the domestic product.
Feel better now that you're spending your kids' college fund to support those double-page magazine ads full of tiny unreadable type extolling the merits of some preparation that everybody else in the world can already get over-the-counter?
I don't blame the drug companies for making a profit. If you had your wish, that's all that would be available, over-the-counter drugs and no new discoveries. I guess that's great if all the drugs you or your family will ever need have already been discovered.
Go ahead, kill that golden goose. You'll show them. LOL!
That's absurd. In 2004, American firms sold 8 of the top 10 drugs worldwide, and one of the remaining two is from a joint venture between Takeda (Japan) and Abbott (U.S.). U.S. manufacturers account for 14 of the top 15 biotechnology drugs.
American drug companies are free to sell to any country they like; if they don't like Canadian fixed prices, they can flog the goods elsewhere.
You really don't grasp this issue like you believe you do. You've obviously never taken the time to understand what really happens in these transactions and why the drug makers do what they do. With only one side of the story it's no surprise you think like you do.
It's like the DMCA - they only way to get rid of it is to bust it through applied guerrilla technology
Whatever are you talking about?
No, I wouln't support a law that controls drug company profits
But you support taking advantage of laws that control drug company profits. Noble.
In fact, it doesn't. It enforces intellectual property, not differential pricing.
Will you ever understand the difference between the free market determining the price based on what the market will bear (differential pricing) vs. forced price controls?
If a country sells reverse-engineered copies of an American drug still in patent, the American company can declare its contracts breached and refuse to sell ANY product to that country.
Just give their business to the local knock off specialists? That makes no sense. I guess you'd also fault them for going to the government to complain about this abuse of intellectual laws because, after all, it would allow you to buy from the country illegally knocking the drug off without having to pay for all the R&D required to develop the drug. Noble once again.
On the other hand, pharma companies love to abuse the patent process by playing the me-too game (well documented elsewhere in this thread) to reregister trivial variations on expiring patents.
An ineffective patent office is also the drug makers fault? What else will you blame them for?
It's all a matter of how much you need the st ff, compared with what risks you're willing to take.
Anyone subscribing to your view is short sighted and selfish. The people who wrote the following letter (all conservatives) agree with me.
Editor's note: What follows is an open letter to the United States Congress.
The ideal solution would be for other wealthy nations to remove their price controls over pharmaceuticals. America is the last major market without these controls. Imposing price controls here would have a major impact on drug development worldwide, harming not only Americans but people all over the world. On the other hand, removing foreign price controls would bolster research incentives. In addition, most new drugs are developed by American firms, and price controls would harm those firms and their employees.
Drug-price controls are more difficult to remove than other price controls. Controls on oil and other products often tend to be limited or short-lived, as voters eventually object to the resulting shortages and distortions. The effects of drug price controls, however, are far more difficult to observe because they mainly affect medicines that haven't been invented yet.
Even if people were to realize that price controls are preventing new drugs from being developed, undoing the effects of those controls would be a difficult task. Customers would have to pay higher prices for years before they saw benefits. Firms would have to be convinced that controls would not be reimposed as soon as their new drugs are released.
For these reasons, we urge Congress to abandon attempts to peg U.S. drug prices to controlled prices in other nations."
Burton Abrams, Professor of Economics, University of Delaware
William P. Albrecht, Professor of Economics, University of Iowa
Donald L. Alexander, Professor of Economics, Western Michigan University
Joseph Antos, Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy, American Enterprise Institute
Paul Ballantyne, Professor of Economics, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
Doug Bandow, James Madison Scholar, American Legislative Exchange Council
Claude E. Barfield, Director of Science/Technology Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Stacie Beck, Professor of Economics, University of Delaware
Don Bellante, Professor of Economics, University of South Florida
Bruce Bender, Professor, School of Business Administration, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Daniel K. Benjamin, Professor of Economics, Clemson University
John Berthoud, George Washington University
Elizabeth C Bogan, Professor of Economics, Princeton University
Patrick Bolton, Professor of Economics, Princeton University
David Bradford, Professor of Economics, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University.
David P. Brown, Chairman, Department of Finance, University of Wisconsin Madison
Mary Bumgarner, Professor of Economics, Kennesaw State University
Henry Butler, Professor, The George L. Argyros School of Business and Economics, Chapman University
John E. Calfee, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Kenneth W. Chilton, Associate Professor of Management, Lindenwood University
James E. Clark, Professor of Economics, Wichita State University
Kenneth W. Clarkson, Professor, Law and Economics Center, University of Miami
Darin G. Clay, Professor of Economics, Department of Finance and Business Economics, University of Southern California
R. Morris Coats, Professor of Economics, Nicholls State University
Lloyd Cohen, Professor, George Mason University School of Law
Eleanor D. Craig, Professor of Economics, University of Delaware
W. Mark Crain, Professor, George Mason University
Robert M. Dammon, Professor of Financial Economics, Carnegie Mellon University
Donald R. Davis, Professor of Economics, Columbia University
Steven J. Davis, Professor of Business Economics, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago
Gregory Delemeester, Professor, Department of Economics, Management and Accounting, Marietta College
Arthur M. Diamond, Jr., Professor of Economics, University of Nebraska at Omaha
Michael J. Donnelly Jr., Principal and Senior Economics, Global Insight Inc.
Jeffrey H. Dorfman, Professor, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, University of Georgia
Thomas J. Duesterberg, President and Chief Executive Officer, Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI
Dennis F. Ellis, Professor Emeritus of Business Economics, University of Michigan-Flint
Bert Ely, Ely & Company, Inc
. Kenneth G. Elzinga, Professor of Economics, University of Virginia
Eric M. Engen, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Michael R. Englund, Chief Economist, MMS International
Stephen J. Entin, President, Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation
Richard E. Ericson, Chair, Department of Economics, East Carolina University Frank Falero, Emeritus Professor of Economics, California State University
Paul J. Feldstein, Professor, Graduate School of Management, University of California at Irvine
Darren Filson, Professor of Economics, Claremont Graduate University
Micah Frankel, Associate Dean, California State University, Hayward
Milton Friedman, Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Gary Galles, Professor of Economics, Social Science Division, Pepperdine University.
B. Delworth Gardner, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Brigham Young University
Dave Garthoff, Professor, Department of Associate Studies, University of Akron
James F. Gatti, Professor, School of Business Administration, University of Vermont
Joseph A. Giacalone, Professor of Economics, St. Johns University
Stephan F. Gohmann, Professor of Economics, University of Louisville
Henry Grabowski, Professor of Economics, Duke University
William B. Green, Professor, Department of Economics and International Business, Sam Houston State University
Kenneth V. Greene, Professor of Economics, Binghamton University
David Hammes, Chair and Professor of Economics, University of Hawaii at Hilo
John R. Hanson II, Professor of Economics, Texas A&M University
Stephen Happel, Professor of Economics, W.P Carey School of Business, Arizona State University
Scott Harrington, Professor, Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina
Kevin A. Hassett, Director of Economic Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Robert F. Hebert, Professor of Economics, Moody College of Business Administration
Dale Heien, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California-Davis
Robert B. Helms, Director of Health Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
James W. Henderson, Professor of Economics, Baylor University
Bradley K. Hobbs, Professor of Economics, Florida Gulf Coast University
Irving Hoch, Professor of Economics and Political Economy, University of Texas at Dallas
George Horwich, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Purdue University
E. Bruce Hutchinson, Professor of Economics, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Joseph M. Jadlow, Professor, Department of Economics and Legal Studies in Business, Oklahoma State University
Thomas D. Jeitschko, Professor of Economics, Michigan State University
Douglas H. Joines, Professor of Economics, Department of Finance and Business Economics, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California
Clifton T. Jones, Professor and Chair, Department of Economics and Finance
Garrett Jones, Professor of Economics and Finance, Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville
Raymond J. Keating, Chief Economist, Small Business Survival Committee
Kristen Keith, Professor of Economics, University of Toledo
Don Kenkel, Professor of Economics, Department of Policy Analysis & Management, Cornell University
Robin Klay, Professor of Economics, Hope College
Audrey D. Kline, Professor of Economics, University of Louisville
Paul Koch, Professor of Economics, Olivet Nazarene University
Eugene M. Kolassa, Managing Partner, Medical Marketing Economics, LLC
Michael I. Krauss, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
Robert Krol, Professor of Economics, California State University, Northridge
William E. Laird, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Florida State University
Russell Lamb, Professor, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University
Richard N. Langlois, Professor of Economics, University of Connecticut
Nicholas A. Lash, Professor of Finance, Loyola University Chicago
Thomas M. Lenard, Vice President for Research, The Progress & Freedom Foundation
Mickey D. Levy, Chief Economist, Bank of America
Stan Liebowitz, Professor of Economics, School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas
Tony Lima, Professor of Economics, California State University
Cotton M. Lindsay, J. Wilson Newman Professor, The John E. Walker Department of Economics, Clemson University
Donald L. Losman, Professor of Economics, Industrial College of the Armed Forces
John R. Lott, Jr., Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Harold I. Lunde, Professor Emeritus, Bowling Green State University
Kerry Macintosh, Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law
Stephen Margolis, Professor of Economics, North Carolina State University
Joseph P. Magaddino, Professor of Economics, California State University, Long Beach
Michael L. Marlow, Professor of Economics, California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo
Deryl W. Martin, Heidtke Professor of Finance, Tennessee Technological University
Scott E. Masten, Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy, University of Michigan Business School Paul W. McCracken, Edmund Ezra Day Distinguished University Professor Emeritus of Business Administration, Economics and Public Policy, University of Michigan Business School
Tom Means, Professor of Economics, San Jose State University
Roger E. Meiners, Professor of Economics, University of TexasArlington
John Merrifield, Professor of Economics, University of Texas at San Antonio
Paul G. Merski, Former Chief Economist, Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress
Laurence S. Moss, Professor of Economics, Babson College
Michael C. Munger, Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science, Professor, Department of Economics, Duke University
David J. O'Hara, Professor of Economics, College of Management, Metropolitan State University
James B. O'Neill, Professor of Economics, University of Delaware
June O'Neill, Wollman Professor of Economics, Baruch College, City University of New York
Randall E. Parker, Professor of Economics, East Carolina University
Allen Parkman, Professor of Management, Andersen School of Management, University of New Mexico
E. C. Pasour, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University
Mark J. Perry, Professor of Finance and Business Economics, University of Michigan-Flint
William H. Peterson, Adjunct Scholar, Heritage Foundation
Keith T. Poole, Professor of Political Science, University of Houston
Jan S. Prybyla, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Pennsylvania State University
Richard W. Rahn, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute
Ronald A. Ratti, Professor of Economics, University of Missouri-Columbia
Richard Rawlins, Professor, Department of Finance, Economics & International Business, Missouri Southern State University
Bob Reed, Professor, Department of Economics, University of Oklahoma Aldona Robbins, Visiting Fellow in Social Security Analysis, Heritage Foundation
Gary Robbins, Visiting Fellow in Tax Analysis, Heritage Foundation
Nancy H. Roberts, Professor of Economics, Arizona State University
David C. Rose, Professor of Economics, University of Missouri-St. Louis
Richard N. Rosett, Dean Emeritus, College of Business, Rochester Institute of Technology Jim Roumasset, Professor of Economics, University of Hawaii
Paul H. Rubin, Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Economics and Law, Emory University
Mark Rush, Professor of Economics, University of Florida
Gerard Russo, Professor of Economics, University of Hawaii
Raymond Sauer, Professor of Economics, Clemson University
Thomas R. Saving, Private Enterprise Research Center and Department of Economics, Texas A&M University
Mike Schuyler, Senior Economist, Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation
John J. Seater, Professor of Economics, North Carolina State University
Larry J. Sechrest, Professor of Economics, Sul Ross State University
Carlos Seiglie, Professor of Economics, Rutgers University
John Semmens, Economist, Laissez Faire Institute
William F. Shughart II, F.A.P. Barnard Distinguished Professor or Economics, University of Mississippi
James F. Smith, Professor of Finance, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
John C. Soper, Professor of Economics, Boler School of Business, John Carroll University
David E. Spencer, Professor of Economics, Brigham Young University
E. Frank Stephenson, Professor of Economics, Berry College
Michael P. Sweeney, Evart McCabe / United Parcel Service Endowed Chair in Economics Business and Accounting, Hillsdale College
Alex Tabarrok, Professor of Economics, George Mason University, Director of Research, The Independent Institute
Richard H. Timberlake, Professor of Economics, retired, University of Georgia
Grace-Marie Turner, President, Galen Institute
Randal Verbrugge, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Marc Weidenmier, Professor of Economics, Claremont McKenna College
Robert Whaples, Professor of Economics, Wake Forest University
Michael E. Williams, Professor of Economics, Reiman School of Finance, University of Denver
Gary Wolfram, George Munson Professor of Political Economy, Hillsdale College
Paul J. Zak, Director, Center for Neuroeconomic Studies, Claremont Graduate University, Adjunct Professor of Neurology, Loma Linda University
Kate Zhou, Professor of Political Science, University of Hawaii
Michael Zimmer, Professor of Economics, University of Evansville
Benjamin Zycher, Senior Fellow, Pacific Research Institute
They still make money but it isn't nearly enough to justify the massive R&D costs for new drugs. Show me some information from a legitimate source proving your dirty little secret. Drug companies spend 10 times more in R&D than they do in direct advertising.
What happens when foolish, shortsighted people like yourself kill the pipeline of innovation and your children have to cope with the fallout? Do you even have children? You never answered my question: Are you one of those people who could care less about future generations as long as you get yours now?
Actually, as I know, Canada is a signatory to the TRIPS agreement, which forbids them from cloning a drug still under patent. Other countries, such as Brazil, have threatened to break TRIPS on grounds that the agreement enforces American patent standards, known for their bizarreness, worldwide. The controversy is ongoing, but Canada is not involved.
Do you have any idea how many of the people on your list have been outed as members of Jack Abramoff's stable of people who were paid off by pharma companies for their opinions. A particularly embarrassing case was Doug Bandow, who was conspicuous for years as being the only person at the Cato Institute who took your side in this controversy. When the Abramoff scandal broke, he was thrown out of Cato in disgrace.
For an industry very similar in cost structure and profitability, look at semiconductors. It takes several billion dollars in R&D to bring a new processor to market. Because the cost of an in-market type device failure can be devastating (remember the floating-point error on the early Pentiums?), extensive testing is required before new chips can be released. Marketing costs are even higher than for pharma, because more of the product is marketed to end users, there being no restrictions on who can buy. There is no government "protection" for pricing in any market, no restriction on cross-market access by consumers, and no restrictions on exports except to a few military-designated "enemy" nations like Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Patent protection is the same as any other industry.
By your standards, this industry ought to be starving. Yet semiconductor manufacturers have no difficulty making huge profits and funding a steady stream of new designs. They do it because the industry is intensely competitive. It didn't grow up in the cloistered, monopolistic atmosphere that has pervaded medicine; it's been culturally adjusted to open competition from the beginning. If medicine were run that way, I bet we would already enjoy eternal life.
Interesting fact I was told by my doctor: Generic Drugs need to meet the potentcy of the original drug with a leeway of 80 to 120 percent. Kind of weird huh.
Do you? I haven't been paid off by the pharma companies for my opinion. You never answered my question.
You have no problems with foreign countries reneging on contracts with US companies? As long as you benefit?
It really is all about you, isn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.