Hey Loco... next time you're in that neighborhood, count the lawyer's
boats & Mercedes.

I know that's true too however the topic was doctors. Lawyers are worse.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

If I have to wait more than 15 or 20 minutes to see a doctor, I leave and
find a new doctor..

My policy is 30 minutes. I was mainly speeking in general terms. How a lot of
doctors treat patients.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:39:24 -0400, "Vito" wrote
this crap:

(patiently) No David. Patents are guaranteed in the Constitution.


They are? What part of the Constitution guarantees patents?





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:39:24 -0400, "Vito" said:

Patents are guaranteed in the Constitution. Currently,
the term of a patent is IIRC 20 years from application, 17 from patent
grant, or in case of medicines, at least 14 years after FDA approval. That's
fine. The problem comes from laws that require consumers to buy from only
one of many suppliers licensed by the patent holder

You haven't thought this one through, Vito. The whole theory behind patents
is that in return for making discoveries public the patent holder should be
able to earn a monopoly profit for a limited period of time. If patent laws
aren't enforced by allowing the holder to stop unlicensed distribution, it's
as if there weren't any patent at all.

You haven't thought it through, Dave. If there were no patents, people
could reverse-engineer new products freely and without risk of
prosecution. Patents give an exclusive licence/protection in return for
publishing the discovery/process. Companies can & do sit on technology
rather than patent it so as to keep the IP in-house.

A lot of the problem is that patents that are patently ridiculous have
been and still are being issued.

PDW

"Horvath" , a lousy excuse for an American, wrote
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:39:24 -0400, "Vito" wrote this
crap:

(patiently) No David. Patents are guaranteed in the Constitution.


They are? What part of the Constitution guarantees patents?

Article 1, Section 8.

But you are somewhat correct. The Constitution doesn't "guarantee" anything,
it merely establishes what government can and cannot legitimately do. In
this case it delegates to congress the authority to make patent laws.

Try reading it some day.

Peter Wiley wrote:
A lot of the problem is that patents that are patently ridiculous have
been and still are being issued.

I think that's true, and a lot of patents are issued to people who have
stolen other's ideas but can afford a better lawyer; still another type
is the patent issued on "concept" rather than a working model.

DSK

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:39:59 +1100, Peter Wiley
said:

You haven't thought it through, Dave. If there were no patents, people
could reverse-engineer new products freely and without risk of
prosecution. Patents give an exclusive licence/protection in return for
publishing the discovery/process. Companies can & do sit on technology
rather than patent it so as to keep the IP in-house.

They do indeed. But you're going two different directions here. If people
could always reverse-engineer new products, it would be impossible to "sit
on technology." Companies patent some technology and decide not to patent
other technology. One of the factors that influences the decision is whether
it would be possible to reverse engineer the product or process.

Not quite correct - whether it would be economically possible to
reverse-engineer. I run a marine engineering R&D section, in essence. I
have engineers, programmers, a complete electronics lab & heavy
engineering ability. We can build a lot of stuff, but if it's cheaper
to buy, we buy. Now, if all the gear we use was protected by patents
and we couldn't build our own, we wouldn't have that option.

Friend of mine ran an organic chemistry R&D lab for ICI Chemicals. He
said that knowing the composition of the end product wouldn't
necessarily help you much in figuring out how to get there.

The question is whether, if no patent protection were available, companies
would devote the resources to developing new and better products. The theory
behind the patent system is that they would not. I'm inclined to agree.

I'm inclined to disagree. Now, software may be a special case but I
offer the example of open source versus proprietary & protected s/ware.
Companies are hiding behind patents that are trivially obvious and
getting patents on ideas not products. All that and they're still
losing.

As I said, with drugs it gets tricky due to the number of failures to
successes. There does need to be an incentive to innovate. Perhaps a
different reward model is needed. Say for starters, 100X the cost of
all work done to achieve a success plus a percentage royalty on sales,
with open licensing to any manufacturer with the QA needed to produce.
Then manufacturers could compete on their production systems and R&D
firms would make money. Separate the 2 in other words.

A lot of the problem is that patents that are patently ridiculous have
been and still are being issued.

No question about that. One of my former patent partners estimated that 50%
of the patents issued are invalid.

Giving more people a moral justification for ignoring them.

PDW

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:54:01 -0400, "Vito" wrote
this crap:

"Horvath" , a lousy excuse for an American, wrote
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:39:24 -0400, "Vito" wrote this
crap:

(patiently) No David. Patents are guaranteed in the Constitution.


They are? What part of the Constitution guarantees patents?

Article 1, Section 8.

But you are somewhat correct. The Constitution doesn't "guarantee" anything,
it merely establishes what government can and cannot legitimately do. In
this case it delegates to congress the authority to make patent laws.

Try reading it some day.


Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof

http://www.archives.gov/national_arc...ranscript.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing there about patents. Unless you mean this part:



To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But that doesn't guatentee patents.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

still another type
is the patent issued on "concept" rather than a working model.


Dave wrote:
The black letter law, at least, is that you can't patent an idea.


Well, that's utter bull****.

There are thousands of patents issued on devices that have been thought
of but not invented yet... the idea is to lock out competition.

For example, xerography. Not to take anything away from Chester Carlson,
but his story is popular lately. He patented the concept of xerography
in 1937 and did not produce a legible xerographic copy for another year
and a half.

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...xerography.htm

DSK

Go **** yourself Mr. Poodle. Of course, you're the most seasoned expert at
getting boofoo'd by the RNC, but that's not much qualification.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:31:32 GMT, said:

The black letter law, at least, is that you can't patent an idea.


Nonsense. There are thousands of patents on "Methods"

Ah, we have another expert on patent law in our midst, besides Jon.

Sorry, Bill patents on methods are not patents on ideas.

Dave wrote:

At one time I believe the PTO actually required the
inventor to send it a working model. No more. I believe the inventor must
persuade the examiner that if the device were produced in accordance with
the specifications it would do what the inventor claims it would.


I believe that is correct Dave. BTW what do you think of the idea of patenting a drug for treating a specific disease and then later on finding
another disease to treat with the same drug, and as result being able to extend the original patent?

Cheers
Marty

Horass gets turned on when men talk about laying.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:54:01 -0400, "Vito" wrote
this crap:
The Congress shall have Power To lay

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:15:18 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Go **** yourself Mr. Poodle.

More reasoned argument, eh. Given up on showing us your knowledge of the
law, Jon?

I was just quoting Dick Cheney. Given up being intelligent? No. You
started that way.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:15:44 +1100, Peter Wiley
said:

Not quite correct - whether it would be economically possible to
reverse-engineer. I run a marine engineering R&D section, in essence. I
have engineers, programmers, a complete electronics lab & heavy
engineering ability. We can build a lot of stuff, but if it's cheaper
to buy, we buy. Now, if all the gear we use was protected by patents
and we couldn't build our own, we wouldn't have that option.

Maybe yes, maybe no. What you mean is that you couldn't build your own if
you weren't willing to pay the inventor your share of what he thinks is the
value of the work he did in inventing the product.

No, I couldn't build my own if the patent owner wouldn't license me to
do so. Alternatively if the company was selling items for $100K and
wanted a one-off fee of $200K then in effect they've prevented me from
building my own by rendering it economically foolish to do so. I tmight
only cost me ssay $20K in time/materials to build the item myself.

Been there done that except with unpatented equipment. Got a quote for
$250K and the manufacturer wouldn't release the source code even on a
non-disclosure basis. Wanted us to buy a pig in a poke in essence. We
built our own, including 2000m depth rated pressure vessels &
electronics, wrote our own software. If I get really bored one day I'll
write it all up for a marine research engineering journal and release
the specs & code into the public domain.

As I said, with drugs it gets tricky due to the number of failures to
successes. There does need to be an incentive to innovate. Perhaps a
different reward model is needed. Say for starters, 100X the cost of
all work done to achieve a success plus a percentage royalty on sales,
with open licensing to any manufacturer with the QA needed to produce.
Then manufacturers could compete on their production systems and R&D
firms would make money. Separate the 2 in other words.

Bad idea. Administered prices are inherently inefficient in the longer run.
This would be just another case of administered prices.

Huh? What administered pricing system? You're dragging in a red
herring. I said nothing about price controls of any kind.

I note that you have nothing to say WRT innovation happening regardless
of patents or protection of IP in software. I take that as an
acknowledgement that I am correct and that you are incorrect.

No question about that. One of my former patent partners estimated that 50%
of the patents issued are invalid.

Giving more people a moral justification for ignoring them.

Not the way it works in the real world. Most businesses don't honor or
ignore patents on the basis that doing so is moral or immoral. In fact
patents is one of those areas of the law where morality has very little
place. It isn't immoral to infringe a patent or trademark. But it may be
costly.

Quite true. However, while companies have no sense of morality, most
people do. Also technology drives business practices. Once again I
refer to software where the cost of duplication is so small as to be
insignificant. Ditto music and soon movies as bandwidth increases.
Already organisations like Encyclopaedia Britannica have either changed
business models or gone out of business.

It may well be that patent law and copyright law become unenforceable
in practice, for whole classes of product.

PDW

In article ,
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:22:26 +1100, Peter Wiley
wrote:
Dave is making it up as he goes along. Either that, or he's the most incompetent
lawyer on the planet. He believes Bush, which gives you some idea of how easy it
is to spoon feed him nonsense and have him take it to heart.

A patent is no guarantee that someone else won't take your IDEA and use it as if
it was their own. All it does is give you legal standing to spend thousands or
millions of dollars defending it. If you don't have thousands or millions at
your disposal to spend defending your patent, tough luck, bub.

Quite true. I happen to know from experience that holding a patent is
not going to stop someone from using your idea.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:22:26 +1100, Peter Wiley
said:


Then manufacturers could compete on their production systems and R&D
firms would make money. Separate the 2 in other words.

Bad idea. Administered prices are inherently inefficient in the longer run.
This would be just another case of administered prices.

Huh? What administered pricing system? You're dragging in a red
herring. I said nothing about price controls of any kind.

What you said was:

Say for starters, 100X the cost of
all work done to achieve a success plus a percentage royalty on sales,
with open licensing to any manufacturer with the QA needed to produce.

Who would set that 100 number, and who would fix that percentage? If you say
the licensor and licensee, the answer is that they're free to do that now.
If it's the licensor and licensee, you've got administered prices in one
form or another.

Sigh. You really do have a failure of the imagination, don't you?

There are 2 payment methods possible for drugs that occur to me. First,
let's address the argument that the hit rate is so low that cost of
failures needs to be loaded onto the few successes. Agreed. Now, how to
pay for that? One method is to reimburse the entire cost of R&D at some
multiple that covers the cost of the failures, plus a healthy profit.
You now have your R&D money back, plus some.

Second, ongoing revenue streams. For simplicity, assume that licensing
production to manufacturers who meet QA standards is both mandatory and
that the percentage of wholesale price paid as a royalty is fixed so
you can't charge one manufacturer more than another one. Now,
manufacturers can produce the drug using the most efficient processes
they know and sell into a competitive market against other
manufacturers. If Company A produces & wholesales for $10/unit, the
discoverer gets $10/x payment. If manufacturer B produces & wholesales
for $5/unit, the discoverer gets $5/x payment. Remember they've already
got their R&D money back plus profit.

As I said I fail to see the price maintenance over & above the minimum
needed to pay the margin and hell, if a company wanted to give drugs
away for free, the payment would be nothing. I can hear your screams
now....

I note that you have nothing to say WRT innovation happening regardless
of patents or protection of IP in software. I take that as an
acknowledgement that I am correct and that you are incorrect.

That's what we call a non-sequitur. I simply didn't comment on the issue
one way or the other.

As to whether innovation would occur without patent protection, the answer
is undoubtedly yes, to some extent, particularly where there is related
proprietary know-how, but probably not as quickly. Money is a powerful
motivator.

Hmmm, explains why MS Windows is a superior o/s to linux. Money is a
powerful motivator, true, but this does not necessarily translate into
a better or more efficient product. Especially in software..... I've
worked for s/ware firms who were very good on their engineering &
testing - my last employer in the USA was such a firm. I've also worked
for the other type where one way of making money was cutting costs,
corners and everything else to get product out the door.

Had I commented on software protection, I might have suggested among other
things that the market share of Open Office is miniscule, and even
development in that area is driven in substantial part by the demand for
programs protected by copyright.

Fail to see the relevance. The demand for MS Office is set partially by
Microsoft's proprietary and changing document storage formats. Their
market share is slowly eroding. Now if they had been able to patent the
idea of a word processor........

Anyway, patents are a Govt sponsored/enforced restaint of trade from
which the public is supposed to derive a benefit that outweighs the
loss. It's getting debateable if the benefit is commensurate with the
loss from the restraint in a number of areas. If company A can
manufacture/sell a drug for $10/tab and company B does the same thing
for $75/tab, I'm willing to bet that A is still making a profit and B
is making its sales only by suppressing competition from A. As a
practical matter this can't last. You can argue all you like, but just
as the music industry is being dragged kicking & screaming by
technology they can't control into a future they don't want, other
industries will be as well.

Boring now.......

PDW

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:15:55 -0400, Martin Baxter said:


I believe that is correct Dave. BTW what do you think of the idea of patenting a drug for treating a specific disease and then later on finding
another disease to treat with the same drug, and as result being able to extend the original patent?


I don't have any problem with that in principle. The policy question is
whether the financial incentive is necessary or appropriate to encourage
inventors to develop the use of old drugs for new applications.

Dave

In principal it appears sound, however it hasn't really worked that way. Instead it has led to the creation of fictional syndromes. In the psychiatric
field, make up a new disease (irrational fear of menstrual cramps is one), give it a nice latin name, get a couple of crackpot shrinks to include it
in the index and Bob's your uncle! Presto, another few years to gouge the public.

I would have much less of a problem with pharmaceutical companies if they didn't spend more, much more, on advertising than they do on R&D.

Cheers
Marty

I agree with you on the advertising thing....I had a discussion with several
docs who are quite frustrated when people come in demanding the newest,
latest drug advertised on the television. What they don't listen to is the
side effects or the disclaimers. This drives the price of health care up.
Rather than take a medicine that is more suitable, and mist likely generic,
they insist on the newer medication at the higher price...the insurance
company, then, is left with the balance after the co-pay....and we wonder
why prescription riders are so high?
"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:15:55 -0400, Martin Baxter said:


I believe that is correct Dave. BTW what do you think of the idea of
patenting a drug for treating a specific disease and then later on
finding another disease to treat with the same drug, and as result being
able to extend the original patent?


I don't have any problem with that in principle. The policy question is
whether the financial incentive is necessary or appropriate to encourage
inventors to develop the use of old drugs for new applications. Dave

In principal it appears sound, however it hasn't really worked that way.
Instead it has led to the creation of fictional syndromes. In the
psychiatric field, make up a new disease (irrational fear of menstrual
cramps is one), give it a nice latin name, get a couple of crackpot
shrinks to include it in the index and Bob's your uncle! Presto, another
few years to gouge the public.

I would have much less of a problem with pharmaceutical companies if they
didn't spend more, much more, on advertising than they do on R&D.

Cheers
Marty

"katysails" wrote in message

I agree with you on the advertising thing....I had a discussion with
several docs who are quite frustrated when people come in demanding the
newest, latest drug advertised on the television. What they don't listen
to is the side effects or the disclaimers. This drives the price of health
care up. Rather than take a medicine that is more suitable, and mist likely
generic, they insist on the newer medication at the higher price...the
insurance company, then, is left with the balance after the co-pay....and
we wonder why prescription riders are so high?

There is something that doesn't figure with this argument. I have no
problem whatever steering patients to a more appropriate medication. If the
physicians to whom you spoke can't affect a similar outcome, they don't have
the confidence of their patients. Advertising never plays a role in the
final decision my patients and I ultimately make. Initially they may
*think* they have the answer, but they trust me to set them straight if that
info is false or inappropriate.

The primary reason medications and Rx riders are so high has far more to do
with governmental intervention (the generic drug law, for starters) than
with advertising.

Max

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:38:21 -0400, Martin Baxter said:


I would have much less of a problem with pharmaceutical companies if they didn't spend more, much more, on advertising than they do on R&D.


Ah those silly irrational business people who think their job is making a
profit instead of doing good deeds.



Yup, those same irrational hypocritical folks who proffer ad campaigns extolling the virtues of their companies and what a standup job they are doing
for mankind. A little honesty would go a long way, "We are not here to find a cure for _(insert your favourite disease)_, we're to pry as much money
out your and your insurance company's wallets with the least investment in R&D that we can get away with, the bottom line is the only line!".

Cheers
Marty

Ah those silly irrational business people who think their job is making a
profit instead of doing good deeds.


Martin Baxter wrote:
Yup, those same irrational hypocritical folks who proffer ad campaigns
extolling the virtues of their companies and what a standup job they are
doing for mankind. A little honesty would go a long way, "We are not
here to find a cure for _(insert your favourite disease)_, we're to pry
as much money out your and your insurance company's wallets with the
least investment in R&D that we can get away with, the bottom line is
the only line!".

You should see the stockholders reports from some of these companies. It
is invariably brought up that they increased R&D spending, show lovely
full color glossy photos of smiling people in hi-tech labs, etc etc. It
is also almost invariably proposed by a non-board member shareholder to
reduce advertising funding, whereupon it is pointed out that increasing
R&D leads to increased income by some tiny fraction whereas increasing
advertising raises income by a whopping multiplier.

If people weren't so dang gullible, we wouldn't have this problem!

In any event, there are quite a few of the big pharmaceutical companies
are headed by docs instead of MBAs. While that's not a guarantee they're
looking in the right direction, it's better than nothing.

DSK

Maybe it's because you prescribe a very limited and specialized area of
drugs? No one's going to come to you and ask for Viagra or Cielis, now, are
they?

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"katysails" wrote in message

I agree with you on the advertising thing....I had a discussion with
several docs who are quite frustrated when people come in demanding the
newest, latest drug advertised on the television. What they don't listen
to is the side effects or the disclaimers. This drives the price of
health care up. Rather than take a medicine that is more suitable, and
mist likely generic, they insist on the newer medication at the higher
price...the insurance company, then, is left with the balance after the
co-pay....and we wonder why prescription riders are so high?

There is something that doesn't figure with this argument. I have no
problem whatever steering patients to a more appropriate medication. If
the physicians to whom you spoke can't affect a similar outcome, they
don't have the confidence of their patients. Advertising never plays a
role in the final decision my patients and I ultimately make. Initially
they may *think* they have the answer, but they trust me to set them
straight if that info is false or inappropriate.

The primary reason medications and Rx riders are so high has far more to
do with governmental intervention (the generic drug law, for starters)
than with advertising.

Max

"Dave" wrote

Right. And let's have the guvmint require all the food companies, the car
manufacturers, home builders, etc. etc. etc. do likewise.

No, let's get the government out of it so that we can choose products from
competing companies just like we choose between fast food companies and car
makers instead of having to settle for what some MD prescribes based on
commissions.

Maybe we could even require ads showing public flogging of all their
executives be shown nightly.

Now that I would vote for!

Dave wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:13:55 -0400, Martin Baxter said:


Yup, those same irrational hypocritical folks who proffer ad campaigns extolling the virtues of their companies and what a standup job they are doing
for mankind. A little honesty would go a long way, "We are not here to find a cure for _(insert your favourite disease)_, we're to pry as much money
out your and your insurance company's wallets with the least investment in R&D that we can get away with, the bottom line is the only line!".


Right. And let's have the guvmint require all the food companies, the car
manufacturers, home builders, etc. etc. etc. do likewise. Maybe we could
even require ads showing public flogging of all their executives be shown
nightly.



Whoa! I didn't say anything about the government, the last time a government actually represented the people was immediately following a revolution.

Clearly patent protection has a purpose, (don't forget this requires government intervention, sometimes gov. is a necessary evil), I just don't like
BS, from corporations, government, politicians, lawyers....

From the sublime to the ridiculous...

Cheers
Marty

DSK wrote:




You should see the stockholders reports from some of these companies. It
is invariably brought up that they increased R&D spending, show lovely
full color glossy photos of smiling people in hi-tech labs, etc etc. It
is also almost invariably proposed by a non-board member shareholder to
reduce advertising funding, whereupon it is pointed out that increasing
R&D leads to increased income by some tiny fraction whereas increasing
advertising raises income by a whopping multiplier.

Well if we omit the hyperbole, I agree with you, investment in product promotion
returns a much higher yield than R&D, I just find it perplexing to hear pharmacuticals
pleading that they need twenty year patent protection to recoup their R&D funding when in fact those funds represent
a relatively small fraction of operating costs, advertising outstrips it by about 10 to 1 for most companies.



Cheers
Marty

In article ,
Dave wrote:
Speaking of being an "I told you so...."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6454493/


On 18 Oct 2004 11:14:15 -0500, Dave said:

That's simply snake oil. One of two things happen. Either you create a
shortage in Canada, or the Canadians prohibit export. (Probably both. Or, if
they are sensible about it, they allow the price to rise to a point where it
won't make any difference.) Personally, I think it would be a good idea to
allow importation, since it would ultimately force the Canadians to pick up
part of the development costs that are now being born entirely by Americans.
But as a long-range solution, it doesn't work. The sizes of the markets are
just too disparate.

Or, more intelligently (something that is beyond you I'm sure), the US
gov't allows medicare to negotiate for the best price. BushCo has made
that illegal, even though the VA can and does do this.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 10 Nov 2004 18:32:19 -0800, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Or, more intelligently (something that is beyond you I'm sure), the US
gov't allows medicare to negotiate for the best price.

What a brilliant idea--make it cheaper for those whom the guvmint
subsidizes, so the rest of us have to pay more.

You mean like US vets?



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 11 Nov 2004 10:31:04 -0800, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Or, more intelligently (something that is beyond you I'm sure), the US
gov't allows medicare to negotiate for the best price.

What a brilliant idea--make it cheaper for those whom the guvmint
subsidizes, so the rest of us have to pay more.

You mean like US vets?

Dunno, Jon. Are veterans the primary beneficiaries of medicare?

They're the primary beneficiaries of negotiated drug costs you idiot.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 11 Nov 2004 11:27:13 -0800, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:


Or, more intelligently (something that is beyond you I'm sure), the US
gov't allows medicare to negotiate for the best price.


What a brilliant idea--make it cheaper for those whom the guvmint
subsidizes, so the rest of us have to pay more.

You mean like US vets?

Dunno, Jon. Are veterans the primary beneficiaries of medicare?

They're the primary beneficiaries of negotiated drug costs you idiot.

And you would limit the lower prices to vets?

See above, idiot.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 11 Nov 2004 11:41:50 -0800, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Dunno, Jon. Are veterans the primary beneficiaries of medicare?

They're the primary beneficiaries of negotiated drug costs you idiot.

So I take it your argument is that these lower prices should be extended to
more people, so the remaining people who aren't the objects of the guvmint's
largesse would have to pay higher prices.

So, what you're saying is that it is not ok, in a free market society,
to be able to negotiate with companies for volume discounts? Got it.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 11 Nov 2004 12:02:01 -0800, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

So, what you're saying is that it is not ok, in a free market society,
to be able to negotiate with companies for volume discounts?

Negotiate away, Jon.

Medicare is barred by law from doing that thanks to BushCo.

Get a clue dufus.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 11 Nov 2004 12:53:31 -0800, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

So, what you're saying is that it is not ok, in a free market society,
to be able to negotiate with companies for volume discounts?

Negotiate away, Jon.

Medicare is barred by law from doing that thanks to BushCo.

Get a clue dufus.

It was directed to you, Jon--it's perfectly ok for you to negotiate away.

And you should be directed to the nearest mental institution for the
criminally stupid.

Just citing facts...


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
Seems to me you'll be in about the same position "negotiating" with your
local pharmacy that the pharma companies would be in "negotiating" with the
guvmint.

I think you need to lay off the stupid pills. They're having the
desired effect.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."