UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (33) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: PleaseAndThanks One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 75794  
Subject: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/3/2003 10:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If I am not mistaken, George Bush would like to reduce the amount the self employed can invest in retirement accounts.

I have no employees. For tax year 2002, I put away $3500 in an IRA since I'm fifty, and about 20% of compensation from self-employment income in a SEP IRA. Together they exceed the Bush plan for $7500 per year by at least $1-2000.

Are my figures wrong, or is it time to write my Congressman and Senator?

This Vanguard article describes the Bush administration proposal as well as any. It mentions SARSEPs and SIMPLE IRAs but not SEPs:

http://flagship3.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw/web/corpcontent/vanguardviews/jsp/VanViewsNewsLinksArticle.jsp?chunk=/freshness/News_and_Views/ALL_proposal_02032003.html
Print the post Back To Top
Author: buzman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35654 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/3/2003 10:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
The way I read it, you could put 7.5K in each of the accounts.

But don't waste alot of energy worrying about these proposals.

They are probably trial ballons instituted by the brokerage houses and Wall St. bankers, who would LOVE to get their hands on more of our money.

In case you haven't noticed the Federal defecit is at record levels. How will we finance all this? Make our kids pay for it?

buzman

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PleaseAndThanks One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35655 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/3/2003 11:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The way I read it, you could put 7.5K in each of the accounts.

You're probably right that we would be able to use more than one type of account. I think $7500 in an LSA, plus $7500 in an RSA, plus $12000 plus $2000 catch up in an ERSA.

Here's a press release and FAQ from the Treasury department Office of Public Affairs. It doesn't mention SEPs but it does have more detail than Vanguard.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/kd3816.htm

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDreamer Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35656 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/4/2003 2:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The way I read it, you could put 7.5K in each of the accounts.


In case you haven't noticed the Federal defecit is at record levels. How will we finance all this? Make our kids pay for it?


The way I'm reading it...is they've eliminated the tax deferral IRA formats....all contributions to LSA/RSA are after tax. Meaning in the short-term, the affected people will be paying more taxes.

The Dreamer.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: WPatch Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35657 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/4/2003 4:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You're probably right that we would be able to use more than one type of account. I think $7500 in an LSA, plus $7500 in an RSA, plus $12000 plus $2000 catch up in an ERSA.

You would also be able to make make an employer's contribution to the ERSA equal to the SEP contribution limits now(20% of adjusted SE income up to a total of $40,000. Or, if you do not want to sponser a ERSA, the current SEP should still be around.

Bill Patch

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bigcaat Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35658 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/5/2003 12:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
OFF TOPIC

-- The way I read it, you could put 7.5K in each of the accounts.

-- You're probably right that we would be able to use more than one type of account. I think $7500 in an LSA, plus $7500 in an RSA, plus $12000 plus $2000 catch up in an ERSA.


The way I read it, Bush is still concerned only with helping upper class and excluding the common person. I sure as heck don't have $25K extra to put away in a retirement account.

So what kind of relief is he giving people who are living paycheck to paycheck? Lowering their medical insurance payments? -- Ooops, no, not that. Regulating pharmaceutical companies so people can afford to get the medications they need without being gouged by sometimes as much as 1000%-2000%? No. "Wouldn't want to make the drug companies mad at me." How about punishing Ken Lay, and others like him, so that what happened to the workers at Enron doesn't happen again? How about making sure that everyone can afford an education, or can afford to live a decent life on social security? "Ooooooh, no. How would we pay for that? I have a WAR to put on! -- (so we can keep the peace, of course.)"

But why should anyone care about any of that, if it doesn't apply to them? Bush is going to take us down, and these tax cuts are only the beginning. With the arrogance of this administration, we'll be lucky if any of us are even around to see retirement.

END RANT

Caat

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: decath Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35659 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/5/2003 3:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
bigcaat rants:
So what kind of relief is he giving people who are living paycheck to paycheck? Lowering their medical insurance payments? -- Ooops, no, not that. Regulating pharmaceutical companies so people can afford to get the medications they need without being gouged by sometimes as much as 1000%-2000%? No. "Wouldn't want to make the drug companies mad at me." How about punishing Ken Lay, and others like him, so that what happened to the workers at Enron doesn't happen again? How about making sure that everyone can afford an education, or can afford to live a decent life on social security? "Ooooooh, no. How would we pay for that? I have a WAR to put on! -- (so we can keep the peace, of course.)"

I can't argue with the prosecution of criminals such as Lay but the rest of your rant indicates a confusion of the role that the US government is supposed to play in our constitutional republic. I can also sympathize with those who don't want us meddling in foreign wars but then Clinton was King of overseas meddling for no logical reason.

It has never been the intention of the US constitution to allow the federal government to legislate or regulate every aspect of the lives of its free citizens. Our rights our actually very few but the ones we do have such as freedom of speech, religion, assembly, possession of arms and the others in the “Bill of Rights” are precious. There is no right to a paycheck, medical care, 3 square meals or shelter. That, my friend, is left up to each and every individual of the citizenry.

I wonder how many left-wingers have ever considered that the incredible prosperity this country has enjoyed the past 100 years is a direct result of the constitutional republic and free enterprise system our founding fathers put in place! You change that and you change America for the worse!

decath


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35660 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/5/2003 4:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Regulating pharmaceutical companies so people can afford to get the medications they need without being gouged by sometimes as much as 1000%-2000%? No.

The reason that drug prices are high is because of the patents. Patents are given by the government to allow monopolies so that businesses will be able to charge higher prices. The reason that the government is willing to do this is because it increases the profit incentive and encourages companies to invest more in research (which is both very costly and very risky) so that they will develop more and better drugs.

The government *could* regulate the pharmaceutical companies, or it could just stop allowing patents on drugs. Both will have the effect of dramatically reducing prices. Of course without the profit incentive, it would also eliminate most of the innovation in drugs. I don't think this is a very desirable solution.

Your post demonstrates that you understand little about the negative effects of socializing the economy. Free economies are the ones that create wealth for everyone to enjoy. You can cry about the poverty in the US, but the poor in the US are much better off than the poor in most other countries. This is because we have a relatively free economy. Unfortunately, our politicians are successfully moving us in the wrong direction. If you want to really help the poorest people in the US, then vote for people who will dramatically cut taxes, government spending, and regulation. That way the economy will grow much more rapidly and provide the poor with what they *really* need -- jobs.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: BiologyFool Three stars, 500 posts CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35662 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/5/2003 5:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Regulating pharmaceutical companies so people can afford to get the medications they need without being gouged by sometimes as much as 1000%-2000%?

Yeah, Microsoft did the same thing to me. They sold me a CD that I'm sure didn't cost them more than $0.25 for $250. That's a 1000% markup.
Have you ever heard of R&D? Profit margins need to include those too.
</RANT>

-BF


Print the post Back To Top
Author: AcmeFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35663 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/5/2003 6:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Regulating pharmaceutical companies so people can afford to get the medications they need without being gouged by sometimes as much as 1000%-2000%? No.

Approximately 1 in every 1000 drug candidates actually make it to the final levels of testing. Approximately 1 in 5 of these drugs actually makes it to markey. I believe 1 in 10 of these drugs is a "blockbuster" that provides a drug company with the majority of its profits in a given year.

So...something like 1 in every *5,000* drugs researched by the drug companies makes it to market...and about 1 in every *50,000* generates the lion's share of the profits.

If drug companies are not allowed to charge the high prices they charge on these drugs, they will not have the financial incentive required to risk the *billions* required to develop a single drug to market. If they don't have financial incentive, new drugs will not be developed.

High drug prices are a problem...but I certainly understand why they are high and I would be quite hesitant to do anything to force drug companies to drop prices...

ACME

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bigcaat Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35664 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/5/2003 8:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
-- The government *could* regulate the pharmaceutical companies, or it could just stop allowing patents on drugs. Both will have the effect of dramatically reducing prices. Of course without the profit incentive, it would also eliminate most of the innovation in drugs. I don't think this is a very desirable solution.

-- If drug companies are not allowed to charge the high prices they charge on these drugs, they will not have the financial incentive required to risk the *billions* required to develop a single drug to market. If they don't have financial incentive, new drugs will not be developed.


How, then, would you explain the same exact drugs, by the same companies, selling for a fraction of the cost in Canada?

Caat

Print the post Back To Top
Author: buzman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35665 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/5/2003 9:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
How, then, would you explain the same exact drugs, by the same companies, selling for a fraction of the cost in Canada?

Simple. "Tax cuts for the rich" - stolen from Garry Trudeau

buzman



Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35666 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/5/2003 10:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
How, then, would you explain the same exact drugs, by the same companies, selling for a fraction of the cost in Canada?

I really don't know. Do they have patent protection? Are they regulated? Different demand curve?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PleaseAndThanks One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35667 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/5/2003 11:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
How, then, would you explain the same exact drugs, by the same companies, selling for a fraction of the cost in Canada?

The two patented drugs I checked in January (one each from Abbott and Eli Lilly) were about the same from Canada as from my US health plan who buys their formulary drugs in bulk.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jedenison Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35668 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/6/2003 8:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The reason some drugs are cheaper in Canada is the governmetn forces the pharm companies to sell the products at a fixed price. THe real impact of this is that the companies charge us more. If everyone was charged market rates our cost sould come down. There is a reason the US is the source for most new medicies and treatments. We allow the developers of the new mediceine to profit fom the reseasrch. Without that profit new research would grind to a halt.

I know some people say that noone should profit off of something that is require to live. But where do we draw the line? For most of the US a car is a neccesity. Should all cars be price controlled so that everyone can afford to buy one? AS a percent of revenues there are very few industries that spend as much on research as pharm companies. Without the reward of the profits these companies will no longer take the risk.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AcmeFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35669 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/6/2003 8:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
How, then, would you explain the same exact drugs, by the same companies, selling for a fraction of the cost in Canada?

jedenison summed it up quite well. Essentially, there are two factors at work:

(1) The Canadian economic system will not allow for prices that are as high as ours. Since they cannot afford the same prices we pay, some drugs are less expensive. This is simple supply and demand economics...

(2) The Canadian government sometimes puts price caps in place. This allows the drug companies to make some profit on the sales (if there were no profit, they would pull the drug from the Canadian market), but it does not allow for enough profit to justify to enormous R&D costs.

You cannot get the drug advances we are seeing without prices that can produce profit margins high enough to justify the R&D expense. If you want to live the rest of time with basically the same selection of drugs we currently have, it would be easy to sell them at dramatically lower prices. However, I have never heard of anyone being willing to stand pat with our current selection of drugs...so R&D is necessary and profit margins for the drug companies must follow...so you get "crazy" prices on some drugs...

ACME

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AcmeFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35670 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/6/2003 8:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I really don't know. Do they have patent protection? Are they regulated? Different demand curve?

Patent protection: yes
Regulated: yes (socialized medicine)
Different demand curve: YES!!!!

Drug companies make a profit in Canada or they would not sell there...but the profit margin is much smaller than it is in the United States. I suspect that profit margin is too low to justify the level of R&D they require for their drug development. I'm *sure* it is not high enough to justify the amount of free pharmaceuticals they send to some of the developing nations.

ACME

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AcmeFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35671 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/6/2003 9:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I know some people say that noone should profit off of something that is require to live.

Some do say that...but I believe that is a very naive way to think personally. If you don't allow profit on drug sales, why would anyone invest their money in the development of new drugs? If nobody will invest in R&D for new drugs, we either live with the current selection of the government does the R&D. The government will never be as efficient at developing drugs as Merck, Pfizer, etc. so drug development will either be slower, more expensive, or both.

I don't think too many people want to slow development...and if the R&D is more expensive, the net cost might end up the same despite the removal of profit from the picture.

AS a percent of revenues there are very few industries that spend as much on research as pharm companies.

Are there any? The only industry I can come up with off hand is defense...those guys spend a lot on R&D. But is it at the same level relative to revenues? I have no idea.

Just an aside, I heard an interesting stat yesterday that, while not directly related to drug costs, might make it easier to understand their higher costs here relative to other places. Currently in the United States, we pay about 10 cents of every dollar of income on food-related items. This is the lowest level in the world and the lowest level in recorded history. Since we are spending so little on food (relatively), maybe higher costs in some other areas are reasonable??? Just a thought...

ACME

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jedenison Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35672 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/6/2003 9:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Acmefool

While pharm companies are still making a profit in Canada that is not the case in alot of other countries. Take a look at what the AIDS activists have been able to do for Africa. Most companies have lost the ability to even charge for production costs for these drugs. They are literally being given away for free. It is interesting to note though that as the activists have increased the availability of these drugs by high pressure tactics they have reduced the amount of new research going on into new treatments and vaccines.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AcmeFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35673 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/6/2003 9:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
While pharm companies are still making a profit in Canada that is not the case in alot of other countries.

I know...that's why I said "I'm *sure* it [the profit margin in Canada] is not high enough to justify the amount of free pharmaceuticals they send to some of the developing nations."

:^)

ACME

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bigcaat Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35674 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/6/2003 11:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Should all cars be price controlled so that everyone can afford to buy one?

No. There should be accessible, affordable public transportation for everyone.

-------------
The reason some drugs are cheaper in Canada is the government forces the pharm companies to sell the products at a fixed price.

Bingo.

--------------
If everyone was charged market rates our cost sould come down.

Sure. And pharmaceutical companies are hurting. We pay more because Canada cares enough about their people to provide them with medical care. Uh, huh. It's their fault.

-------------
There is a reason the US is the source for most new medicies and treatments.

Yes. Because the US gives them carte blanch (sp?). The government cares more about letting big business run rough-shod over the American public, so it can get it's campaign contributions, than it does about the health and welfare of the American people.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jedenison Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35675 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/6/2003 11:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
What new medicine, or treatment did the US government create? If the US government creates a new drug then they can sell it without regard to profit. In reality the only thing the gov't does for new medicines is to increase the cost. Over 25% of the cost of drug research is due to compliance with FDA regulations. The paperwork to submit a new drug application is taller than the Eifel tower and can take over 2 years for approval. Once the drug is produced the FDA can walk into the production facility and shut it down for almost any reason. THe FDA will never say that steps XYZ need to be taken but rather will publish a rule that says the operation must maintain complete records. THe auditor then gets to decide what a complete record is. If they want something you never thought of yuor facility is down for several years, the patents on the drugs are gone and so is your company.

If you really care about the American people you would be pushing for less and more efficent regulation of the drug industry not a government run health care program. Pharm companies and teh medical industry are the reason life expectancy rates have risen so much in the last 100 years in this country. Inact sociaized medicine and watch the stagnation in new drug discoveries, and treatments. New diseases are being identified, viruses mutate every day, new and more resistant infections are growing and the government is not going to present the solution. Private industry with the desire for profit is the best chance to solve these problems.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35676 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/6/2003 12:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
If you really care about the American people you would be pushing for less and more efficent regulation of the drug industry not a government run health care program. Pharm companies and teh medical industry are the reason life expectancy rates have risen so much in the last 100 years in this country. Inact sociaized medicine and watch the stagnation in new drug discoveries, and treatments. New diseases are being identified, viruses mutate every day, new and more resistant infections are growing and the government is not going to present the solution. Private industry with the desire for profit is the best chance to solve these problems.

I agree. Americans often complain about American healthcare and talk about the Canadian healthcare system as being some sort of model to be followed, but the truth is that *many* Canadians come to the US for medical treatment because of the *quality* and *availability*.

Too many people think that you can get something for nothing. You simply can't cut the cost without decreasing the quality and availability. It's an unfortunate fact of life.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: decath Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35677 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/6/2003 2:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I agree. Americans often complain about American healthcare and talk about the Canadian healthcare system as being some sort of model to be followed, but the truth is that *many* Canadians come to the US for medical treatment because of the *quality* and *availability*.

Too many people think that you can get something for nothing. You simply can't cut the cost without decreasing the quality and availability. It's an unfortunate fact of life.


I agree too!

Unfortunately, it is very unlikely that you will convince these people that they are not OWED anything! They are part of the problem! They want, want, and want without ever giving and they certainly never offer any meaningful solutions. Apparently they believe the government has a mysterious stash of trillions that only the productive (wealthy to them) have access to!

I ran into this mentality over and over when I used to volunteer for a Christian ministry that helped distribute food, clothing and basic necessities for the less fortunate. Most of the money, time and resources we put into it went totally thankless and unfortunately, the vast majority wanted a free handout without any responsibility to go with it. It was fairly easy to find work for them but they did not want it. There was no work involved to get freebees from the government and then make the rounds to all the local non-profits. These people constantly whined about what they were OWED in life. It was the greedy businesses or the President that kept them from prosperity. It was their bad parents.
Their predicaments were never the results of their own actions, of course.

People like this are the ultimate whiners!

Ok lets bump up income taxes so that everybody making $50k or more pays 50% and those making $100k or more pay 75% in income taxes. We may be able to have free education all the way up to a doctorate. We can have complete socialized medical care. Free food, clothing and shelter for all. Then after about 4 years, if the economy doesn't totally crater which it would, the same whiners would be complaining that the government does not provide them with 3000 square feet homes, big screen TV's and new cars.

If they can't be satisfied in the greatest, prosperous, most free country that has ever existed on this planet, then they will never be content!

decath

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jrr7 Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35678 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/6/2003 4:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
In reality the only thing the gov't does for new medicines is to increase the cost.

Theoretically the government is supposed to make sure that the medicine is safe before it is allowed on the market. There are arguments on both sides of the fence -- some people think that the FDA is taking bribes from the drug companies and rushing unsafe drugs onto the market (and there is some evidence that it has happened occasionally).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jrr7 Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35679 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/6/2003 4:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
the truth is that *many* Canadians come to the US for medical treatment

Are these Canadians rich or are they poor?

Which system is the "best" depends on your point of view.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35680 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/6/2003 8:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Theoretically the government is supposed to make sure that the medicine is safe before it is allowed on the market.

According to what theory?

In theory, people injured by dangerous drugs could sue the manufacturer for damages. The government could also prosecute in the criminal courts. This would give incentives for companies to make safer drugs, but it wouldn't keep potentially life-saving drugs out of the hands of the terminally ill who have very little to lose by trying the drugs.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: buzman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35681 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/7/2003 7:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>>>>Theoretically the government is supposed to make sure that the medicine is safe before it is allowed on the market.<<<<<

According to what theory?

Theory, how 'bout the JOB of the Food and Drug Administration.

buzman


Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35682 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/7/2003 11:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Theory, how 'bout the JOB of the Food and Drug Administration.

So, basically, because the Food and Drug Administration exists, *that* is its justification for its existence?

Don't assume that just because an organization performs a job that it *should* perform that job.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35683 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/7/2003 12:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
MadCapitalist: "In theory, people injured by dangerous drugs could sue the manufacturer for damages."

In theory, nice qualifier. In reality, even if the lawsuit is won, collection is not necessarily an easy manner.

"The government could also prosecute in the criminal courts."

How do you throw a corporation in jail? Do you plan on holding all corporate executives responsible (maybe everyone vice-president and above)? Or maybe it should be all shareholders, because they own the company? Why punish agents instead of principals?

"This would give incentives for companies to make safer drugs, but it wouldn't keep potentially life-saving drugs out of the hands of the terminally ill who have very little to lose by trying the drugs."

B.S. You really believe that responsible companies would not self-regulate if executives were at risk of jail time.

Regards, JAFO




Print the post Back To Top
Author: jrr7 Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35689 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/7/2003 4:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
MadCapitalist wrote:

[assuming you mean, under a totally market-based drug system]
people injured by dangerous drugs could sue the manufacturer for damages

not if they're dead. In that case their relatives would have to sue. And no amount of money can make up for the loss of a human being.

Also, not if the company is bankrupt, nor if the responsible people have fled to the Cayman Islands.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: goodeeds Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35690 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/8/2003 8:53 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
We pay more because Canada cares enough about their people to provide them with medical care. Uh, huh. It's their fault.

Catt,

You missed a couple words in the above sentence. It should have read:

We pay more because the Canadian federal government forces their taxpayers to pay for medical care.

That is how Canada provides their people medical care. Don't forget where all governments get their funds. I worked in Canada for five years. Ask the working Canadians how happy they are with their tax rates.

If you don't like it in the US, remember it can always get worse.

Dan
Drafting a nay


Print the post Back To Top
Author: bigcaat Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35692 of 75794
Subject: Re: Bush and the self employed Date: 2/8/2003 11:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
If you don't like it in the US, remember it can always get worse.

Yes. And it is getting more so, day by day. The current administration is making sure of that.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (33) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement