Nasty Beloni Unveils 95% Tax On Prescription Meds

[Papageorgio]

I wonder if anyone understands that prices in other countries are less because their governments purchase the drugs at the full price and then retail them for a loss to the population?

In essence, drugs in other countries are not less expensive. They are subsidized.

For the record, price controls never work.

Price Controls - Econlib

We massively subsidize drug companies and have high, unaffordable costs.


— A new report shows taxpayers often foot the bill to help develop new drugs, but it's private companies that reap the lion's share of profits.

In one case, the federal government spent $484 million developing the cancer drug Taxol — derived from the bark of Pacific yew trees — and it was marketed under an agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb starting in 1993. The medical community called it a promising new drug in the fight against ovarian and breast cancer.

Since then, Bristol-Myers Squibb has sold $9 billion worth of Taxol worldwide, according the the General Accounting Office report released today.

Taxpayers End Up Funding Drug Companies

To note, I supported my position, you did not.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

I don't care. The government paid to create the drug.

I know you don’t. Why would facts be important.

So stupid. What the profits are on some random drug makes no difference. Like we are all follow drug prices?

Address the issue.

I did, what you sell it for isn’t as important as what you keep. Either you have no clue as to how business works or you are being extremely dishonest because of your agenda. Would you invest in a company that Had nine billion in sales or that made nine billion in profit?

Why you are hurling insults at me for asking you to support your position, which you claimed you did.

 

[Papageorgio]

Gingrich and DeSantis: Pelosi drug plan is hazardous to your health – would hurt efforts to develop new drugs

By allowing bureaucrats to dictate drug prices, Pelosi is laying the groundwork for "Medicare-for-all" – which would have bureaucrats dictate all health care prices.

From the article:
retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines.
------------------------------------------------
it would not affect new meds. You mean health ins?

If I were you I wouldn't read the propaganda lies from any far right radical extremist on this board.

This is the truth:

Pelosi unveils plan to curb drug prices

From the article:

Pelosi's plan, which she laid out at a morning news conference, would allow the government to negotiate the price of insulin and as many as 250 name-brand drugs each year for Medicare beneficiaries -- an idea that many Republicans are against but that President Donald Trump embraced during his 2016 campaign. Drug companies also would have to offer agreed-on prices to private insurers or face harsh penalties, which could give the package broader appeal with voters. The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65% of the previous year's sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refused to offer the government's price, to a maximum of 95%. Pelosi said that the House Energy and Commerce Committee would hold the first hearing on the bill Wednesday and that she hoped the committees of jurisdiction would begin drafting final legislation next month.

For the brain dead far right radical extremists on the board:

No company will ever pay that. They will lower their prices on drugs. When they know that most of the profits will go to taxes, they will choose to lower their prices.

It's the same way our nation controlled greed before reagan and greed became good.

We used to have high taxes on high wages and salaries. Not expecting to collect the tax dollars but to discourage greed. It worked well for many decades until reagan.

When those at the top aren't allowed to squeeze every penny from a company everyone benefits. Even the greedy people.

Greedy people will lower their drug prices instead of see that money go to the government in taxes so no one will pay one penny of that penalty.

Anyone who actually believes the OP without finding the truth, is making a very big mistake.

It’s coersion.

She is taking a page from tramp's playbook, which he continuously uses.

So you are in favor of Trumps tactics only if the agree with your politics? More of your party before country BS. Now, runaway.

 

[pknopp]

We massively subsidize drug companies and have high, unaffordable costs.


— A new report shows taxpayers often foot the bill to help develop new drugs, but it's private companies that reap the lion's share of profits.

In one case, the federal government spent $484 million developing the cancer drug Taxol — derived from the bark of Pacific yew trees — and it was marketed under an agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb starting in 1993. The medical community called it a promising new drug in the fight against ovarian and breast cancer.

Since then, Bristol-Myers Squibb has sold $9 billion worth of Taxol worldwide, according the the General Accounting Office report released today.

Taxpayers End Up Funding Drug Companies

To note, I supported my position, you did not.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

I don't care. The government paid to create the drug.

I know you don’t. Why would facts be important.

So stupid. What the profits are on some random drug makes no difference. Like we are all follow drug prices?

Address the issue.

I did, what you sell it for isn’t as important as what you keep. Either you have no clue as to how business works or you are being extremely dishonest because of your agenda. Would you invest in a company that Had nine billion in sales or that made nine billion in profit?

Why you are hurling insults at me for asking you to support your position, which you claimed you did.

I disagree that we should be seeking to retire on the health of others. "Shareholder value" should never come before the lives and health of people.

 

[Papageorgio]

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

I don't care. The government paid to create the drug.

I know you don’t. Why would facts be important.

So stupid. What the profits are on some random drug makes no difference. Like we are all follow drug prices?

Address the issue.

I did, what you sell it for isn’t as important as what you keep. Either you have no clue as to how business works or you are being extremely dishonest because of your agenda. Would you invest in a company that Had nine billion in sales or that made nine billion in profit?

Why you are hurling insults at me for asking you to support your position, which you claimed you did.

I disagree that we should be seeking to retire on the health of others. "Shareholder value" should never come before the lives and health of people.

Shareholder profits? Now, playing on emotions I see, I am simply asking what the profit was on the 9 billion in sales. If there is no profit, there is no one retiring on someone else's health.

Furthermore, I never claimed shareholders value should come before health and lives, you are simply diverting because you can't or won't answer a question.

 

[pknopp]

I don't care. The government paid to create the drug.

I know you don’t. Why would facts be important.

So stupid. What the profits are on some random drug makes no difference. Like we are all follow drug prices?

Address the issue.

I did, what you sell it for isn’t as important as what you keep. Either you have no clue as to how business works or you are being extremely dishonest because of your agenda. Would you invest in a company that Had nine billion in sales or that made nine billion in profit?

Why you are hurling insults at me for asking you to support your position, which you claimed you did.

I disagree that we should be seeking to retire on the health of others. "Shareholder value" should never come before the lives and health of people.

Shareholder profits? Now, playing on emotions I see, I am simply asking what the profit was on the 9 billion in sales. If there is no profit, there is no one retiring on someone else's health.

Furthermore, I never claimed shareholders value should come before health and lives, you are simply diverting because you can't or won't answer a question.

So great. No shareholders in health care.

P.S. The government paid for the research and development so all 9 billion is profit for someone.

 

[Papageorgio]

I know you don’t. Why would facts be important.

So stupid. What the profits are on some random drug makes no difference. Like we are all follow drug prices?

Address the issue.

I did, what you sell it for isn’t as important as what you keep. Either you have no clue as to how business works or you are being extremely dishonest because of your agenda. Would you invest in a company that Had nine billion in sales or that made nine billion in profit?

Why you are hurling insults at me for asking you to support your position, which you claimed you did.

I disagree that we should be seeking to retire on the health of others. "Shareholder value" should never come before the lives and health of people.

Shareholder profits? Now, playing on emotions I see, I am simply asking what the profit was on the 9 billion in sales. If there is no profit, there is no one retiring on someone else's health.

Furthermore, I never claimed shareholders value should come before health and lives, you are simply diverting because you can't or won't answer a question.

So great. No shareholders in health care.

P.S. The government paid for the research and development so all 9 billion is profit for someone.

Not sure about your first statement since that was a deflection by you.

So, when a corporation makes a product, there is no cost? There is no overhead? There are no ingredients? So, the nine billion is not all profit, it seems you don't have a clue has to how business works.

 

[Frannie]

Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines,
making sure the Dems don't get elected.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday released a much-anticipated plan detailing House Democrats’ ideas to change the way people get prescription drugs. At the heart of the plan is a retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines. The only way out of paying this tax is if the drug becomes subject to strict government price controls and price caps. The House is expected to vote on the plan this fall.

This “Pelosi Medicine Tax” could apply to the 250 most popular prescription drugs in the country and must apply to at least 25 of them. The tax is not on profits from the sale of the drug, but on the gross receipts from the sale. For example, if a medicine is sold for $100, a tax of $95 is owed, regardless of the cost of selling the drug.

The tax would apply to anyone who needs a prescription drug, and that’s just about everyone — seniors, veterans, women, you name it. The Pelosi Medicine Tax is not limited to just Medicare; it would apply to all sales of an affected drug, everywhere in the healthcare system.

Needless to say, such a tax would cripple access to life-saving prescription medicines and would very quickly mean government rationing and waiting lists. A tax of this size is next of kin to a Venezuelan-style socialist takeover of the bulk of the prescription drug industry. By having to turn all their money over to the government, the pharmaceutical companies would become captive corporations of the government itself — a kind of post office that dispenses pills instead of parcels.

Awaiting the President of all American's tweet on this now.

Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines

In other words Nancy forgot her own meds

 

[CowboyTed]

It's a follow up bill on Trumps plan.

The plan in part borrows from some of Trump's drug pricing agenda, particularly on tying the cost of medicines to cheaper prices often paid in other developed countries. Some of the administration's ideas, however, have been met with skepticism from GOP lawmakers, who are closely aligned with drugmakers.

Trump even seems to still support it.

President Donald Trump hasn't taken a position on the plan, but he offered encouraging remarks on Twitter Thursday evening.

"I like Sen. [Chuck] Grassley’s drug pricing bill very much, and it’s great to see Speaker Pelosi’s bill today. Let’s get it done in a bipartisan way!" he wrote.

Pelosi's new drug plan pressures Trump on campaign pledge

The republicans do not want price controls. They are just fine with prices continuing to rise.

Republicans don't want price controls because price controls never work.
All that happens is that the pharma plants close because they lose money.

There is stupid things been said here but this makes you the prime dumb fuck of the day...

So you think that Pharma companies are going to close production plants over the price of producing pills...

You could say you are clueless... Lets just say other comments you make should be take with how dumb this one is... `

 

[pknopp]

So stupid. What the profits are on some random drug makes no difference. Like we are all follow drug prices?

Address the issue.

I did, what you sell it for isn’t as important as what you keep. Either you have no clue as to how business works or you are being extremely dishonest because of your agenda. Would you invest in a company that Had nine billion in sales or that made nine billion in profit?

Why you are hurling insults at me for asking you to support your position, which you claimed you did.

I disagree that we should be seeking to retire on the health of others. "Shareholder value" should never come before the lives and health of people.

Shareholder profits? Now, playing on emotions I see, I am simply asking what the profit was on the 9 billion in sales. If there is no profit, there is no one retiring on someone else's health.

Furthermore, I never claimed shareholders value should come before health and lives, you are simply diverting because you can't or won't answer a question.

So great. No shareholders in health care.

P.S. The government paid for the research and development so all 9 billion is profit for someone.

Not sure about your first statement since that was a deflection by you.

That has always been my position and my position from beginning.

So, when a corporation makes a product, there is no cost? There is no overhead? There are no ingredients? So, the nine billion is not all profit, it seems you don't have a clue has to how business works.

It's profit for someone. Really irrelevant also you trying to argue there hasnt been profit in 9 billion.

Argue that if you wish. There should be NO shareholders in health care.

 

[bendog]

Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines,
making sure the Dems don't get elected.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday released a much-anticipated plan detailing House Democrats’ ideas to change the way people get prescription drugs. At the heart of the plan is a retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines. The only way out of paying this tax is if the drug becomes subject to strict government price controls and price caps. The House is expected to vote on the plan this fall.

This “Pelosi Medicine Tax” could apply to the 250 most popular prescription drugs in the country and must apply to at least 25 of them. The tax is not on profits from the sale of the drug, but on the gross receipts from the sale. For example, if a medicine is sold for $100, a tax of $95 is owed, regardless of the cost of selling the drug.

The tax would apply to anyone who needs a prescription drug, and that’s just about everyone — seniors, veterans, women, you name it. The Pelosi Medicine Tax is not limited to just Medicare; it would apply to all sales of an affected drug, everywhere in the healthcare system.

Needless to say, such a tax would cripple access to life-saving prescription medicines and would very quickly mean government rationing and waiting lists. A tax of this size is next of kin to a Venezuelan-style socialist takeover of the bulk of the prescription drug industry. By having to turn all their money over to the government, the pharmaceutical companies would become captive corporations of the government itself — a kind of post office that dispenses pills instead of parcels.

Awaiting the President of all American's tweet on this now.

Nancy Pelosi unveils 95% tax proposal on prescription medicines

Do you honestly believe the drivel you linked?
Speaker Nancy Pelosi Unveils Plan To Lower Prescription Drug Costs
Grassley and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., cut a deal in July on legislation that limits out-of-pocket costs for seniors in Medicare's Part D prescription drug program to $3,100 per year starting in 2022.

Grassley moved a draft version of that proposal out of committee over the objection of most Republicans on the Senate Finance panel, who oppose it on free-market principles. His proposal is more modest — the House plan would regulate drug prices more aggressively and outside the scope of Medicare as well — but Grassley is hoping Pelosi's broader bill will help Republicans rally around his.

Grassley has been pitching his proposal to Senate Republicans as the more moderate plan, on an issue generally popular with voters everywhere. He is also warning Republicans that if they do not coalesce around an alternative to offer to the president for his support, Trump could join forces with Pelosi instead.

 

[Papageorgio]

I did, what you sell it for isn’t as important as what you keep. Either you have no clue as to how business works or you are being extremely dishonest because of your agenda. Would you invest in a company that Had nine billion in sales or that made nine billion in profit?

Why you are hurling insults at me for asking you to support your position, which you claimed you did.

I disagree that we should be seeking to retire on the health of others. "Shareholder value" should never come before the lives and health of people.

Shareholder profits? Now, playing on emotions I see, I am simply asking what the profit was on the 9 billion in sales. If there is no profit, there is no one retiring on someone else's health.

Furthermore, I never claimed shareholders value should come before health and lives, you are simply diverting because you can't or won't answer a question.

So great. No shareholders in health care.

P.S. The government paid for the research and development so all 9 billion is profit for someone.

Not sure about your first statement since that was a deflection by you.

That has always been my position and my position from beginning.

So, when a corporation makes a product, there is no cost? There is no overhead? There are no ingredients? So, the nine billion is not all profit, it seems you don't have a clue has to how business works.

It's profit for someone. Really irrelevant also you trying to argue there hasnt been profit in 9 billion.

Argue that if you wish. There should be NO shareholders in health care.

Never said there wasn't any profit, did I? Of course not.

You are purposely clouding my question that you can't answer and now are twisting.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

 

[pknopp]

I disagree that we should be seeking to retire on the health of others. "Shareholder value" should never come before the lives and health of people.

Shareholder profits? Now, playing on emotions I see, I am simply asking what the profit was on the 9 billion in sales. If there is no profit, there is no one retiring on someone else's health.

Furthermore, I never claimed shareholders value should come before health and lives, you are simply diverting because you can't or won't answer a question.

So great. No shareholders in health care.

P.S. The government paid for the research and development so all 9 billion is profit for someone.

Not sure about your first statement since that was a deflection by you.

That has always been my position and my position from beginning.

So, when a corporation makes a product, there is no cost? There is no overhead? There are no ingredients? So, the nine billion is not all profit, it seems you don't have a clue has to how business works.

It's profit for someone. Really irrelevant also you trying to argue there hasnt been profit in 9 billion.

Argue that if you wish. There should be NO shareholders in health care.

Never said there wasn't any profit, did I? Of course not.

You are purposely clouding my question that you can't answer and now are twisting.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

It's not the issue. Corporate welfare and greed is. There should have been NO profit since the government paid to create the drug.

 

[Dana7360]

Gingrich and DeSantis: Pelosi drug plan is hazardous to your health – would hurt efforts to develop new drugs



By allowing bureaucrats to dictate drug prices, Pelosi is laying the groundwork for "Medicare-for-all" – which would have bureaucrats dictate all health care prices.

From the article:
retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines.
------------------------------------------------
it would not affect new meds. You mean health ins?

If I were you I wouldn't read the propaganda lies from any far right radical extremist on this board.

This is the truth:

Pelosi unveils plan to curb drug prices

From the article:

Pelosi's plan, which she laid out at a morning news conference, would allow the government to negotiate the price of insulin and as many as 250 name-brand drugs each year for Medicare beneficiaries -- an idea that many Republicans are against but that President Donald Trump embraced during his 2016 campaign. Drug companies also would have to offer agreed-on prices to private insurers or face harsh penalties, which could give the package broader appeal with voters. The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65% of the previous year's sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refused to offer the government's price, to a maximum of 95%. Pelosi said that the House Energy and Commerce Committee would hold the first hearing on the bill Wednesday and that she hoped the committees of jurisdiction would begin drafting final legislation next month.

For the brain dead far right radical extremists on the board:

No company will ever pay that. They will lower their prices on drugs. When they know that most of the profits will go to taxes, they will choose to lower their prices.

It's the same way our nation controlled greed before reagan and greed became good.

We used to have high taxes on high wages and salaries. Not expecting to collect the tax dollars but to discourage greed. It worked well for many decades until reagan.

When those at the top aren't allowed to squeeze every penny from a company everyone benefits. Even the greedy people.

Greedy people will lower their drug prices instead of see that money go to the government in taxes so no one will pay one penny of that penalty.

Anyone who actually believes the OP without finding the truth, is making a very big mistake.

It’s coersion.

No it's not. Our government does things like that all the time.

Reagan did it with drunk driving. In the 80s he signed a bill that said if a state doesn't raise their legal drinking age to 21 they won't get any money for their highways.

So as not to lose that money for roads in their state, all states raised their drinking age to 21.

This is the same thing. The company is very free to not lower their prices but they will face a consequence for it. Up to 95% of the sales will go to the government in taxes.

They will lower their prices, everyone will benefit.

Leave it to a far right radical extremist to be against anything that is good for and helps the people of our nation instead of making already filthy rich people even more richer.

I hope the bill passes. Most Americans will too.

 

[Papageorgio]

Shareholder profits? Now, playing on emotions I see, I am simply asking what the profit was on the 9 billion in sales. If there is no profit, there is no one retiring on someone else's health.

Furthermore, I never claimed shareholders value should come before health and lives, you are simply diverting because you can't or won't answer a question.

So great. No shareholders in health care.

P.S. The government paid for the research and development so all 9 billion is profit for someone.

Not sure about your first statement since that was a deflection by you.

That has always been my position and my position from beginning.

So, when a corporation makes a product, there is no cost? There is no overhead? There are no ingredients? So, the nine billion is not all profit, it seems you don't have a clue has to how business works.

It's profit for someone. Really irrelevant also you trying to argue there hasnt been profit in 9 billion.

Argue that if you wish. There should be NO shareholders in health care.

Never said there wasn't any profit, did I? Of course not.

You are purposely clouding my question that you can't answer and now are twisting.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

It's not the issue. Corporate welfare and greed is. There should have been NO profit since the government paid to create the drug.

So then, if there is no profit, then the government needs to produce it?

 

[WillowTree]

Gingrich and DeSantis: Pelosi drug plan is hazardous to your health – would hurt efforts to develop new drugs



By allowing bureaucrats to dictate drug prices, Pelosi is laying the groundwork for "Medicare-for-all" – which would have bureaucrats dictate all health care prices.

From the article:
retroactive 95% tax on up to 250 of the most common medicines.
------------------------------------------------
it would not affect new meds. You mean health ins?

If I were you I wouldn't read the propaganda lies from any far right radical extremist on this board.

This is the truth:

Pelosi unveils plan to curb drug prices

From the article:

Pelosi's plan, which she laid out at a morning news conference, would allow the government to negotiate the price of insulin and as many as 250 name-brand drugs each year for Medicare beneficiaries -- an idea that many Republicans are against but that President Donald Trump embraced during his 2016 campaign. Drug companies also would have to offer agreed-on prices to private insurers or face harsh penalties, which could give the package broader appeal with voters. The hit to noncompliant companies would be even stiffer than the penalty in a draft of her plan that circulated last week. The penalty extracted from a company unwilling to comply would be equal to 65% of the previous year's sales of the drug in question, but would gradually increase by 10 percentage points every quarter that the company refused to offer the government's price, to a maximum of 95%. Pelosi said that the House Energy and Commerce Committee would hold the first hearing on the bill Wednesday and that she hoped the committees of jurisdiction would begin drafting final legislation next month.

For the brain dead far right radical extremists on the board:

No company will ever pay that. They will lower their prices on drugs. When they know that most of the profits will go to taxes, they will choose to lower their prices.

It's the same way our nation controlled greed before reagan and greed became good.

We used to have high taxes on high wages and salaries. Not expecting to collect the tax dollars but to discourage greed. It worked well for many decades until reagan.

When those at the top aren't allowed to squeeze every penny from a company everyone benefits. Even the greedy people.

Greedy people will lower their drug prices instead of see that money go to the government in taxes so no one will pay one penny of that penalty.

Anyone who actually believes the OP without finding the truth, is making a very big mistake.

It’s coersion.

No it's not. Our government does things like that all the time.

Reagan did it with drunk driving. In the 80s he signed a bill that said if a state doesn't raise their legal drinking age to 21 they won't get any money for their highways.

So as not to lose that money for roads in their state, all states raised their drinking age to 21.

This is the same thing. The company is very free to not lower their prices but they will face a consequence for it. Up to 95% of the sales will go to the government in taxes.

They will lower their prices, everyone will benefit.

Leave it to a far right radical extremist to be against anything that is good for and helps the people of our nation instead of making already filthy rich people even more richer.

I hope the bill passes. Most Americans will too.

Bullshit!

 

[WillowTree]

So great. No shareholders in health care.

P.S. The government paid for the research and development so all 9 billion is profit for someone.

Not sure about your first statement since that was a deflection by you.

That has always been my position and my position from beginning.

So, when a corporation makes a product, there is no cost? There is no overhead? There are no ingredients? So, the nine billion is not all profit, it seems you don't have a clue has to how business works.

It's profit for someone. Really irrelevant also you trying to argue there hasnt been profit in 9 billion.

Argue that if you wish. There should be NO shareholders in health care.

Never said there wasn't any profit, did I? Of course not.

You are purposely clouding my question that you can't answer and now are twisting.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

It's not the issue. Corporate welfare and greed is. There should have been NO profit since the government paid to create the drug.

So then, if there is no profit, then the government needs to produce it?

Just think the government takeover of all the big pharmaceuticals. Isn’t that socialism? What could possibly go wrong?

 

[pknopp]

So great. No shareholders in health care.

P.S. The government paid for the research and development so all 9 billion is profit for someone.

Not sure about your first statement since that was a deflection by you.

That has always been my position and my position from beginning.

So, when a corporation makes a product, there is no cost? There is no overhead? There are no ingredients? So, the nine billion is not all profit, it seems you don't have a clue has to how business works.

It's profit for someone. Really irrelevant also you trying to argue there hasnt been profit in 9 billion.

Argue that if you wish. There should be NO shareholders in health care.

Never said there wasn't any profit, did I? Of course not.

You are purposely clouding my question that you can't answer and now are twisting.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

It's not the issue. Corporate welfare and greed is. There should have been NO profit since the government paid to create the drug.

So then, if there is no profit, then the government needs to produce it?

Doesn't matter to me as long as there are no share payouts.

 

[pknopp]

Not sure about your first statement since that was a deflection by you.

That has always been my position and my position from beginning.

So, when a corporation makes a product, there is no cost? There is no overhead? There are no ingredients? So, the nine billion is not all profit, it seems you don't have a clue has to how business works.

It's profit for someone. Really irrelevant also you trying to argue there hasnt been profit in 9 billion.

Argue that if you wish. There should be NO shareholders in health care.

Never said there wasn't any profit, did I? Of course not.

You are purposely clouding my question that you can't answer and now are twisting.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

It's not the issue. Corporate welfare and greed is. There should have been NO profit since the government paid to create the drug.

So then, if there is no profit, then the government needs to produce it?

Just think the government takeover of all the big pharmaceuticals. Isn’t that socialism? What could possibly go wrong?

The government wasn't involved in the creation of the drug in question? You support this type of corporate welfare?

 

[WillowTree]

That has always been my position and my position from beginning.

It's profit for someone. Really irrelevant also you trying to argue there hasnt been profit in 9 billion.

Argue that if you wish. There should be NO shareholders in health care.

Never said there wasn't any profit, did I? Of course not.

You are purposely clouding my question that you can't answer and now are twisting.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

It's not the issue. Corporate welfare and greed is. There should have been NO profit since the government paid to create the drug.

So then, if there is no profit, then the government needs to produce it?

Just think the government takeover of all the big pharmaceuticals. Isn’t that socialism? What could possibly go wrong?

The government wasn't involved in the creation of the drug in question? You support this type of corporate welfare?

All future generations can kiss their asses goodbye, there will be no more research and development. They will probably move to a less hostile country.

 

[Papageorgio]

Not sure about your first statement since that was a deflection by you.

That has always been my position and my position from beginning.

So, when a corporation makes a product, there is no cost? There is no overhead? There are no ingredients? So, the nine billion is not all profit, it seems you don't have a clue has to how business works.

It's profit for someone. Really irrelevant also you trying to argue there hasnt been profit in 9 billion.

Argue that if you wish. There should be NO shareholders in health care.

Never said there wasn't any profit, did I? Of course not.

You are purposely clouding my question that you can't answer and now are twisting.

So to be clear, 26 years, $9 billion in total sales, not total profits. What was the profit for Taxol?

It's not the issue. Corporate welfare and greed is. There should have been NO profit since the government paid to create the drug.

So then, if there is no profit, then the government needs to produce it?

Doesn't matter to me as long as there are no share payouts.

I am against the corporate welfare as it creates an unlevel playing field and if a business can't stay afloat without government support it needs to go. I'm not against a business making a modest profit on a product. 10%-15% is fine.