OBAMA approval PLUMMETS to a dreadful 40%

[Mr Khan]

Viper1 said:

The drug costs less in France because as I noted above, they have generics for it there.

thx1139 said:
Viper1,

You keep going on about others anecdotal comments. Yet I havent seen you post 1 link to a study supporting your points.

As for Lasik, why wouldn't the cost for a procedure that relies heavily on cutting edge technology (lasers and computers) reduce in cost over time. Most items that are computer based reduce over time. Look at the supercomputer you probably have in your pocket.

Kasz216,

Ezra Klein was 3 of the 13 sources and the major piece from Ezra Klein is just an industry report he provided a link to.

I addressesd the anecdote thing already.  Why bring it back up?   As for links to studies, no thank you.  Every study can be funded by a source that wants a desired outcome making them nothing more than talking points for the financier.  Besides, I prefer to use the less corruptable faculties like logic and reason.  If you let your mind be made up by some paid for study versus your own capacity for reason, then you are willingly being lead just like the study commissioner hoped you would.  You become their unpaid spokesperson.

And does not the majority of the healthcare industry now revolve around high end computers and technology?   Surgery times and recovery are reduced greatly thanks to technological innovations.  This increases patient volume, reduces hospital supply use per patatient, and so and so on yet the fees applied are still insane.

Tell me again why an 11 cent Tylenol is charged $5 on your hospital bill?   I do wish to hear your reasoning.

How can they? Pretty sure international trade laws on Intellectual Property protect drugs, such that the screwey "one chemical compound, one company's possession," setup works worldwide, unless they're being reproduced illegally