Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll use the pharmaceutical industry as an example. Below is a link to some financial data for pharmaceutical companies, in 1999. Yes, it's a bit dated, but I don't have time to look for more updated information, right now.
Look at the CEO compensation, at the bottom. That's where your money goes (at least some of it).
Beyond that, we have pharmaceutical companies advertising prescription medications, on television. I can only assume they are trying to create a demand. That's immoral, IMO. It should be solely the discretion of the doctor, whether or not to prescribe a medication. To try to circumvent this is unethical. Why not provide lower cost medication, instead of spending money trying to increase demand? If their drug is good enough, doctors will prescribe it. There's no need to artificially inflate demand.
Where does CEO compensation fit in with this? I agree that we need some profit incentive, for drug companies. It's what motivates them to create new drugs. But they have a conflict of interest. Healthy patients are not in their best interest, it's not good for business. A medicated populace is in their best interests. These CEOs are paid based on profit and loss statements, stock performance, and the like. They are not paid based on the impact they've made on public health.
That's why government is needed. We have a conflict of interest.
Having universal health care will not alleviate the issue you brought up. Pharamaceutical companies will still exist, but instead of just spending their profits on advertising on TV, it will also be spent on more lobbyists to promote their products as the most acceptable medicine to be compensated for. Though healthy patients aren't in their best interests, patient who are cured or who have benefitted from their drugs are. And, aren't these the desired results we expect from pharmaceuticals? Like in any free market, those who produce the better product will generally generate the most profit. If the leadership in the companies help generate these profits, they deserve to be well compensated.
If your solution would work for public health, why not expand it to food distribution, private transportation, and entertainment? Why wouldn't government-operated grocery stores, auto dealerships, and cable companies be better for the poor? Why not have taxes from the rich be used to provide these necessities/services for those who can't afford it?
will also be spent on more lobbyists to promote their products as the most acceptable medicine to be compensated for. Though healthy patients aren't in their best interests, patient who are cured or who have ...
_______________________________________ lobbyists; that's part of the problem PAC's wining and dining senators- this does not serve the public for a greater good. It serves corporate profit only.
will also be spent on more lobbyists to promote their products as the most acceptable medicine to be compensated for. Though healthy patients aren't in their best interests, patient who are cured or who have ...
_______________________________________ lobbyists; that's part of the problem PAC's wining and dining senators- this does not serve the public for a greater good. It serves corporate profit only.
But, corporate profits serve the public by providing new medicines and services. Without profits, medicines would cease to exist.
This is just one of many articles on the issue. Merck makes a vaccine for the HPV virus. Now they are trying to make that vaccination mandatory. They're trying to recoop their losses from Vioxx. If Merck is so great, why are they in financial trouble? Or are they even in financial trouble? Maybe their CEO just wants a bigger bonus.
This is just one of many articles on the issue. Merck makes a vaccine for the HPV virus. Now they are trying to make that vaccination mandatory. They're trying to recoop their losses from Vioxx. If Merck is so great, why are they in financial trouble? Or are they even in financial trouble? Maybe their CEO just wants a bigger bonus.
No company can MAKE anthing become mandantory. If this gets passed, blame only your legislators and yourself for not making your opinions heard.
I never said to eliminate profit. There just needs to be some sort of mitigation, some way to hold the industry in check.
Free markets would be perfect, if every one was moral and ethical. Unfortunately, they are not.
Actually, I should've referenced a RELATIVELY free market. The problem now is that the market isn't exactly free. Too many regulations and too many taxes have driven the prices of doing business and developing new products to the point where many companies must develop and adopt certain strategies that they wouldn't normally do in a true free market. In a true free market immoral and unethical business would not survive.
Actually, I should've referenced a RELATIVELY free market. The problem now is that the market isn't exactly free. Too many regulations and too many taxes have driven the prices of doing business and developing new products to the point where many companies must develop and adopt certain strategies that they wouldn't normally do in a true free market. In a true free market immoral and unethical business would not survive.
I disagree. Regardless of the system, someone will find a way to exploit it.
Our voices are drowned out by the money from corporate lobbyists.
But, there is a judgement day, usually in November.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.