" wrote:

On Oct 28, 11:58*pm, wrote:
" wrote:
On Oct 27, 10:34 pm, wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

I'm not commenting one way or the other about Medicare, part D or any
similar interference in the market. I'm simply using the post to
correct the two erroneous assertions: that new drugs have to be
financed from inflated prices for old drugs and that we're subsidizing
the drug cost for other countries.

Why do you keep going on about prices being fixed?

Because that was the premise of the post.

Not my post (the one you're replying to).

And finally, even if they did seek financing, what fools
would invest knowing the govt was going to screw around
and set the price for the drugs?

And once again you bring in a red herring.

No, just the premise of the post that I responded to.

You responded to my post.

You're fixated on these price controls eh?

No, it was the premise of the post I replied to.

No it wasn't!

It's not the profits from the MAC (do they actually make a profit?)
that are used but the cash flow that is generated by the MAC which
allows Apple to produce the iPhone etc. You're using the wrong word!

BS. If they did not have profits over decades there would be
no development money. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

It's advisable to read ALL the post before you reply.

The profits have nothing to do with it except in the generalized sense
that profits are generally part of revenue and the revenue generally
represents inward cash and of course if you can't make a profit
eventually you'll go out of business.

Profits have everything to do with it. You don't even think they
make a profit on Macs? How clueless are you?

I have no idea if they make a profit on Mac's. I didn't realize that
was a pre-requisite for correcting your errors.

One would have thought that a rabid capitalist like yourself would
understand that what the drug companies do or propose is the socialist
way: eventually make everyone pay the same for their drugs!

Nothing socialist about it.

Maybe you're right: more communist than socialist g.