Got to love that GW!

[cmccuist]

Originally posted by techweenie
Thanks for the question, cmccuist. Not sure it's come up before.

I feel that partial privatization of Social Security is a good idea. But only on a 'clean slate' basis.

IMO, since the mid '70s, when SS "surpluses" were first raided to balance the budget, the idea of saving for yourself was corrupted into 'present generation pays for present retiress.' Under that plan, there will be only a handful of actual wage earners for every retiree within some of our lifetimes.

That is a completely untenable situation.

So my feeling is that we need to solve the problem in the medium-term before we completely change how the system works.

BTW, the financial industry is looking at an incredible windfall if/when 'partial privatization' comes about.

I agree with the term "raiding". Just for arguments sake, let's say there was a tax on gasoline. And the tax increase was sold to the public on the basis that the revenues were going to be used for education. Instead the money was used for a salary increase for congressmen. The OUTRAGE!

Where is the outrage that billions of SS tax revenue is used for every line item in the budget, rather than to pay out SS benefits.

I think the best move ever by the governments was the 401k. That, to me, is a form of privatization of SS in that it's a way for us to save for our retirement - tax defered. EVeryone's pretty happy about the way that plan has worked out.

Maybe more of the same could be proposed in congress.

[gaijinda]

So, how about it.. Who is willing to work till 70? Come on you boomers - not what can your country do for you, but what can you do for your country??

[SLO-BOB]

This is a test............

[gaijinda]

While we are at it, lets freeze all medical research right now!! Cancer, AIDS, Alziheimers, you name it. Cheap, low cost drugs for all! And in 20 years, we will be using the same 2004 technology.

Sebring - what is a "reasonable price" anyway? How about a government official dictating your pay?

The drug companies are too blame for this one. We (in the US) bear the brunt of the R&D, then they sell to socialized systems on the cheap. BTW - look at the Canadian research budget. Not much..

[SLO-BOB]

This is a test............

[Superman]

Yep. Actually prevailing wage is a contractor-protection law. It only incidentally benefits workers.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by Sebring77
Good God! "Re-imported drugs"???? Talk about putting down the crack pipe. How can you make this so complicated? The drugs come from America. They go to Canada for a certain price. They are also sold here for a number exponentially higher than that certain price Canada paid-same drugs! Do I really have to spell it out yet again? The drugs don't have to go to Canada to magically become cheaper and then sent back. They just need to be sold for a reasonable price right here in the first place.

I take issue with the drugs being the same. YES, I know chemically they are the same. The issue here is what you have to do to bring a drug to market in the US.

I used to peddle spare parts for Turbo machinery. Rosemont would sell me pressure transmitters. At one time, they had different options, depending on where the transmitter was sent in thw world. Was there any physical difference in the transmitters? No. The markings. The testing. The certifications. In Europe, they require different certs. So, even though the product was essentially identical, it was different because of the certs.

The drugs in the US are different than those in Canada. To bring the drugs to market in the US took longer and cost more, therefore _we_ have to pay more. Even though they are fundamentally the same chemical.

If you really want to fix the prescription drug issue, we need a single standard instead of multiple world wide standards. And, unfortunately, the world is creating _more_ not less standards (CCC - Chinese Compulsary Certification).

[SLO-BOB]

This is a test............

[350HP930]

While I was at college one of my best friends worked for several years in a government funded drug research lab while getting his Phd in pharmacology.

Did you know that the majority of new drugs that enter the market are the result of our tax dollars being spent at universities and research labs and not the private funds spent by drug manufacturers?

The fact is that drug companies spend more money marketing drugs to the public and doctors than they do on anything else including research.

I see some people here have swallowed the industry propaganda for outrageous US prices, hook line and sinker.

The fact that other countries are better at regulating their medical costs are the reason why the same drugs are cheaper elsewhere and its not like canada, europe or asia is lagging the US in medical technology.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by Sebring77
I understand what you are saying about difficulties and differences in standards. But-many of the drugs aren't just chemically the same-they are exactly the same, from the same production batches, with the same trademark, from the same manufacturer. Valium for example. You can get it in Canada or here. Same exact thing but at a different cost. They just basically got on a different truck and went to Canada instead of somewhere in the U.S.

Sentance #2. The Drugs are the same. Yep. Same batch. Not the same box. You have to have French on the ones destined for Canada.

They are the same drugs, but they are not the same. Different certs means they are different. These are US certified drugs. That makes them different.

Did you know that the majority of new drugs that enter the market are the result of our tax dollars being spent at universities and research labs and not the private funds spent by drug manufacturers?

And the Drug companies pay for the research. They also pay for all of the work to test and certify the drugs. And they spend lots of money developing drugs too.

Hey - easy analogy. Price a car in Califorina and price the same model in any other state (except NY and Mass). Should we _force_ the car Companies to charge the same for a car in California, as the rest of the US?

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by red-beard
Hey - easy analogy. Price a car in Califorina and price the same model in any other state (except NY and Mass). Should we _force_ the car Companies to charge the same for a car in California, as the rest of the US?

Here, here.

Flip side: Wouldn't it be equally beneficial to raise drug prices outside the US, and keep the profits INSIDE the US? This would restore the trade imbalance and increase tax revenues.

[gaijinda]

And one other thing drug companies pay for - when a drug is show to be statistically slightly more dangerous than a glass of water - hello lawsuits! Hello class-action zillions for the lawyers! The creation, testing and marketing of any drug sould not be Russian roulette.

[350HP930]

Canadians can also sue when they are injured by dangerous drugs. I guess your excuse doesn't apply up there through.