14th April 04:02
How Insurance/TaxRevenue is subsidizing Pfizer's earnings (allergy down tylenol)
let's think about let's first ****yze wal-marts business practice.
basically, they keep the prices down by paying their workers very less,
by denying them health care insurance, among other reasons. they
basically make the government subsidize their low prices.
now i'd like to prove to you that this is no different than what the
drug companies are doing now: they are making the government subsidize
this is their modus operandi:
1. they create drugs that *ONLY* insured people can afford. let me
relax this statement a little: The only way people (99% of us) can
afford health care is through human intervention in the form of
insurance or some welfare subsidy. if a man earning a nice income of
$60k/year, and he gets a medical issue - say allergy - he still
requires his insurance company to pay for this on his behalf. what
kind of business model exists which earns its profits from government
2. they spend more on marketing than on R&D. another words, they pay
their pharaceutical sales rep top dollars to bribe, wine/dine/schmooze
the doctors and give them free pills as samples.
3. it's obvious that they fix their prices. why does drugs like a
allergy medicine cost far more than a tylenol? they are both made
using similar processes, are made from similar molecules, under
another words: the drug industry is ****ing the government of its tax
revenues so that consumers can purchase their price-fixed products.
their super high earnings are passed through to the shareholders, who
are mostly white-collar people who have 401Ks and IRAs and so on.