I am leaving for Hank World, but will get back to you on this. Suffice it to sya, I don’t agree.

I've yet to see any "sign" of that difficulty…

I’ll hold a fundraiser to buy you a one-way ticket so you can go to Mexico to have that sex-change operation you want, but no US doctor will perform for you.

HilaryCare…ObamaCare.

What was BushCare? Corporate Welfare?!

Everybody between the ages 0f 35-60 have serious problems. Not me (83) not those that are younger.

The younger crowd already knows they probably will not be able to retire. So why allow it? Afterall, the baby boomers have screwed everything up.

Get ready people. I have a granddaughter that I am pretty sure will be a Congressperson in 10 years. He agenda, like that of so many her age, will be simply to discontinue Medicare and Social Security before you baby boomers start accepting it.

You will be suprised to find out how much private insurance costs, if you are accepted, when you are over 60 and your employer isn’t covering the costs. Plan on retiring 5 years later…maybe 10,…maybe not at all.

Remember, baby boomers, you can not just rack up $11trillion in debt, leave healthcare in the hands of the private sector, not regulate industry, not overhaul education, etc and just pass on the bill. When your children and my grandchildren’s generation takes the reigns,…you will have problems.

Your ineptitude is going to force the hand of a paradigm shift. Obama is a buffer and is keeping the dialogue moderate to prevent ideological whiplash. Cherish him while he is still around. I only fear his successor.

Let’s start with the French.

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/hl711.cfm

“As Philippe Manière explains, France’s health care system faces an impending crisis. His overview here offers America’s health care reformers some valuable lessons.

Lesson #1: Universal coverage does not mean universal access to quality care. In France, health care is non-negotiable; it is simply unacceptable that a person should suffer from the lack of care. Although people should have access to some form of health care coverage, the result of France’s guarantee is a cash-strapped system riddled with abuse.

Lesson #2: Making across-the-board price cuts on pharmaceuticals to save money can have adverse effects. In France, such cuts tend to restrict research and development and to reduce the availability of cutting edge drugs, while other areas of medicine requiring significant reform are overlooked.”

Now British:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1019/p04s01-woeu.html

While not directly related to R & D, I though this was worth mentioning from 2007 “Health Secretary Alan Johnson was forced to apologize in Parliament this week after it emerged that at least 90 patients in southeast England died as a result of infections picked up in the hospital. ”

As for Germany, I think I like what I have read about their system, but I could not find much on the net discussing their R & D.

I pointed out that non-U.S. companies are quickly becoming more important in the industry. I should have clarified my reasoning: none of these countries operate under a healthcare system like ours. My point? Innovation does not die under alternative healthcare systems. In fact, it thrives.

Based on the information provided, I merely showed that your argument is faulty. R&D continues and grows under alternative healthcare systems. It evens blossoms within healthcare systems that some might consider “socialized.”

I understand your point, that the U.S., as a nation, controls the largest market share. I don’t contest this. I do contest your assumption that only under the current system will the U.S. remain dominant. Other countries are rapidly taking away market share despite having healthcare systems that do not resemble the one we have. An alternative healthcare system will NOT destroy innovation. That is a fact proven by the data summary from MedAdNews and your argument about R&D was specious for this reason.

You are saying out of the top 50 largest pharmaceutical companies, 22 of them are based in the US. That’s 44%, and what population does the US have compared to the rest of the world? In your top 10 drugs selling in the world, 40% had US involvement?

You make my case for me. Thank you.

I edited the profanity, but did not delete, just so you do understand, those are NOT my words.

I agree with you, the eff bombs DO take away from the intelligence and credibility of the message.

Not sure why the guy put ‘em in there, the message was great without them.

According to MedAdNews’ latest (September 2008) top 50 ranking of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, over half of them are non-U.S. companies. Twenty-two are headquartered in the U.S. , 15 are headquartered in Europe, 11 are headquartered in Japan, one is in Australia, and one is in Israel.

Furthermore, of the top 200 drugs selling in the world, most of them were developed by non-U.S. companies. This is according to MedAdNews’ July 2009 ranking. Let’s look at just the top 10, shall we? Of these drugs, six were developed fully by non-U.S. companies and the rest were developed in partnerships between U.S. and non-U.S. companies. None of the top 10 best-selling prescription drugs in the world were developed solely by U.S. based companies.

This observation is offered only to counter your argument that changing the healthcare system is somehow going to magically make the U.S. less competitive in pharma R&D. Your point is moot. End of this particular argument.

So, you must have been against the ban on stem cell research, eh? That probably did more to stifle medical research in this country than reforming the way we do insurance policies will. And should we stop allowing foreign students at our schools? After all, many of them take their new knowledge back home with them. That surely hurts our R&D efforts too.

Let’s have your next point, I don’t think this one justifies many more pixels.

Does he really think that we will respect his opinion more if he highlights it with vulgarity?