It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


News Alert - Flip-Flop Alert

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 03:47 PM

The Realities of Reimportation (Political that is…)

Publish reports this morning say that lawmakers may finally have “lined up the 60 votes needed to get a prescription-drug reimportation bill through the Senate, which some say could lead the White House to change its position on the controversial issue."

The popularity of this measure ensures the President’s position shift as he has done so many times in the past.

The label of “Flip-Flopper” has been thrown at opponent John Kerry as part of a Karl Rove campaign strategy. This is a strategy which has been successful used in every campaign Rove has run is based on one general principle. The principle is to accuse your opponent of the negative attributes your client possesses. It diverts attention from your candidate; eats up available news resources; puts an opponent in the impossible position of proving a negative (a logical impossibility); and blunts opponent from identifying your candidate’ shortcoming with the “Sour Grapes” retort.

Reimportation of drugs from Canada has gained massive popular support in recent months, as Americans have grown increasingly angry at drug prices pushed up by the powerful pharmaceutical lobby.

[Edited on 1-6-2004 by gmcnulty]

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by John bull 1]

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 05:10 AM
I don't know anyone against reimportation except the pharmaceuticals, and I suppose the Bush administration they bought and paid for.

It will be interesting to see if the President is forced to back this.

The biggest difference in US prices for the same drug is the ADVERTISING "TAX". Prescription drug advertising should be outlawed. Like John Edwards proposed.

Ask your doctor if the purple pill is right for you.

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 06:05 AM
Interesting topic, but would probably get more airplay if the title were more descriptive. Just MHO.

posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 04:22 PM
Back when Bush first put that law into effect I could understand why it happened, now that the major American producers have taken advantage of it, Bush should make importation legal again.

But a good one. Interesting topic. I actually have a friend at work who will not vote for Bush just because of this situation.

Maybe if Bush changes he will get some more votes. This would be bad for you wouldn't it. Nobody would care about this kind of flip flop because it is a useful one.

posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 11:31 PM
"This would be bad for you wouldn't it. Nobody would care about this kind of flip flop because it is a useful one." SAYS YOU……………

I have no pony in this race.......nor will it be bad or good for me..........

My issue is with the lack of intellectually honesty and the used of a double standard of measurement..................It's the basic dishonesty employed by Bush et. al. ....................I find so disturbing.

Call me crazy. Call me odd. Say, “He just has this quirk”..........

But I hate liars and deceitful people.......they drive me nuts. As do those so blind as not to see or so dishonest to not admit it.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 12:11 AM
But the other ball hasn't dropped yet.

Even if they pass the bill, and GWB passes it, it does not mean he supports it.

I'll be the first to say that I am not that schooled in healthcare policy in general, but it seems to me that there must be a more direct way to fix the problem then to repurchase the same (albeit cheaper) drugs back into the US.

That seems more like avoidance to me. Perhaps it would hurt or force Lilly, and others, to spread around the R&D and advertising costs.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 12:22 AM

Originally posted by gmcnulty
My issue is with the lack of intellectually honesty and the used of a double standard of measurement..................It's the basic dishonesty employed by Bush et. al. ....................I find so disturbing.

I agree 100%!!

Statements like these:

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 10:49 AM

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Perhaps it would hurt or force Lilly, and others, to spread around the R&D and advertising costs.

An interesting and novel idea.............. (With tongue in cheek! Not personally directed at you or your idea. But directed at the Drug Industry)

To do so – as you suggest - would be a normal and appropriate cost accounting method.

The Drug companies choose not to do so.

They argue: Other Countries enforce ‘draconian’ price controls on the sale and distribution of their products; yet other countries do not have the economic means to purchase the drugs;

Therefore the Drug companies lower their prices to make the drugs available to those of less economic means;

Because of these factors they are forced to charge much higher prices in the USA, a result of those nasty price controlling nations and because of their “social conscience” to make these drugs available to those less fortunate.

Further more, they have very high R&D costs. To reduce prices in the USA would threaten the economic support needed for the R&D thus endangering our future advances in the bringing to market new ‘wonder’ drugs.

Sounds all well and good. Almost plausible, until you examine the facts.

1. In spite of the price controls and their ‘social conscience’ they sell their product at a profit in all countries throughout the world. The only difference being the per cent profit from each market area.
2. Must of the R&D costs are underwritten by the USA government, and other governments thru out right research grants.(
3. This fact is kept off their books by use of legally formed fronts or shell organizations; partnerships with universities etc. and accepted accounting methods – all designed to blur this fact. (An example is discovery of these new wonder drugs nothing accrues back to the government who bore the expense of the discovery – it’s our tax dollars at work. (An interesting side bar is the efforts of the Bush Administration to attempt to inject ideology into science. (
4. In the last 20+ years the drug industry has redirected its efforts away from the discovery on new classes of wonder drugs; dropped the production of and research in disease areas because the market size will not allow for their desired level of profit. This area is referred to as the Orphan drugs area. And so not to loss the benefit of these important drugs, the government now subsidizes the industry to continue producing these important and life saving drugs and continued research in this important area for the few so afflicted with these rare afflictions.(;(;(
5. Further more the industry has undertaken and has directed its efforts to extend the patent life of existing drugs and/or reformulation of an existing drug and reapply for a new patent for basically the same drug addressing the same disease.(;(www.morganfinneg...;(; (
6. The Drug industry has added a new weapon in defense of profit to its arsenals – Lobbying of Congress. (; (; ( ; ( The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, will spend at least $150 million in 2004, according to confidential budget documents. This is a 23 percent increase over this year's budget of $121.7 million and is but ONE drug lobbing group in Washington. (

I would suggest that there are some areas of government’s constitutional responsibility like, to “protect the health, safety and promotion of the common good” of its citizens which should be above political debate; issues that are so important that distinctions between Republican and Democrat; conservative and liberal; should be put aside and decisions and priorities determined by what is the best for all the people. This is, I would suggest, one of those areas.

The recently passed legislation to provide drugs for seniors is a good example where the powerful drugs lobby; the bickering of party, philosophical and politics put the interests of the citizens LAST.

The law produced by Congress promotes profit at the expense of competition and creativity. And is an example of the sell-out of the American people by its political leaders who have prostituted themselves for a few bucks to be used to potect their jobs and maintain their grasp on power.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 12:03 PM
How can you accuse Bush of lying and flip-flopping while Kerry is like a leaf in the wind o' political polls....Really I see no difference in the two, they would both do anything to win...

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 12:50 PM

Originally posted by porque
How can you accuse Bush of lying and flip-flopping......

DUH! ……..Because that is the subject matter of this string…..!

If you can't speak to the issues presented.............go start your on string with the subject matter of your interest rather then sniping from the shadows.

That's easy to do.

It takes little or no effort. Nothing more required then a sour, cynical and negative personality with limited typing skills.

To author a subject for a string takes a tad more effort then you have so far demonstrated.

Have a nice life.

new topics

top topics


log in