SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Constant Reader who wrote (72694)1/20/2000 1:48:00 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
Another article linked to the Myth thread, about the plan to retire the public debt using the Social Security "surplus." Interestingly, the proposal is bi-partisan. I don't understand how Social Security can simulaneously be broke and running a surplus. Do you?

prudentbear.com



To: Constant Reader who wrote (72694)1/20/2000 5:33:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor  Respond to of 108807
 
I'm not really up to date on the Clinton prescription drug entitlement - there really are two problems I think, one is the larger issue of drugs in general costing more money in this country, because there is NO regulation... the companies use the US revenue to finance all R&D but the same drugs are available in Mexico or Canada for a fraction of the cost.

There was a guy in line at the drugstore once who paid $300. for a bottle of pills I remember. I wonder what that same prescription would cost in Mexico... not $300. I'll bet - (there are some drugs that legitimately cost a lot of produce... drugs for hemopheliacs are like that I know... but in general drugs cost too much here).

I am opposed to any new entitlements, but I am really opposed to a drug entitlement which is essentially an offset charge to fund R&D for drug companies in the US. This could cost a huge amt of money and again is an example of politicians avoiding the difficult questions and taking the easy fix route.