Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (3362)	12/18/2007 12:47:56 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I see, in your world if specific types of investments become much less profitable (in absolute terms and compared to other investments), people keep pouring the same amount of money in them. You don't even get a slight reduction in the invested capital. Your presumption (less profitable) is probably wrong so your conclusion is wrong. Assuming that the US started negotiating drug costs which led to lowered ASPs (and that's open to question), then you might have a small portion of R&D cut, but most likely marketing would take the brunt of it (and it has a higher budget than R&D). If the government actually became the customer, you would not need much marketing at all. Do you think the US consumer should pay extra for all products to support corporate profits... or just drugs?