« Dems use The Force | Main | SPAM! »

February 15, 2006


John Featherman


It takes on average about 10 years for the FDA to approve a drug. So there is a lot of truth that the development costs are expensive.

But there's a bigger problem. Manufacturers like Merck (for Vioxx) are getting sued for millions of dollars, and when we have multimillion dollar awards being issued, they have no choice but to raise their prices. I'm not defending pharmaceutical companies (they may mistakes and should be penalized) or many of their executives who are clearly overpaid. I'm simply stating a fact. When they get sued and have to pay the awards, they have to raise their prices if they wish to stay in business. And if they don't stay in business, we have a bigger problem.

I like the idea of capping awards, and, in fact, it may be the only way drugmakers will stay in business and people will get medication.

As for universal healthcare, none of the candidates in this race that are in favor of it talk about the costs. How would we pay for it? Even estimates from those in favor say it would cost trillions of dollars. Of course, there would be less paperwork and bureaucracy (which Dennis Kucinich estimated at $400 billion), which would save money, but I doubt that would be enough.

Do you have any statistics on what the costs would be?

John Featherman
Republican Candidate, US Senate-PA


Hi Albert,

Why don't you have healthcare cover? Aren't you working? I thought US employers had to cover their staff?

Good luck with the Pennachio thing - the plan was always to come back and help you guys in the autumn, but a new job has put paid to that. Oh well.


job yes, full time employment, no. being a temp they don't have to give me the niceties of work like coverage.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2004