Saturday, October 01, 2005
Need drugs
Prop 78 and Prop 79 deal with keeping old geezers breathing for a few extra years through drug discounts. Prop 79 is meaner to the drug companies than Prop 78 is, which appears to be its selling point (see below).
No potential for ambiguity here. Prop 79 is supposed to make profiteering on drugs illegal and subject to civil penalty. Check out this clear and precise wording:
"A manufacturer, distributor, or labeler of prescription drugs engages in illegal profiteering if that manufacturer, distributor, or labeler:
(a) Exacts or demands an unconscionable price;
(b) Exacts or demands prices or terms that lead to any unjust or unreasonable profit;"
And then c) and d) are slightly more reasonable. Still, imagine trying to argue a) and b). "The amount that company has made is unjust!" "I disagree. The amount our company has made is just! It is the responsibility of the plaintiff to provide evidence that the amount our company has made is unjust." "We call the eternal arbiter of justice, God, to the stand..."
It's those evil drug companies, stupid. Every argument for Prop 79 or against Prop 78 has mostly whining about how the drug companies support Prop 78, which in itself is considered sufficient reason to support Prop 79. From to "For 79" argument:
"As a result, consumers will pay less out of their own pockets for prescriptions at the expense of drug companies, not taxpayers."
Well, as long as it's just the drug companies who suffer...
In anticipation of death, the endorsement. I'm not an old geezer about to die, so I'm personally rather indifferent to the choices. The humor value of seeing the Prop. 79 "profiteering" clause enforced should not be discounted (no pun intended), but neither proposal really makes the case for why healthy folk should choose either, and instead just whine about each other. It will probably cost money, so I'll have to vote NO to both 78 and 79.
. . .
|
. . .
|
