Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daswig
Who said I was trying to get drugs without a perscription? You're making large assumptions. With the meds I'm on, they're duly perscribed by a licensed physician, they are filled by registered pharmacists, et cetera. Here's the thing. I'm going to be on the drugs perscribed by my doctors probably for the rest of my life. Yet every two months, I have to go back to my physician to get the perscription renewed. I go into his office, we talk for two minutes, he writes the script, and I go about my business while my insurance is billed for $180. The visits are completely unnecessary, but serve to drive up costs. If I could simply continue to refill my perscription, as I will undoubtedly continue to do in perpetuity, there would be significant cost savings.
Regarding profitability, do you know who lobbied hardest for prilosec to be reduced to OTC status? The MANUFACTURERS. Why? Economies of scale. They make more money selling them OTC for less money than they could EVER hope to make selling it by perscription for more money. If the manufacturers hadn't lobbied and lobbied HARD to get it classified as OTC, it'd still be rx only, and they'd be making less money.
How do you figure that? I'm a trial lawyer by trade. The manufacturers of Tylenol weren't sued out of existence because of toxicity that results from overdoses of it, were they? I suggest that you have a skewed view of the legal system, possibly because your legal training primarily involved watching reruns of "Law & Order".
|
You say that you are a trial lawyer and that is your chosen profesion but i have to say that, that puts us on exact opposite sides of the fence. my family and myself are very tied into the medical profesion, my dad is a doctor and i am learning to become one. im sorry but i have to say that i am suprised that any doctor would see a trial lawyer because, whether they are right are not, they blaim trial lawyers for high malpractice insurance and lawsuits. lawyers have caused the demise of many companies one in general is the whole breast implant idea. that company, whos name slips me at the moment, was sued out of evidence of harm. also it really isn't the rulings that destroy the companies its the settlements. once a company settles more people try to sue using the settlement as evidence. these companies try acceptable losses and then are destroyed. the diologe between the two of us isn't probably going to change either of our minds because of the intrinsic differences between us. also sorry for the assumbtion that you were reciving drugs illeagaly i try not to draw conclusions so i apologize.
__________________
"The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited"
"Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt