state ownership of pharmaceutical production

[SIR]

don't know about the rest of the world, but the UK is embroiled in an ongoing debacle caused by private pharmaceutical producers grossly inflating the price of medicines.

seems to me the obvious solution is state owned production of all out-of-patent essential treatments, am i wrong?

[adhoc]

Didn’t you once say you’re conservative?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Pharmaceutical price gouging is massive in the US too. I daresay it is probably a relatively common phenomenon whenever there is private interest in public health.

[dneal]

I'm no fan of pharmaceutical companies for a lot of reasons, but I do realize that they are a business and need to recoup development (and liability) costs and still make a profit.

The real problem is that the capitalistic drive for profit is the capitalistic drive that develops new pharmaceuticals. The State rarely does anything well, cheaply or efficiently.

[silverlifter]

The State rarely does anything well, cheaply or efficiently.

Except healthcare, education, emergency services... that sort of thing.

[kazoolaw]

Don't look now Silverlifter but your examples just proved dneal's point.

[silverlifter]

Don't look now Silverlifter but your examples just proved dneal's point.

I'm genuinely sorry you live in a failed state. Many of the rest of us are fortunate enough to live in functioning ones...

[dneal]

Stop Treating Government With Respect.
It's become nothing but a weapon fought over by people who want to smash each other—and you (https://reason.com/2019/06/15/stop-treating-government-with-respect/)

[dneal]

The State rarely does anything well, cheaply or efficiently.

Except healthcare, education, emergency services... that sort of thing.


The only state that does those things well is the State of Utopia.

[silverlifter]

The State rarely does anything well, cheaply or efficiently.

Except healthcare, education, emergency services... that sort of thing.

The only state that does those things well is the State of Utopia.

It's one thing to make a throwaway comment, another entirely to provide some supporting rationale. Those countries that do provide state owned healthcare, education etc, tend to rank at the top of economic and wellbeing indicators, eg these ones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Very_ high_human_development). The top 10 all provide state owned healthcare and education.

So, not utopia, just enlightened.

#edit: I initially missed your first post, with the link to the Reason article. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered to respond. I understand you have that weird American syndrome where, probably because you have not lived anywhere else, you can't conceive of a system that is not fundamentally broken the way yours is. As I said in a previous post, I am genuinely sorry you live in a failed state. Just don't project your own issue onto onther nations, some of us are able to manage a lot better...

[dneal]

The State rarely does anything well, cheaply or efficiently.

Except healthcare, education, emergency services... that sort of thing.

The only state that does those things well is the State of Utopia.

It's one thing to make a throwaway comment, another entirely to provide some supporting rationale. Those countries that do provide state owned healthcare, education etc, tend to rank at the top of economic and wellbeing indicators, eg these ones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Very_ high_human_development). The top 10 all provide state owned healthcare and education.

So, not utopia, just enlightened.

#edit: I initially missed your first post, with the link to the Reason article. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered to respond. I understand you have that weird American syndrome where, probably because you have not lived anywhere else, you can't conceive of a system that is not fundamentally broken the way yours is. As I said in a previous post, I am genuinely sorry you live in a failed state. Just don't project your own issue onto onther nations, some of us are able to manage a lot better...

I believe you started the “throwaway” comment thing. I can play that game too.

I lived in Germany for 10 years. So much for your assumptions.

The U.S. is hardly a “failed state”. I would think a Brit would be one of the last people to hurl “failed state” accusations.

—edit—

The U.S. appears to be one step above the U.K. in your link...

[silverlifter]

The U.S. is hardly a “failed state”.

Actual lol. No, it's the very model of good governance...

[dneal]

The U.S. is hardly a “failed state”.

Actual lol. No, it's the very model of good governance...

*yawn*. Surely you can do better than that.

[SIR]

All things being relative, the UK's various state owned/operated systems are definitely better than nothing, however, they could certainly be a lot better - to say their basic maintenance and development has been neglected would be an understatement, but i think the same should be said about the state of our community as a whole.

[silverlifter]

The U.S. is hardly a “failed state”.

Actual lol. No, it's the very model of good governance...

*yawn*. Surely you can do better than that.

I don't need to. I have already comprehensively rebutted your argument. Do try and keep up.

[dneal]

The U.S. is hardly a “failed state”.

Actual lol. No, it's the very model of good governance...

*yawn*. Surely you can do better than that.

I don't need to. I have already comprehensively rebutted your argument. Do try and keep up.

LOL

47764

[Freddie]

I did some readin' at multiple sites with discovery...learned.....
Thank you......
Fred

[calamus]

Socialism works... for a while. Then it fails miserably. You can only cripple the most productive sector of society for so long before the parasites kill off their host.

Socialsm was designed to soften the ground to provide a transition to communism in countries where a violent revolution isn't viable.

[azkid]

I'd love to end socialism for big companies. Those parasites have been draining the middle and lower classes for decades.

[dneal]

I'd love to end socialism for big companies. Those parasites have been draining the middle and lower classes for decades.

While I agree with your first sentence, I’m skeptical about the second. How are big companies draining the middle and lower classes?

[kazoolaw]

The State rarely does anything well, cheaply or efficiently.

Except healthcare, education, emergency services... that sort of thing.

The only state that does those things well is the State of Utopia.

It's one thing to make a throwaway comment, another entirely to provide some supporting rationale. Those countries that do provide state owned healthcare, education etc, tend to rank at the top of economic and wellbeing indicators, eg these ones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Very_ high_human_development). The top 10 all provide state owned healthcare and education.

So, not utopia, just enlightened.

#edit: I initially missed your first post, with the link to the Reason article. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered to respond. I understand you have that weird American syndrome where, probably because you have not lived anywhere else, you can't conceive of a system that is not fundamentally broken the way yours is. As I said in a previous post, I am genuinely sorry you live in a failed state. Just don't project your own issue onto onther nations, some of us are able to manage a lot better...

Universal healthcare, socialist, failed state?

Like Venezuela?

At least its gold escaped to Africa.

[silverlifter]

The State rarely does anything well, cheaply or efficiently.

Except healthcare, education, emergency services... that sort of thing.

The only state that does those things well is the State of Utopia.

It's one thing to make a throwaway comment, another entirely to provide some supporting rationale. Those countries that do provide state owned healthcare, education etc, tend to rank at the top of economic and wellbeing indicators, eg these ones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Very_ high_human_development). The top 10 all provide state owned healthcare and education.

So, not utopia, just enlightened.

#edit: I initially missed your first post, with the link to the Reason article. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered to respond. I understand you have that weird American syndrome where, probably because you have not lived anywhere else, you can't conceive of a system that is not fundamentally broken the way yours is. As I said in a previous post, I am genuinely sorry you live in a failed state. Just don't project your own issue onto onther nations, some of us are able to manage a lot better...

Universal healthcare, socialist, failed state?

Like Venezuela?

At least its gold escaped to Africa.

At least attempt to read the thread before flouting your ignorance.

Venezuela is not one of the ten countries I listed as successfully delivering public services.

Nor is that the equivalent of socialism. Except in the sheltered minds of morons incapable of adressing an argument with anything more than memes of their equally imbecilic president.

[kazoolaw]

Touched the last nerve, I see.

[kazoolaw]

The State rarely does anything well, cheaply or efficiently.

Except healthcare, education, emergency services... that sort of thing.

Reference to The Ten, or to The State?

[dneal]

Nor is that the equivalent of socialism. Except in the sheltered minds of morons incapable of adressing an argument with anything more than memes of their equally imbecilic president.

When you’re ready to make a cogent argument instead of lumping a few assertions together with insults, maybe you’ll get more than memes.

[azkid]

I'd love to end socialism for big companies. Those parasites have been draining the middle and lower classes for decades.

While I agree with your first sentence, I’m skeptical about the second. How are big companies draining the middle and lower classes?One example: the latest last tax cuts benefitted large corporations and the rich directly and the lower and middle class much less if at all. Those tax cuts were intended to "trickle down" but many large corps simply did stock buybacks with the extra money.

Lowering top tier taxes had been going on since Reagan. Horse and sparrow economics hasn't really done much for the little guy.

Going back to the financial crisis a few years ago, the greed of a few bankrupted many individuals (and companies), and many people are still only just recovering. Who got the bailout? Not individuals but large companies. On top of the financial damage inflicted by companies our tax dollars went to bail out those same greedy companies.

Unfortunately, wages have been pretty stagnant for awhile while housing costs seem to keep growing. Healthcare costs keep growing as well. And education costs. All putting more and more pressure on the middle and lower classes. Sure unemployment numbers look great but nobody mentions how many jobs people have to work just to get by.

Somehow it is totally acceptable for a family to end up destitute and homeless from getting sick one time, because they can't afford healthcare or insurance, while it is also perfectly fine to bail out or subsidize big companies.

[dneal]

I'd love to end socialism for big companies. Those parasites have been draining the middle and lower classes for decades.

While I agree with your first sentence, I’m skeptical about the second. How are big companies draining the middle and lower classes?One example: the latest last tax cuts benefitted large corporations and the rich directly and the lower and middle class much less if at all. Those tax cuts were intended to "trickle down" but many large corps simply did stock buybacks with the extra money.

Lowering top tier taxes had been going on since Reagan. Horse and sparrow economics hasn't really done much for the little guy.

Going back to the financial crisis a few years ago, the greed of a few bankrupted many individuals (and companies), and many people are still only just recovering. Who got the bailout? Not individuals but large companies. On top of the financial damage inflicted by companies our tax dollars went to bail out those same greedy companies.

Unfortunately, wages have been pretty stagnant for awhile while housing costs seem to keep growing. Healthcare costs keep growing as well. And education costs. All putting more and more pressure on the middle and lower classes. Sure unemployment numbers look great but nobody mentions how many jobs people have to work just to get by.

Somehow it is totally acceptable for a family to end up destitute and homeless from getting sick one time, because they can't afford healthcare or insurance, while it is also perfectly fine to bail out or subsidize big companies.

A few things are mingled together here. First, which is what I agree with, is an aversion to "corporate welfare". Doesn't matter to me whether it's subsidies to large corporate farms or automaker bailouts.

Second is tax cuts to corporations. I tend to agree with lower tax rates in general. Lower corporate tax rates appear to me to increase investment, which leads to job growth. Kennedy, Reagan and Trump in particular have advocated and implemented this, and the results seem consistent. Job growth leads to a higher demand and lower supply, which increases wages. I believe this is reasonably demonstrable. You just have to pick the right field, and most of the liberal arts degrees don't work out.

Education and healthcare costs are affected greatly by administrative burden / costs, most of which are mandated by the State. I'll post links later when I have a little more time. Healthcare costs in particular are interesting, and there's a reasonable argument that the problem is that we don't directly see the costs since a great portion of them are "hidden" by insurance. There is a lot of writing on this subject, what the costs used to be, and how businesses began offering healthcare as a tax-free method of offering "higher wages" to employees. There have been startups of doctors offering subscription based fixed fee healthcare, which is in line with how healthcare used to be delivered. It seems to be a viable, successful alternative.

Housing is a tricky topic given the variety of markets and their demand. A 1920's craftsman "fixer-upper" is worth 60-80k in the midwest, and $150k or so when renovated. This same type construction is worth over a million in a California market. Housing regulations and restrictions which are largely governed locally tend to be a major influence. San Francisco is a prime example of how government can screw up a housing market.

[SIR]

The U.S. never really left the gold standard...

https://i.stack.imgur.com/iCTuo.jpg

[carlos.q]

I live in a failed state. Our island is bankrupt as a result of a toxic combination of generous tax breaks for the rich, including pharmaceutical companies, and many corrupt politicians. Meanwhile there is a constantly diminishing quality of life for the rest of us.

[dneal]

Back on topic, the Hoover Institution has a pretty good article (https://www.hoover.org/research/drug-pricing-made-easy) on drug pricing, development and production costs, etc...

From the article:

The basic flaw behind both proposals is that they assume that there is a unique “price” at which pharmaceutical drugs sell. That assumption often works in competitive markets in which the costs of development are low relative to the marginal (i.e. additional) cost of production for each unit. But so-called marginal cost pricing does not work for new pharmaceutical drugs whose development costs are already high and getting ever higher. Companies are constantly researching and trying to develop new drugs with strong therapeutic properties and tolerable side effects. They also face huge costs in shepherding promising drugs through three stages of clinical trials, each one more complicated than the last. Many promising new drugs wash out in these clinical trials, which means that a pharmaceutical company can remain solvent only if its blockbuster drugs yield enough revenue to offset the costs of its duds. And finally, companies incur huge financing costs as they bring drugs to market. Development and clinical trials take years to complete, and drug companies have to find ways to finance expenditures made in year one with revenues that will only start, typically, some eight to 10 years later.

So how are these costs best recovered over the relatively short period during which the drugs receive patent protection, which today works out to around 11 years, give or take, for a major blockbuster drug? The common suggestion is that each purchaser should only be required to pay for the marginal cost of producing the drug that he or she consumes. This was the idea behind Trump’s aborted executive order. In a market that is characterized by high fixed costs of development, that strategy offers favorable prospects for all customers but one—the first. So if a drug takes one billion dollars to research and develop, but only $10 to produce each unit, the marginal cost formula says that the first consumer has to pay the billion dollars so that the other consumers can get the favorable deal. That formula guarantees that no drug will ever make it to market.

[mhosea]

It's difficult to formulate mitigation strategies without introducing deleterious side-effects. And yet, I think minor tweaks with incentives and regulations is by far the safer route, trying to attenuate the extreme cases of abuse.

I don't think it's reasonable to compare potential state ownership of pharmaceutical production with any service that the government provides, whether they arguably perform that service well or not. Production of goods and providing services are different thigns. We can point to cases where government has achieved great things that were not fundamentally services, e.g. going to the moon, but off the top of my head I can't think of any that didn't involve exorbitant, often nearly prohibitive costs. If the goal is to save somebody money, I would think long and hard about having the state control it. Is there some model of state production of any goods (not services) that has been a fiscal success?

[SIR]

What i find more than slightly incongruous about the USA perspective is how willing, in the main, the average US citizen is to finance the state security apparatus i.e. military and police, whilst still finding state funded healthcare such a contentious proposition; but the funny thing is, folks who own guns are more likely to have more than a modicum of first aid knowledge than those who don't - tells us something about freedom, what?

[kazoolaw]

"... the USA perspective is how willing, in the main, the average US citizen is..."

I'm interested to know the sample size you base your statement upon. Care to share?

[SIR]

"... the USA perspective is how willing, in the main, the average US citizen is..."

I'm interested to know the sample size you base your statement upon. Care to share?

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-same-people-who-call-police-racists-want-to-disarm-civilians-and-leave-the-guns-to-the-police/

[kazoolaw]

"... the USA perspective is how willing, in the main, the average US citizen is..."

I'm interested to know the sample size you base your statement upon. Care to share?

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-same-people-who-call-police-racists-want-to-disarm-civilians-and-leave-the-guns-to-the-police/

In reading the post at the link I didn't see any mention of health care: did I just miss it? It reads to me as claiming hypocrisy in advocating gun control [disarming civilians] while leaving police in possession of guns.
I didn't read through the comments, but surely you wouldn't cite a comment as expressing the perspective of the "average US citizen" much less that it reflects the views of Americans "in the main."

[mhosea]

What i find more than slightly incongruous about the USA perspective is how willing, in the main, the average US citizen is to finance the state security apparatus i.e. military and police, whilst still finding state funded healthcare such a contentious proposition;

I don't know what the average US citizen would be willing to finance or not if you gave them an actual choice. Be that as it may, I don't see a useful comparison there. A substantial percentage of voters enjoy better healthcare coverage through their employers than the US government will ever provide. There are drawbacks to linking coverage to employers, of course, but every election there's a right-here-right-now issue of whether you're willing to cast a vote that will change your situation for the worse. As for the military, it's not like people don't argue for spending less on it, but for the most part its an established thing that isn't a separate consideration. The government requires its taxes. Where the money actually goes, the average citizen knows not.

Police are funded primarily at the local and state level. There is often a lot of hand-wringing over proposals to raise taxes so that police and fire personnel can get raises and/or better equipment or facilities.

[Pendragon]

don't know about the rest of the world, but the UK is embroiled in an ongoing debacle caused by private pharmaceutical producers grossly inflating the price of medicines.

seems to me the obvious solution is state owned production of all out-of-patent essential treatments, am i wrong?
Do you think that the government would refrain from doing the same thing? A better solution would be to have the government produce all out-of-patent medicines at a fixed price, but to also allow private competition. A better solution still might be to allow the importation of medicines from overseas. That would provide the competition necessary to moderate prices.

[Pendragon]

What i find more than slightly incongruous about the USA perspective is how willing, in the main, the average US citizen is to finance the state security apparatus i.e. military and police, whilst still finding state funded healthcare such a contentious proposition;
After the disaster of Obamacare, the chance of getting state funded healthcare is near zero. Healthcare in the US is expensive due in large part to the healthcare system administrators, who receive stupendous compensation. Those same healthcare plans also donate to political campaigns, making government representatives reluctant to get rid of them.

For example, Senator Kamala Harris, a very leftist presidential candidate, recently proposed a public healthcare plan for all that will not get rid of private insurance. Her proposal allows private insurers to remain if they follow the new rules. The new rules ultimately determined by elected officials, who receive campaign donations from the private insurers. Guess whose interests are going to be prioritized?

[dneal]

"Health insurance doesn't just protect people from financial ruin. It insulates them from individual decisions about price and service quality. Those decisions become invisible, outsourced to a middleman—either a private insurer or a federal program—while the patient whose health is at stake is removed from the equation. The result is a system where prices are inscrutable, if they can even be called prices at all." (https://reason.com/2019/08/26/health-care-spending-is-out-of-control)

[SIR]

don't know about the rest of the world, but the UK is embroiled in an ongoing debacle caused by private pharmaceutical producers grossly inflating the price of medicines.

seems to me the obvious solution is state owned production of all out-of-patent essential treatments, am i wrong?
Do you think that the government would refrain from doing the same thing? A better solution would be to have the government produce all out-of-patent medicines at a fixed price, but to also allow private competition. A better solution still might be to allow the importation of medicines from overseas. That would provide the competition necessary to moderate prices.

I agree your ideas could very well be an improvement/evolution of my basic idea - i appreciate your constructive contribution, pity there cannot be more like it rather than frequent arguements that seem to be the prevalent response when anyone tries to make a reformative suggestion.

[Pendragon]

I agree your ideas could very well be an improvement/evolution of my basic idea - i appreciate your constructive contribution, pity there cannot be more like it rather than frequent arguements that seem to be the prevalent response when anyone tries to make a reformative suggestion.
My suggestions were based on responses I have heard from doctor friends when I asked them why medical care is so expensive in the U.S. They all say the same thing: It is the administrators for the medical centers and healthcare plans, who get paid enormous sums. The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) in the U.S. not only failed to fix this fault, but institutionalized it. It took a bad situation and made it far worse, as it also required insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. This includes obesity, which is at epidemic levels in many areas and greatly increases healthcare costs.

The insurers would then have to increase premiums to levels most companies would be unwilling to pay (health insurance in the States is usually provided by employers, at least for working age people). The insurers then came out with "high deductible" plans, in which the patient paid a large deductible before insurance coverage kicked in. For me, it is $3500 per year, with a maximum of $6500. For in-plan medical centers and doctors, the insurer covers 100% after that. Lower income people get subsidies. There are working class people who do not qualify for the subsidies, but who also cannot afford the deductible. It is much higher for families than single people, and kids get sick and injured all the time. One coworker of mine could not afford medical care, but could barely walk and needed surgery. I think he eventually went out on disability. It is things like that and much more that make many Americans so against government healthcare. Of course, there are many other Americans that say "free government healthcare for all!" thinking that waving such a magic wand will make things OK. Which brings us to the other bit of nastiness you saw.

America is incredibly divided now, some would say on the brink of a civil war. I think that might be a little overstated, but people of opposing points of view are utterly intolerant of any dissent. That extends to election results, and applies to both the liberal and conservative camps. Any failure to conform to a given viewpoint is dealt with by shouting, anger, threats, sometimes violence, with a good dollop of totalitarian righteousness on the side. It all involves a profoundly childish lack of boundaries and self-control, in which democracy becomes largely irrelevant. To be fair, there are still very many who act like bona fide homo sapiens. There are enough baboons to cause plenty of trouble, however.

When you present a political point of view here, there will be those who support your view, but also those who disagree. A mud-slinging shouting match will almost certainly develop. Sometimes it is fun to wind the nutjobs up, step aside, and watch them try to verbally kill each other, but don't expect much in the way of reasoned discourse.

[SIR]

I happen to have quite close exposure to NHS healthcare through my work in the UK, and from my privileged perspective it seems there is a 50/50 divide; half of people say really good things about the NHS, half have less than favourable things to say... and as much as they will all say 'it was free', they don't disclose how much in tax their 'free' healthcare has actually cost them.

The way I see it is, if we are to have government (as opposed to anarchy) to ensure basic protections for us as a society then healthcare is definitely a priority and, not being Hiltlerist, I am happy to pay a little to ensure that those who are unable to pay have the same provision. But... I also think that if such a provision exists it should be maintained and audited to a prescribed level which all can be guaranteed to expect and receive - currently, the NHS as a whole is failing in this regard and requires significant reform - including and particularly in the areas of future-proofing and self-sufficiency.

[dneal]

...if we are to have government to ensure basic protections for us as a society then healthcare is definitely a priority...

From a sentential logic standpoint, this argument needs a lot of work. At best, there are a lot of imbedded premises. I think the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

The basic protections government provides relate to property rights.

[Pendragon]

I happen to have quite close exposure to NHS healthcare through my work in the UK, and from my privileged perspective it seems there is a 50/50 divide; half of people say really good things about the NHS, half have less than favourable things to say... and as much as they will all say 'it was free', they don't disclose how much in tax their 'free' healthcare has actually cost them.
I have worked nearly half my career for British companies or British divisions of U.S. companies. All of my UK colleagues seemed to like the NHS, but do say that it can take several months to get a doctor's appointment. When I asked them what if the medical condition is urgent, they said that people can get a private doctor. If someone does not have the money to do this, they are apparently out of luck.

People who say "the government should take care of it" usually mean "get others to pay my bills". When asked what if they had to pay the way for others instead, they typically respond with a disingenuous "that's ok" or "it won't happen that way". This sticking one's head in the sand approach is unrealistic. It is sweeping any problems under the rug and pretending they do not exist.


The way I see it is, if we are to have government (as opposed to anarchy) to ensure basic protections for us as a society then healthcare is definitely a priority and, not being Hiltlerist, I am happy to pay a little to ensure that those who are unable to pay have the same provision. But... I also think that if such a provision exists it should be maintained and audited to a prescribed level which all can be guaranteed to expect and receive - currently, the NHS as a whole is failing in this regard and requires significant reform - including and particularly in the areas of future-proofing and self-sufficiency.
Would you be willing to pay a lot to help others, only to be told "sorry, nothing for you" when you need healthcare? That is what happens in some government healthcare systems, especially when they are setup to benefit demographics who support the ruling party.

How about requiring patients to follow doctors' advice? For example, enrolling in a smoking cessation program, going on a diet to lose weight, or successfully completing a rehab program? Uncooperative patients are likely a major source of increased costs. Telling these folks to cooperate (or at least try) or they will be on their own might be a good idea.

A windfall profits tax would help when dealing with miscreant pharmaceutical companies. In the 1970s, U.S. oil companies greatly increased gasoline prices when oil shortages occurred. These increases were far beyond what could be explained by the crude oil shortages alone. Some of the gasoline shortages were fake, with oil refineries colluding and quietly refusing to offload crude shipments to their refineries. The solution was to impose a substantial tax on profits that were generated under such false pretenses. That immediately fixed much of the problem, and could be applied to the pharmaceutical industry today.

I am all for laissez faire capitalism, but when corporations attempt to stifle competition by price fixing, creating monopolies and gaming the system, they need to get their knuckles rapped. The threat of being nationalized as a punishment could be a useful deterrent.

[pengeezer]

I'd love to end socialism for big companies. Those parasites have been draining the middle and lower classes for decades.

While I agree with your first sentence, I’m skeptical about the second. How are big companies draining the middle and lower classes?

1It wouldn't necessarily be big businesses,

[pengeezer]

[QUOTE=azkid;267517]I'd love to end socialism for big companies. Those parasites have been draining the middle and lower classes for decades.

While I agree with your first sentence, I’m skeptical about the second. How are big companies draining the middle and lower classes?

It wouldn't necessarily be big businesses.....unless, of course they were in line with the global elite....

John

[Fermata]

I am concerned about the level of R and D that may exist under state ownership.

Being more red than blue I regret the government sell off of mail services and rail network and operating services.