Pedro Picasso paying for pharmaceutical ads

[franksolich]

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5956436

Oh my.

AzNick (1000+ posts)      Tue Jun-30-09 12:46 AM
Original message
 
Why not BAN pharma/heathcare advertising and political contributions?

Since big pharma and the healthcare industry claims that the costs have to be high so they can be competitive, here is a good idea to help them reduce their costs: ban any sort of advertising and any sort of political contributions.

Simple, easy and would also conveniently starve some wingnuts on the airwaves, as well as some congressmen who could then concentrate on why they were elected in the first place: the interest of the People.

I know. Will never happen. But should make for a nice smart-ass answer.

Pedro Picasso, who needs no introduction:

Atman  (1000+ posts)        Tue Jun-30-09 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
 
1. Advertising is tax deductible.

They don't want to ban it because you and I are already paying for it,

Pedro Picasso ended his sentence with a comma, not a period.

AzNick (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-01-09 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
 
2. Didn't Obama mention banning advertising for drugs?

I thought it was a promise (oh well, another one...)

Seriously, America is one of the few countries that allows drugs advertising.

If a drug is good, the doctor would know and prescribe it.

Of course, they would still wine and dine doctors (which they already do), invite them golfing (which they do) and send them hookers (ok, sorry, I know...).

The Vermontese cali primitive:

cali  (1000+ posts)        Wed Jul-01-09 04:47 AM
Response to Original message
 
3. No can do. Not as long as the SC defines money as speech.

AzNick (1000+ posts)      Thu Jul-02-09 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
 
4. I don't see why it could not come out as a proposal

Maybe ban ALL campaign donations from corporations and cap individual donations.

You know, like in Europe.

No more stupid attack ads, smaller conventions, and back to the discourse of ideas.

The national average IQ will go over 100.

But it wouldn't do a damned thing for the primitive average IQ, still stuck in the low single digits.

Hippo_Tron  (1000+ posts)        Thu Jul-02-09 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
 
5. Europe doesn't have a first amendment

And the Supreme Court says that money equals speech, thus any ban is a first amendment violation.

AzNick (1000+ posts)      Thu Jul-02-09 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
 
6. ??? LOL !!!

No, "Europe" does not have a 1st amendment, but freedom of speech is guaranteed in pretty much all of them by law.

Cid_B (595 posts)      Thu Jul-02-09 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #6
 
8. Been to Germany or Austria?

Vidar (1000+ posts)        Thu Jul-02-09 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #5

7. Money = God, in America

Welfare checks = God, on Skins's island.

[The Village Idiot]

These people are clueless about being clueless. They do not know the first thing about what they are talking about.

[docstew]

Atman  (1000+ posts)        Tue Jun-30-09 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
 
1. Advertising is tax deductible.

They don't want to ban it because you and I are already paying for it,

Ok, Pedro, the interest on your mortgage(s) is tax deductible too... do we own part of your house?  We pay for part of it.

Your health insurance, tax deductible.  There's your gov't health care right there, we pay for it.

Go ahead, make that argument

[JohnnyReb]

"Why not BAN pharma/heathcare advertising"......suits the hell outta me DUmmie.

Now explain to me just what is pharma and heathcare?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I know what he meant. I was just wondering if the super intelligent could understand.

[franksolich]

Ok, Pedro, the interest on your mortgage(s) is tax deductible too... do we own part of your house?  We pay for part of it.

Your health insurance, tax deductible.  There's your gov't health care right there, we pay for it.

Go ahead, make that argument

Don't forget; Pedro Picasso doesn't live in a congested big city.

He lives in a rustic quaint rural area of Connecticut, and since there's not many such places like that in a tiny little state, probably it's worth a bundle.

And he's got two such places in Connecticut, not just one.

All of his tax deductions, the rest of us are paying, so Pedro Picasso can live in the lap of luxury.  Poor people are paying his tax deductions too.

And all those fancy motor vehicles--they're probably registered, licensed, and taxed to his "studio" business, not to him personally, even though quite obviously they're used mainly for personal stuff.  And so there's all those business tax deductions that aren't available to an ordinary vehicle-owner.

The hypocrisy is mouth-gaping.

[RobJohnson]

 Advertising creates jobs in Hollywood & keeps the local channels "free"