A few questions come immediately to mind. The first is obvious: What the %^@*? The second is: Who gets to take the $90 billion and what will they do with it? But the third is far more important: If Big Pharma loses $90 billion, doesn't that mean that they have $90 billion less to spend on research and development of new drugs that have the potential to cure cancer, aids, obesity, diabetes and dozens of other fatal or debilitating diseases that plague our nation?
Who is going to pay for that R&D once the government re-appropriates that $90 billion? Right now it costs upwards of a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market. It takes, on average, 15 years to move a new drug from the laboratory to pharmacists' shelves. One of the reasons being the FDA's slow approval process. If the pharmaceutical companies can't realize a decent profit does anyone believe they will put over a billion dollars into the development of a new drug? If you do, then you're obviously a product of our liberal education system that has taken away your ability for rational thought. Maybe you think the government will all of a sudden take over the job of finding and developing new drugs. Let me clue the clueless: the federal government has never created anything but debt.
Let me point out that as our new and improved, and all-fair and all-caring, and all-knowing and all-seeing, let's all have a group hug government-run health care system is implemented, we WILL have rationed care. And not rationed by doctors or nurses or anyone else with even a modicum of medical training, basing their decisions on sound medical practice. We will have a bunch of bureaucrats running the country's biggest HMO basing their decisions on the bottom line.
Does anyone remember the HMO scandals of the 1980s? Let me remind you, HMOs were RATIONING care. And our representatives in Congress were screaming "unfair."
Think I'm being dishonest? Just look to Canada, France, and Great Britain. Their socialized system of medical care has to make hard choices. If you're 72 years old and need a kidney transplant and there's a 24 year old who needs one too, guess who's going to get approved for surgery. Now for those of you who recently graduated from public school, I'll give you a hint; it's not the 72 year old. Why, you might ask? Well quite simply the government bureaucrats must make their decisions based on the rationing of care to keep the system solvent. There is only so much money to go around. I don't care how much money the government steals from the rich, there is NOT an infinite amount of money.
And unlike all the phony figures being thrown around by Congress and The White House, 2 + 2 still equals 4.