Comments for Washington Post Calls a Free Market in Prescription Drugs "Radical" at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 2 out of 2 comments http://www.cepr.net Sun, 19 May 2013 08:10:46 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/washington-post-calls-a-free-market-in-prescription-drugs-qradicalq#comment-16595 Maybe the Post wrote "radical" because that is an accurate description? Just a thought. If you IMPOSE a negative connotation on the word "radical" then, of course it ends up with a negative connotation. Without an imposed negative connotation, though, it's just an adjective and in this case, a reasonably accurate one. The plan Sanders offered is unlike how we do things now with AIDS drugs and with most other medicines. We have some heavier-than-air man-powered flight contests and 100-mile per gallon contests and the like which are structured the way Sanders suggests, but for developing drugs, what Sanders suggests is a radical departure from current practice. Why all these complaints about perfectly good use of English? You working the ref or what? - kharris Mon, 21 May 2012 09:00:24 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/washington-post-calls-a-free-market-in-prescription-drugs-qradicalq#comment-16590 I'm not sure why the WP would consider the government purchasing patents and allowing generic production as "free market". Of course, the difference will be in the details. If enacted under the current Washington regimes, it would probably end up as another big corporate welfare program. I can see the oligopolists in the drug industry acting again as friendly competitors, making sure everyone gets their share of ovesized profits. - FoonTheElder Mon, 21 May 2012 06:24:50 +0100