For readability, I'm going to abbreviate DCD's for "developing-country diseases", i.e., diseases entirely or nearly entirely occurring in countries which cannot possibly pay enough money to have treatments researched. AIDS, while more common there, is not really in that category - thus the newer treatments available, due to large numbers of cases in developed countries.

I think it's a bit digingenuous to tie in a lack of research of DCD's to the issues mentioned. By your own arguments, such research doesn't exist. So, there's no IP to fight over. There's no "point" in there at all, and it certainly doesn't relate in any way to Roche aiding the design of generics (although it shares the principle of a lack of IP being involved).

On the original topic, the reality is that spending money on new treatments for DCD's is not as effective as spending the same money on getting existing treatments, hospitals, and so forth into those countries. Most true DCD's were solved long ago in the developed countries - that's how they become DCD's in the first place.

Back on the topic of prices, and the general suggestion of price disparities - i.e., people in the developed world paying more for the same treatment than people in poorer circumstances. This has been implemented on a fairly wide scale already, to various degrees. The result is predictable: drug smuggling, and any number of other techniques for people in the developed world to get drugs at the reduced costs. The degree to which that is or will become a problem is debated, but I can't help noticing that it's generally the exact same people who complain about over-charging other countries who will turn around and complain about being over-charged themselves when a disparity is enacted.

I just want to say crafting a law that, as it takes effect, affects only one company is for all intents and purposes singling that company out. Claiming that it just "happens" to be only WalMart is disingenuous - that didn't just "happen", it was designed into the bill. It might as well have stated that it applies to all companies whose names begin with "Wal" and end with "Mart", and claim that if someone started "Waldo's Find-Me Mart" that'd be affected too.

That being said, if we can define a minimum wage, I don't see why we can't also define a minimum benefits package. I resent subsidizing WalMart's health care plan in my state's already impacted budget (I live in California).

" It's simply a fact that many offers are made that are not intended to be accepted."

It is also simply a fact that anybody who makes such a charade is a bald-faced liar who deserves to have their insincerity taken advantage of or exposed. Such a deed is a plainly unethical act.

Personally, I know exactly what I'd do: I would endeavor, preferably through gift, to make the difference up to the host; given the time-span involved, a fairly large-ticket gift could be given both in repayment and in gratitude (indeed, I would always bestow a gift upon a host, this just ups the ante substantially as the graciousness of the host is unquestionably exceptional). The father, however, has no right to "buy" such a debt, and I would under NO circumstances pay the father "back" for something he never provided to me, nor was asked by me to provide. If he feels it is necessary to recoup his investment from the host after the host has been paid back (and he seems like just the kind of guy to do it), then he bought his own faux pas.

I don't care how bad the selection criteria is, asking teenagers how much money they think they'll make has got to be the most meaningless figure I've seen out of a poll - and that's saying something.

If it were illegal to discriminate based on physical attractiveness, Hollywood and modelling agencies would be in big trouble, wouldn't they? That's just silly. You're not allowed to discriminate against race or disablement (insofar as the applicant can do the job), but appearance is fair game.

If it were illegal to discriminate based on physical attractiveness, Hollywood and modelling agencies would be in big trouble, wouldn't they? That's just silly. You're not allowed to discriminate against race or disablement (insofar as the applicant can do the job), but appearance is fair game.

So much that is wrong with our country is due to the over-valuation of the dollar.

Trade deficit? Right now we buy stuff cheap and sell stuff expensive. Of course there's a trade deficit, it's not because we want stuff and don't make stuff, it's because people want our dollars more than they want our goods. Take away the factors inflating the dollar, and the trade deficit will disappear.

Can't get work? Manufacturing sector dying? Well, when we can sell stuff competitively - within and without - that'll go away.

If we're really lucky, having to pay higher interest rates will help rein in these disgusting budget deficits.

Of course, this is all long-term thinking, in the short term we'd be screwed, as economies can shift far faster than their constituents. "Manufacturing job? Uh, I'm a programmer..."

" However, in retail, standard hiring practices apply, and it is illegal to discriminate based on age, ethnicity, disability, etc. Looks seems to me to be a varient of the same thing - it is illegal to discriminate based on things the applicant can't help about their appearance."

What seems to you to be a variant of the same thing is utterly inconsequential in the lawroom. There are laws that state, explicitly, that you cannot discriminate based on various factors such as ethnicity and disability. There is no law which states that anything which seems akin to ethnicity by this David person is also illegal.

I like how the right-wing pushes personal responsibility when it's convenient for them (it's your own fault you're poor!), and then turns around and utterly disowns it a moment later (it's your fault somebody else murdered your kid!).