When pharmaceutical companies are public enemy number one it takes quite a bit of gall to air a high production value, high budget commercial in
one of the most high priced spots of the year.
I am not an economics major, so please tell me if this is wrong, but could the money for that commercial not have been redistributed into production
and perhaps bring down the cost to the consumer? Maybe I am wrong, but if there is this much money for advertising it is hard to make an argument for astronomical medicine prices.
Eventually,
no one is going to see these commercials anyway, everyone will be on
the road, going to Canada where they can get affordable drugs.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Super Bowl Ad
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Obviously, heart attacks are not as serious as they used to be. This could mean the end of one of my all time favorite Cliché's.
hell yeah man, remember the good old days when drugs (legal and otherwise) were not allowed to advertise on TV?
whats wrong w/ making them stick to magazines and doctor's offices? nowadays people go to ther doctor and are like "i wand zelcoralicinrifdellin" or whatever the latest drug is. they don't even know what it does or treats, but they saw the commercial and now the "realize" that they have those s ymptoms. good thing the drug companits are getting rich while millions of americans can't even afford their drugs. great.
good thing that the W white house has really helped the healthcare system in america
Post a Comment