Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Drug Cost Increases From $10 To $1,500  
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8328 posts, RR: 9
Posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2304 times:

Quote:

"When a drug to prevent babies from being born too early won federal approval in February, many doctors, pregnant women and others cheered the step as a major advance against a heartbreaking tragedy.

Then they saw the price tag.

The list price for the drug, Makena, turned out to be a stunning $1,500 per dose. That’s for a drug that must be injected every week for about 20 weeks, meaning it will cost about $30,000 per at-risk pregnancy. If every eligible American woman were to get Makena, the nation’s bloated annual health-care tab would swell by more than $4 billion.

What really infuriates patients and doctors is that the same compound has been available for years at a fraction of the cost — about $10 or $20 a shot."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation.../03/04/AFmRo6qB_story.html?hpid=z3

The scope of the problem is pretty clear, as shown later in the column:

Quote:

More than 500,000 of the 4.2 million women who have babies each year give birth prematurely, and many of the babies don’t survive. Those who do are at increased risk for many health problems, including mental retardation, cerebral palsy and autism.

Being financially pragmatic, the public cost to care for babies born with these health problems will far exceed the $30,000 for protecting the pregnancy. IIRC, Alaska spends about $75,000 a year per "special child" in their school system.

I understand that there is a cost to bringing the drug to market - about $200 Million in this case, but the company fails to mention the tax breaks they will get for that investment. Or the fact that they didn't even invent the drug.

Maybe we need to start looking at a Windfall Profits Tax on the pharma industry that insists on abusive pricing. And maybe this company should loose their exclusive rights to a product that has been available at pharmacies for years.

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2277 times:

I'm down for flat out socialized healthcare   


Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19944 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2261 times:

What has happened here is the same thing that happened with SYNAGIS (anti-RSV monoclonal antibody) and botolinum anti-toxin. Both are frightfully expensive (more so than they have to be) but less than the average cost of the problems that they prevent.

They asked: "How much does it cost on average per at-risk pregnancy to provide the NICU and follow-up care to the resultant baby?" They then did some simple arithmetic, figuring out how much this drug would save the system if it were free. Then they priced it so that the cost of the drugs is less than the average cost per at-risk pregnancy.

And yes, it is ghastly and predatory.

But for drugs like botolinum anti-toxin and SYNAGIS, the drugs themselves are expensive to manufacture. They are biologic drugs, meaning that they can't just be synthesized in a series of chemical reactions. They have to be genetically introduced into whole cells (usually Chinese hamster ovary cells... don't ask me why), allowed to be produced in a bioreactor, and then purified. And the slightest contamination kills the whole batch.

But this drug is a small molecule, hydroxyprogesterone. It's just a slight modification on progesterone and the total cost to produce the world's supply of the stuff for a year is probably less than $1000.

The government is going to have to take action on this and also start to investigate other hideously expensive drugs that seem to be priced more to compete with the cost of not taking the drug than they are to recoup the costs of development. It can't even justify R&D on other drugs.

The anti-government people might ask why the market can't just take care of this? Why not just allow compounding pharmacies to continue to make their product. Well, if you read the article, the company now has a patent on this drug and any compounding pharmacy would be violating the patent.

My cousin was born two days ago at 25 weeks' gestation, over three months premature. She's doing well so far, but the idea that someone would want to profit so lavishly off of her innocent suffering makes my blood boil.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2246 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
the idea that someone would want to profit so lavishly off of her innocent suffering makes my blood boil

Mine too, as well as any other reasonably-minded person. Capitalism is capitalism, but some things are just f*cking wrong. This is one of them.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
But for drugs like botolinum anti-toxin and SYNAGIS, the drugs themselves are expensive to manufacture.

Well this is the critical thing - some want to point fingers and say all expensive drugs are profiteering, when that's clearly not the case. Hard to focus on that when big pharma is pulling crap like this though.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2230 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter):
I understand that there is a cost to bringing the drug to market - about $200 Million in this case, but the company fails to mention the tax breaks they will get for that investment.

What tax breaks?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
The anti-government people might ask why the market can't just take care of this? Why not just allow compounding pharmacies to continue to make their product. Well, if you read the article, the company now has a patent on this drug and any compounding pharmacy would be violating the patent.

If they didn't even invent the drug, why were they given a patent? Never mind the FDA's hands are obviously all over this.

Sounds more like a broken government problem: broken patent system, and the bureaucrats disliking what was going on before. It's what regulations brought us, not the market.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2215 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter):
Maybe we need to start looking at a Windfall Profits Tax on the pharma industry that insists on abusive pricing. And maybe this company should loose their exclusive rights to a product that has been available at pharmacies for years.
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 3):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
the idea that someone would want to profit so lavishly off of her innocent suffering makes my blood boil

Mine too, as well as any other reasonably-minded person. Capitalism is capitalism, but some things are just f*cking wrong. This is one of them.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
But for drugs like botolinum anti-toxin and SYNAGIS, the drugs themselves are expensive to manufacture.

Well this is the critical thing - some want to point fingers and say all expensive drugs are profiteering, when that's clearly not the case. Hard to focus on that when big pharma is pulling crap like this though.


So how are the drug companies to re-coup the cost of developing new drugs?

Makena cost $200 million to develop!

I guess you all think Makena should be sold at a price that would never allow the company to make a profit?


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8328 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2216 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 4):
What tax breaks?

If you spend money to develop a product then that cost is a tax deduction. Depending on product you can immediately write off costs, or capitalize them to spread depreciation over a period of time. A $200 million cost will result in a $70,000,000 reduction in income taxes. Unless, of course, they are hit with a windfall tax.

BTW, how much do you think patients in Canada, Australia or the UK will have to pay for the same medication? Do you really believe that any reasonable country will acknowledge any patent rights this company claims? Expecially, as noted in the article:

Quote:

the main study used to demonstrate the drug’s effectiveness was a $5 million project conducted by the National Institutes of Health — paid by taxpayers.


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4491 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2201 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 3):
Hard to focus on that when big pharma is pulling crap like this though.

Indeed. And it screws EVERYONE--from those who need it, to the pharmacies that make next to zero on it, to the taxpayers who have to subsidize it.

Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter):
Maybe we need to start looking at a Windfall Profits Tax

That's not the answer, but there are other ways to increase accountability.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2182 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
If you spend money to develop a product then that cost is a tax deduction. Depending on product you can immediately write off costs, or capitalize them to spread depreciation over a period of time. A $200 million cost will result in a $70,000,000 reduction in income taxes. Unless, of course, they are hit with a windfall tax.

That's not really a "tax break" because you are basing it off their revenues, not their profits. Taxes are paid on profits not revenues.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
BTW, how much do you think patients in Canada, Australia or the UK will have to pay for the same medication? Do you really believe that any reasonable country will acknowledge any patent rights this company claims? Expecially, as noted in the article:

IP rights in the US is broken and needs reform, no doubt about that. I think it's a major issue that needs urgent attention.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8328 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 7):
That's not the answer, but there are other ways to increase accountability.

Windfall Profit Taxes have been used in the past and I think that a Pharma Windfall Tax Bill working it's way through Congress will get the companies involved to re-look at their pricing rather fast. Of course it also pours millions into campaign funds for politicians who work to protect the pharma companies. But it is still a valid approach, especially when it uses comparative costs between countries to determine if the extra taxes are warranted. IMHO we have been suckers for too long when it comes to the costs of medications.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 8):
That's not really a "tax break" because you are basing it off their revenues, not their profits. Taxes are paid on profits not revenues.

When you have a company making a profit the tax deduction is a reduction in the taxes you actually pay. If a company fails to make a profit in a year then that deduction can be used in another year.


User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1862 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2075 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 8):
Taxes are paid on profits not revenues.

What about income tax? VAT? Property tax?

Of course it's a tax break.


User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2072 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 5):
Makena cost $200 million to develop!

Which isn't that unusual in the drug industry, is it? $200 million equals what, about 7000 pregnancies at $30 000 each. If this drug is a good as it seems, I'd venture that they'd break even and begin to make a profit after a few of years at the most, if people could afford it.

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19944 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 4):

If they didn't even invent the drug, why were they given a patent?

Orphan drug laws and indications. Read the article for more details.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 5):

So how are the drug companies to re-coup the cost of developing new drugs?

Makena cost $200 million to develop!

Well, at $100/pt/yr and 500,000 pts/yr, they could recoup those costs in 4 years (if I got my math right). At $100/dose (assuming average 4-5 doses per pt.) they could recoup the costs in 1 year.

The actual cost of manufacturing and packaging each dose is very small. Literally pennies per dose. So all of the costs for this drug are R&D.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8328 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1982 times:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 10):
What about income tax? VAT? Property tax?

The tax break I noted was income tax, which is applied to the taxable net income, not revenues. VAT it a Value Added Tax that is totally unrelated to a company's gross/net profits. Property taxes are normally based on the value of the property owned by the company, but it is not uncommon for a city to provide property tax deals to attract new companies to their city.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1984 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9):
When you have a company making a profit the tax deduction is a reduction in the taxes you actually pay. If a company fails to make a profit in a year then that deduction can be used in another year.

Like you said: making a PROFIT. You can't even calculate profit if you don't take into account EXPENSES.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 10):
What about income tax? VAT? Property tax?

Those deductions have nothing to do with VAT and property tax. Income tax on business is based on their profits.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 10):
Of course it's a tax break.

Sorry, it simply isn't. Take some accounting and tax classes and come back to the discussion.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8634 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1949 times:

It sounds like a great invention. But there is no reason we need to give patent protection to these government funded inventions, usually created by public labs or by substantial public money.

It's people like me (corporate type people) who ruin the American healthcare market. That is why I refuse to take a role in the health insurance or drug industries. These industries should not exist. They are parasite industries with terrible incentives.

As India does, we should publicly fund a great deal of research according to a meritocratic process. Once discoveries are made, make them freely available to all (without any drug or genetic patents).


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8328 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1928 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 15):
These industries should not exist. They are parasite industries with terrible incentives.

The problem isn't that these companies exist, the problem is that we have an environment where they have gone out of control in their money grab. We can't return to the ethical environment that we had in the 50s and 60s, which basically means we need to look at intelligent alternatives. Core health care funded by a tax is one way to bring some sanity back to health care. That doesn't stop insurance companies from making a nice profit on the "extras", just like they do in countries like Australia.

As for the pharma charging like a wounded bull in the US and a lot more reasonably in other countries, windfall taxes are one alternative, as is requiring a cost ceiling for medications based on government funded research. That doesn't stop companies from recovering their true costs, but it can stop the rip-offs like we see in this situation.


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):
The problem isn't that these companies exist, the problem is that we have an environment where they have gone out of control in their money grab.



Pretty simple ...if the primary income steam for Pharma is the US government and its endless supply of cash ... then why not.? Big Pharma would prefer Universal health care ...its easier than really competing , all you have to do is convince a few greedy bureaucrats and you can make billions .

The liberals and RINOS want it badly ..they know they can steal from big pharma and pad the old coffers come election time. These schemes that you uncovered are not by accident ...they want costs to go up so the Dem's can finally have full universal health care using greed as the vehicle. Nothing in the health care bill past last year lowers cost ...it was not intended to do that it was intended to pave the way for single payer. Period.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19944 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 17):
Nothing in the health care bill past last year lowers cost

Then you know something the CBO doesn't.

Oddly, in 100% of other countries with universal healthcare, the costs of drugs are much lower. But American conservatives think that there is something magical about the USA where what works in 100% of other places can't possibly work here. Not transit, not healthcare, not infrastructure spending, nope. We're magical!


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8328 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1856 times:

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 17):
its easier than really competing , all you have to do is convince a few greedy bureaucrats and you can make billions .

From what I remember about the pharma business in Australia was that the companies had to deliver some very strong pricing to get listed for government funding. A $1,200 cost per dose "might" get accepted if the drug company could clearly demonstrate extraordinary high production costs. But a company trying to get $1,200 for a dose of Makena that has a $10 cost would not stand a chance. And it compounding pharmacies in Australia had been providing that medication for years (like in the US) then the Aussies would hopefully tell the drug company to shove it.

The US is where the pharma companies have it easier and that will continue until we get core care provided by a tax, not an insurance company.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1847 times:

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 17):
Nothing in the health care bill past last year lowers cost ...it was not intended to do that it was intended to pave the way for single payer. Period.

Excuse me? What is this thinking that national healthcare insurance automatically means higher cost? Japan is one of the most expensive countries in the world and a similar round of testing and treatment I had there in 2009 cost 3x more when I had the same done here in January with full private coverage. Not only that but drugs are cheaper too despite heavy regulation and hardly any competition among pharmacies (there are basically three large national chains everyone uses). What gives?



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1862 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1762 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14):
Income tax on business is based on their profits.

But it's not the only tax business pay.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14):
Sorry, it simply isn't. Take some accounting and tax classes and come back to the discussion.

Profits are just an arithmetic operation between several other figures. A tax deduction can be calculated on any of their components, hence why my reply to this:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 8):
Taxes are paid on profits not revenues.

So, for example, the tax breaks granted to small business for providing health care to workers are not a tax break in your book?


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1730 times:

I am talking about after we have single payer and the government becomes THE customer . That is the plan right now ...they want costs to go up inorder to basicaly force universal healthcare , and it is happening. Why are my employee insruance costs going up ??... It is counter to everything he said because Obama has not a clue of how the real world works .

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
Oddly, in 100% of other countries with universal healthcare, the costs of drugs are much lower. But American conservatives think that there is something magical about the USA where what works in 100% of other places can't possibly work here. Not transit, not healthcare, not infrastructure spending, nope. We're magical!
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):
I had there in 2009 cost 3x



The cost to who ? You as a individual paying it at the visit is not going to be the problem. What pharma bills the fed and fed in turn takes form us in taxes or better yet just deficit spends is the issue. Two things are going to happen ... the national health care system will be in deficit or our taxes are going to shoot up to cover it... either way it is a dead end in America.

Do you believe Pharma will make no profit after we have uni care ? See these leftist really believe pharma is going to just donate the drugs because its all for the good of the community kumbaya and all that . It will become the pharma industrial complex and then we will see the pricing based on political favouritism and bureaucratic opportunism.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19944 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1730 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
But a company trying to get $1,200 for a dose of Makena that has a $10 cost would not stand a chance

Let me make it quite clear.

The vial costs maybe 10¢. The box maybe 5¢. The printed insert 5¢. The drug itself would shock me if it cost 5¢. If they're gonna include a syringe of diluent, figure another 10¢.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1721 times:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 21):
Profits are just an arithmetic operation between several other figures. A tax deduction can be calculated on any of their components

Just about all those "components" are a form of expense which means just about all of it is "deductible" TO ARRIVE AT PROFIT or other equivalent terminology. Then you calculate your tax bill.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 21):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 8):
Taxes are paid on profits not revenues.

So, for example, the tax breaks granted to small business for providing health care to workers are not a tax break in your book?

Isn't this benefit an expense to the company? Don't expenses reduce profits?

[Edited 2011-03-31 08:49:51]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
25 JJJ : So, going back to square 1, aren't tax breaks granted on R&D costs really tax breaks? Because that's precisely what you said when Ken777 said thi
26 Ken777 : Have you seen a year where health insurance costs have not gone up? Mine doubled during the first Bush/Cheney term. I'm in agreement at that level. T
27 Post contains links AGM100 : We don't need to compare anything ... McDermott say's it all in this clip. The central planners in Washington are the only ones who can keep costs do
28 Aaron747 : To everyone. 3x the cost is 3x the cost no matter who is paying and that's untenable. I received an itemized bill showing what my insurance paid out
29 PPVRA : You need to reread replies 8, 9 and 14.
30 AGM100 : Simple ..they make policy without thinking about the hard cold stark realities of running a mutli billion dollar pharmaceutical corporation. Or what
31 Aaron747 : We're obviously talking about pages of two different books here.
32 Post contains images DocLightning : Oooh! Be afraid.
33 LAXintl : Seems to me KV Pharmaceutical‘s is doing exactly right by marketing and pricing their drug. The whole point of a for-profit business offering servic
34 DocLightning : Healthcare is not a simple "market." It is in India, yes. In India, they will walk away from you and let you die if you can't afford treatment. And f
35 LAXintl : So you want a manufacturers of goods such as pharmaceuticals to forgo an opportunity to make some money on their products due to some altruistic motiv
36 DocLightning : First, yes. It's healthcare. Second, it's not THEIR product, is it? Until they somehow abused the laws and got a patent on something they didn't even
37 JJJ : No matter how times I read them "Tax breaks on R&D costs aren't really tax breaks because taxes are paid on profits" is absolute, premium quality
38 N867DA : People are going to die so they can make money off a product that a panhandler could have afforded two years ago. You see nothing wrong with this? Th
39 Pyrex : Again, how is it "tax breaks"? The word tax break implies some special tax treatment, which is not at all the case. If you know even the slightest th
40 windy95 : Doc is this the case of a drug being made for one problem but then they find it has another use? Also do you think that drugs are overmarketed and do
41 AGM100 : Why ... the discussion is about the government doing something about greedy pharma right ? What the current administration and the left wants is a co
42 LAXintl : Millions do not invest in health-care to see a zero return on our monies. Its a for-profit business, and its expected companies to do all possible to
43 Post contains links Ken777 : How can any doctor or reasonable American look at the Republican/Health Insurance approach and not be offended . . . amazing! Companies are able to b
44 AGM100 : Offended that they have to get a job and take care of themselves ... that's about it. The whole reason costs are going up is because the providers kn
45 Ken777 : They were also "clever" and managed to get sufficient public attention and a loud enough outcry to make them reverse course rather fast, hopefully ge
46 Aaron747 : Single-payer doesn't work so well. Triple payer, such as what Japan, HK, and Singapore are using, does. More backup is never a bad thing. It's also e
47 windy95 : How does the prescription drugs system work there? Is R & D subsidised by the governement's or the cost's? Or is it just regulation?
48 pilotsmoe : That's why we need government regulations
49 DocLightning : That would not be possible in any other industry. It's as if Boeing suddenly patented the wing and then prohibited any other manufacturer from making
50 sxmarbury33 : Are you guys going by US GAAP or IFRS? A company with an identifiable intangible asset, such as a patent, according to US GAAP prohibits the capitiliz
51 Post contains images LAXintl : Profit margins on all things will not be equal in life. As someone that owns a business and who has other members in the family in various businesses
52 DocLightning : Nor should a half-century-old drug be. But due to the vagaries of pharmaceutical law, it is. And that law needs to be changed forth-with.
53 Ken777 : I've also owned a business and understand that. The challenge for the company in this particular situation is that they pushed way too far, developed
54 Aaron747 : As I said, that's your feeling on it now. I submit you will feel differently when caring for yours and receiving massive bills that are based not on
55 MD11Engineer : Actually the example has a historical background: When the British inventor Newcomen patented his early (and very imperfect) steam engine, he receive
56 PPVRA : Capitalization means a delay in recognizing the expense. They get spread out over a period of time. It doesn't affect the total amount of expense. Al
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Getting From MAD To Madrid Atocha Rail Station posted Mon Nov 8 2010 17:41:22 by novak500
Switching From PC To Macbook Pro, A Good Idea? posted Mon Jul 19 2010 13:29:23 by runway23
Getting From LAS To The Strip posted Mon Jul 12 2010 12:17:55 by DLX737200
How To Get From Shannon To Dublin posted Wed May 26 2010 17:22:51 by A318
Unable To Send Email From Gmail To Cellphone Email posted Fri May 7 2010 09:59:28 by wardialer
Music From IPhone To Airport Express posted Sat Apr 17 2010 13:05:39 by SK A340
Gaddafi Bans Europeans From Travelling To Libya posted Mon Feb 15 2010 19:04:16 by BoeingVista
Getting From LGA To Jersey (Neptune City) posted Wed Dec 23 2009 15:14:49 by BUFMD90PL
MAC Question: Media Files From Ipod To Hard Drive posted Wed Dec 23 2009 12:18:14 by Greasespot
Media Content From Apple To Windows And Back posted Mon Nov 30 2009 07:23:57 by Greasespot