Trolling again?

Drug companies making a reasonable profit and people being able to afford medication for their deathly sick children are two separate issues, no?

Or are you of the belief that the government has no role in paying for and regulating the standards and delivery of medical care in the USA?

Cheers,
Scott.

1) Does he have actual evidence of a family that can't afford a life-saving medication going out and buying a $900 iPad? Or is this a "welfare queen in Cadillacs" meme? And even if there is one, somewhere, what does that have to do with the question?

2) "The mother said the boy was on the drug Abilify, used to treat schizophrenia, and that, on paper, its costs would exceed $1 million each year." How does talking about $900 iPads address that? Does he think $1M a year for a drug is an acceptable price for a patient and/or his/her insurance to pay? She said she had insurance that covers it but many people she has seen, don't. His policy apparently is, "Well iPads are expensive so $1M a year for drugs is fine."

IOW, his reply was non-sequitur. She wasn't asking whether drug companies should be able to make a profit, she was wondering what he would do about people who need life-saving drugs and can't afford them. One might think that a candidate who wears his Christianity and piousness on his sleeve, and lets everyone know about it at every opportunity, and has a child with a rare and usually deadly condition, might have some ideas for policies that help the poor in those situations. But apparently not, since iPads cost $900.

It seemed pretty clear to me what lincoln thought about it from the Subject he used. YMMV.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.