% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Abbott Laboratories Message Board

  • kayzee_3 kayzee_3 Jul 13, 2000 9:14 AM Flag

    ABT reviewed by top analysts

    ABT: upgraded to strong buy by SG Cowen

    Reporting .44 earnings per share and coming inline

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I've been with Abbott over 10 years, and what's
      ironic is that until most recently, it prided itself in
      being known as a "conservative" company. Through the
      years of the Clinton administration, it has shirked
      that label to assuage an activist government
      symapthetic to liberal animadversions of pharmaceutical
      companies. So I don't quite understand your sense of the
      irony of the situation.

      Secondly, George W.
      first floated the notion of "compassionate
      conservatism" and all true conservatives attacked him for it.
      George Will's response was: "compassionate conservatism
      is conservatism thinking with the wrong

      You say, "When rich nations and drug companies
      sit down and work out a plan....". Well, that IS
      socialism, and the fact that it might be "good business"
      ignores the moral perspectives of those with whom you

      Free societies cause "mass death and
      misery" only to the extent that its citizens ignore
      personal responsibility. (Politics 101) The only
      "collective" duty of a free society is to prevent its
      government or an outside government from becoming tyranical.
      That can only be done by design, through a
      Constitution, arranging a separation of powers and a system of
      checks and balances so that no one component
      superordinates another. Furthermore, the powers of each
      component must be specified so that new powers, or powers
      not listed, can't be assummed by one component at the
      expense of another.

      So yes, in my opinion, and to
      most Americans if you pressed them on it, a free
      society IS worth more than lives lost due to a plague,
      partcularly one which has as a solution a generational
      altering of behavior and habits.

      Socialists like
      you condemn free societies for "allowing" mass death
      due to AIDS even as you refuse to acknowledge the
      lives they save (and have saved) by defeating

      That's because the Utopian mindset continues to believe
      socialism can still work; "it just hasn't been done right
      yet". That belief is responsible for millions more
      lives lost than the AIDS virus. The socialist etiology
      is "envy"; the fact that it's unfair some should be
      "rich", while others "poor", and that the only way to
      bridge the gap is to extort monies from the rich through
      taxation. "Progressive" taxation makes that envy all the
      more transparent. It sends the message, 'the more you
      make the less you deserve to keep' and implies,
      sanctimoniously, 'you OUGHT to give more away to the State than
      you are INCLINED to do naturally.' Another statistic
      liberals insist on ignoring is that charitable donations
      from individuals and corporations INCREASED during the
      Reagan years after supply side economics took effect
      post 1982.

      When people are left "free" to give
      from their heart, and are not "coerced" by a
      government deciding charities for them, they do it

      Liberals don't want to shoulder the
      responsibility of choosing themselves (they are lazy)and they
      harbor resentment for the rich people THEY feel don't
      give enough. You are an elistist sort that like to use
      scare tactics such as "we cannot maintain our economy
      as this pandemic spreads from continent to
      continent, nation to nation". What bullshit that is! Another
      example of a congery of liberalism a government
      prescription is needed to cure.

      What "we" can't do is
      maintain our freedoms with liberals like you spreading
      your demogogery nation to nation, continent to

      So begin your confession: ' I am a Socialist and I
      have a problem...' If Whitaker Chambers could be
      forgiven, so could you.

    • While I disagree about Gore's benefiting pharma
      investors and agree about Bush's myopia (a right wing
      presidency would have resulted in a prolonged recession had
      their parochial views prevailed after the Asian
      meltdown), you are right on target about the sickness of
      some of the twits here re "compassion" and the deaths
      of millions of people. Of course these are the same
      warped and pathetic creatures that are out there
      proclaiming to be "prolife"!

      Since the extreme right
      wing version of "christianity" bears no resemblance to
      that religion's values, you have to view these people
      as bottom fish that are clinging to some warped
      framework. Let me suggest it is a cover for their own
      cheapness, frustrations and hatreds, and a function of their
      very limited development as people and severely
      limited exposure to the world outside their little
      hovels. Oh, and add some laziness and duplicity for a
      fuller picture.

      ABT would do well to work on
      anti-alcoholism products, anti child abuse meds, etc---all
      afflictions which are widely found among these types.

    • slimeball writes:

      :Afica's claim to
      Abbotts' patents' :violates our Constitution, is
      :actionable, and rightly so. But I :digress.

      The only
      actionable matter is your stupidity and I think the nation
      is addressing--on a public pollicy level and a
      genetic level--the stupidity that has become

      Patent laws are national matters. As someone that has
      never left his Ozark hollow that is all beyond you.
      Country X violating a US law is no more
      "unconstitutional" than China suppressing free speech or Switzerland
      preventing property owners from opening drive thru
      "restaurants." Of course many foreign countries have strict laws
      limiting the seizure of assets in nonsensical cases and
      Americans like yourself surely would find those laws

      You, doubtless, would be the first creep to advocate
      invading some third world country that found an indigenous
      botanical cure for disease(s) that inflicted you or your
      boyfriend and that wouldn't provide them at a (dirtcheap)
      price you found suitable.

      As for Nancy Reagan
      and 'just say no' I was always wondering just who on
      the planet found that inspired aside from the PR
      firm. Like all your digressions, it certainly ranks as
      about effective in having controlled drugs as Ford's
      "whip inflation now"--another program that was
      apparently in the 10 zone of your

      Happily, ABT has very apparently relegated you to some
      insignificant role..and it shows

    • Selhi said, "It is wrong to give in to those
      minorities (in this case, people dying from AIDS) when to do
      so undermines the tenets of a free society. " Well,
      there's compassionate conservatism for you--another
      brilliant statement on the Abbott board.

      I think few American's would subscribe to the
      belief that the tenets of our free society require the
      mass death and misery of millions of third world
      people. It is this kind of "compassion" that is forcing
      third world nations to break patents in order to get
      medication to their sick and dying. Ignoring the problem
      will lead to far greater impacts on our society, our
      economy, and our wealth than dealing with it
      intelligently, and with true compassion. When the rich nations
      and drug companies sit down and work out a
      comprehensive plan, the issue of patents, as well as third
      world generic drug producers will become moot. In the
      equation, I expect companies like Abbott will make out very
      well. With the financial aid of the rich nations, and
      with reduced prices, they will open up a vast,
      hitherto untouched, market, which even at greatly reduced
      margins will add significantly to the bottom line, and
      share price.

      See, this is not socialism; it�s
      good business. We cannot maintain our economy as this
      pandemic spreads from continent to continent, and nation
      to nation.

      I find it especially ironic, the
      right wing comments on this board, in light of the fact
      that this company has positioned itself to soon become
      the world's leading marketer of HIV medication.

    • miles_to_go_before_i_reap miles_to_go_before_i_reap Jul 17, 2000 9:49 PM Flag

      out this board. Most on this board have nothing
      but positive things to say MOST of it unfounded
      bullshit. I can't think of any thing positive about Miles
      (why don't you give me a list?). An here is something
      positive about Abbott; the stock holders didn't lose money

    • It is proper to expect minorities (in this case,
      people dying fron AIDS) to do anything to relieve their
      suffering, even to call upon the State for help.

      is wrong to give in to those minorities when to do
      so undermines the tenets of a free society. I turn
      your attention to the tenth amendment: "The powers not
      delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
      prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
      respectively, or to the people." For the list of powers it
      delegates to Congress, turn to Section 8. National
      healthcare is not on the list. What IS on the list is its
      power "to promote the Progress of Science and useful
      Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
      Inventors the exclusive Right to their Writings and

      Afica's claim to Abbotts' patents' violates our
      Constitution, is actionable, and rightly so. But I

      I never said attempts to reduce aggregate suffering
      are "bound to be useless". But that they can work
      doesn't mean we ought to reject some in favor of others.
      Nancy Reagans campaign of "just say no" did more to
      curb drug abuse in the past quarter century than the
      legal war against drugs. Ask an addict what's more
      difficult, to reject a bolus of heroine or maintain a
      monogamous relationship. If one can be done, why can't the

    • To avoid future confusion in which "Miles" we are
      criticizing on this board lets refer to
      Miles--before--he--leaps as "Klicks" who so far has added zero to this
      board's knowledge of Abbott's future.As for Miles White I
      voted against him & others but must admit if he could
      have pulled off the ALZA deal ABT would be like AZA @
      $60 a share!Klicks comments indicate he is a
      "low-level-louie" as far as investing is concerned and probably
      does not own any other stock but the 10 shares of ABT
      his father gave him!Let's ignore his future comments
      unless he changes his identity to "Klicks"!

    • I've consistently criticized Miles on this board,
      but I've balanced my criticism with observations as
      to what I've thought he's done right, irrespective
      of his political leanings. You NEVER have anything
      positive to say about Miles OR Abbott!

    • more to the bottom line immediately.
      And the share price has turned around this morning and is positive now.
      maybe we have reached a turning point on the current downturn in drug stocks.

    • racism and christian values over what aids monies will come from where?
      More NEWS or articles would be welcome vs spamming and useless conversation.

    • View More Messages
37.56+0.61(+1.65%)4:01 PMEDT