Allen offers another myopic vision of corporate malfeasance.

He and the attorney generals skips the question of whether the pharmaceutical companies have engaged in wrongdoing. He also fails to offer any proper remedy in the case that they did not engage in wrongdoing but have to defend baseless lawsuits from every side. Instead, he jumps right into what a good thing it will be to transfer presumably legal profits to the states and the lawyers.

Until he comes up with a better solution, I just cannot take him seriously.

Not to try to be funny, but he seems to be screaming that the sky is falling. Except, unlike the fowl with the same surname, Little has cited the gathering storm and history of actions such as this.

(Allan is clearly putting the emphasis on the industry to prove that its actions were legal and have to spend money to prove it rather than having the attorney generals be held accountable for another money grab..)

Great point. It’s not like Little can point to any historical example of the abusive nature of states suing the bad corporations.

She entirely skips the question of whether the pharmaceutical companies have engaged in wrongdoing. She also fails to offer any proper remedy in the case that they did engage in wrongdoing. Instead, she jumps right into what a bad thing it will be to transfer presumably ill-gotten gains to the “bloated” states and the lawyers.

Until she comes up with a better solution, I just cannot take her seriously.

Not to try to be funny, but she seems to be screaming that the sky is falling. Except, unlike the fowl with the same surname, she has cited nothing that has fallen as yet.

(I am not saying the gains were ill-gotten. I am just saying that, if they are ill-gotten, Ms. Little has offered no remedy.)