It's funny - my friend Miranda, who lives in Austin was once working at a fancy restaurant where they were hosting a dinner for some Big Pharma guys. Miranda is a musician, and her manager offered her a gig playing the dinner. All she would have to do, he said, was play a few songs while people were having cocktails, and she'd make $500. (Which, by the way, is a lot.)

Not being able to afford health insurance herself, Miranda turned down the offer. She said while it would be nice to make money off of very little work, it was spending like that that had driven up medical care costs and prescription costs in this country, and if she took the money she would be culpable for that. She would be part of a system that had made medicine and care unaffordable to her and her friends.

Stand up girl, that one.

Oh, and "Time in a Bottle" is my parents' wedding song.

This spot bugs me a lot. It was just on again. I know Jim's widow, Ingrid, had a hard time getting any of her money released from the label.

I think the fact that the tune isnt not playing in the background is proof enough they did not pay anything.

I knew there would be someone out there that felt the same way as me about this stupid ad. No offense intended to the song writer, but I don't know the song. Or maybe I would if it were playing in the background for the commercial, which it's not because they would rather steal a song than pay a little money to make their stupid commercial work. It's a really annoying spot, and someone needs to get fired over it. And it's also a stupid idea to claim they're giving me time in a bottle anyway. WTF are they talking about anyway? Doesn't make any sense at all. Not that drug companies placing ads on TV makes sense in the first place. I give it two thumps down. Go back to producing drugs - lose the cheesy advertising campaigns...