| Author | Message | ||
     Johnnymceldoo |
Looks like some progressives are taking the president to task! | ||
| Indy_bueller |
I knew they were starting to implode on the healthcare thing, but I didn't expect that. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
My understanding is that in return for this deal the Pharmaceutical companies agreed to fund some huge number for advertising and promotion FOR the healthcare plan. | ||
| Bikejunky |
Yeah I am pretty happy about this one. Our own Sen. Max Baucus negotiated the deal. What a F'ing Douche Canoe. Met the guy a couple of times. Only way a guy like him gets places is by trading shady deals. Damn snake. Makes me sick for the citizens of our country and especially for Montanans since we put him there.  | ||
| Teeps |
How can you tell if a politician is lying? His/her oral orifice is open and sound is being emitted. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Hey, there's no better way to reward capitalism than by punishing it. It's no secret that many products sold in the U.S., not just drugs, cost more because we, as a population, can afford. This allows companies to sell in other countries where per capita income is much lower at a lower price point. If we lower drug prices in the U.S., we'll see worldwide prices go up. Let's see how much they'll all like us now. And the liberal argument of how it's so unfair of them to block generic versions of drugs... makes me barf. I bet Apple would have been pretty pissed off if after investing who knows how many millions of dollars in testing and development of the iPhone, other companies were allowed to immediatly produce and sell carbon copies of the device with no Apple logo at half the price. Why should trademark and patent law be excempt from pecription drugs? We're slowly making it 'not worth it' for many industries to exsist in the country. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Drugs are a product. Drug companies sell their products the same way other companies so. Their current strategy is just like Kroger, Honda, or Rolex. It's called market segmentation. A company has to sell so many of a product at full price in order to make the sale of the same product at lower prices possible. The drug companies aren't the enemy. Patent laws and over regulation are. | ||
| Hexangler |
...Patent laws...Tell that to Erik, I'm sure it'll go over well for ya'. | ||
| Xl1200r |
If I were a drug company and invested piles of money into a new product, I'd expect to get paid for it if it were successful. If the industry were deregulated and patent laws excepted from drug companies, making is nearly impossible for me recoup my costs before a flood of generic options came onto the market, then I probably wouldn't have bothered making the drug in the first place. Let's all take a guess at what kind of healthcare we'll have when none of the drug companies deem it worthwhile to develop new drugs anymore. | ||
| Swordsman |
I'm all for recouping an investment, but I wonder about the profit margin. A girl at work got a shot the other day that cost $1000. For ONE shot. How many of those get sold a day across the US? ~SM | ||
| Hexangler |
Did the shot save her life, or at least better the odds for life, if so, you'll have to ask her if it was worth it. Her life might not be worth the grand to you, but when you need help, would you rather have the choice to purchase a remedy, or not have one and leave it up to your higher power? Ridiculous. If you get bit by a rattler, anti-venom is $3500 per dose. She got off easy. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Without knowing what the shot was for, I would guess not many. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it were no more than a handful of people getting that $1000 shot in a day - maybe even a week... This stuff gets tricky - Allow the generics to come onto market sooner, and the big drug companies will have to charge even more while they have the rights to it. Let the drug companies keep the rights longer, and prices are unlikely to go down since they'll be the only place you can get said drug. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Tell that to Erik, I'm sure it'll go over well for ya'. Tell Erik what? | ||
| Hexangler |
You said That patent laws are the ENEMY!?! Now who's talkin' like a pinko? Maybe you'll like them Chini crap in ya. Intellectual property, how silly! How can anybody own an idea? | ||
| Indybuell |
 | ||
| Moxnix |
Patent protection allows a pharmaceutical company to recover their research investment during a "monopoly" period of sales, followed by generic offerings by competitors which lowers prices. That allows for rather expensive R&D on drugs which may or may not work, may or may not go to market. It's an incentive. It's the way everything works. I spent two hours last evening at a forum, with a doctor as guest speaker, on how healthcare currently works and reading tea leafs about how it may change. Right now, if a drug is $5K per dose, and approved by the FDA, and prescribed by a physician, it is covered by Medicare. If it is "off label," or in development and not yet approved, it is likely not available and will not be paid by insurance or Medicare. My fear is pharmaceutical research will decrease with the lack of incentives for "big pharma." The doctor noted that Sen. Ted Kennedy is alive because he is receiving a promising new drug called Avastin, or Bevacizumab, an "outlier" "targeting angiogenisis" which is currently off label, expected to come on market in 2010 or 11. I bet HIS government health care package is covering the $4000 to $5000 per treatment cost, or he magically came into the study and is paying $0. In treating some types of cancer, and in gauging effectiveness, it adds, on average, another 22.4 months to a patient's life. | ||
| Hexangler |
BTW mine is scheduled to publish 08 Sept. 2009.  | ||
| Rainman |
How do you know when a politician is lying? | ||
| Hexangler |
First rule of lawyering: If you don't know the answer, don't ask the question. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
You said That patent laws are the ENEMY!?! They are the enemy in that they are too short particularly for pharmaceuticals. I believe they get only 20 years on the patent, shorter than the standard duration. A drug may take 5-8 years to create and another 5-8 years to make it through the FDA testing and approval process. As a result, a drug company may only have 4-10 years of the patent left to recoup R&D, marketing, and sales costs. As a result, the per dose price must reflect these costs and patent duration. Once the patent wears off, other drug companies reverse engineer the product and sell it at a fraction of the cost. | ||
| Fast1075 |
I would be willing to bet that the competitors have samples and are working on the reverse engineering long before they are released for general distribution...  THAT would be savvy.. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
If you don't think 20 years is long enough to recover R&D plus mfg cost plus a profit the I want some of what drug your using. A huge chunk of pharma research is funded by the govt through Universities. (I'm not saying that I like it this way, but this is the way it is right now) To me the problem is the insurance and legal industries that tag along behind the medical industry. Medical should be based on supply and demand just like anything else. Take the 1k shot mentioned earlier, how many would be sold if it was subjected to true supply and demand.... or would it even have been developed in the first place? Economics and capitalism are brutal, but until someone comes up with a better model that actually works I'll stick with it. | ||
| Fast1075 |
I knew a kid that had Tourettes (sic) syndrome...his parents had to go to Mexico and smuggle his medication in because it was not worth the cost to the pharma to have it tested and approved here... | ||
| Xl1200r |
If you don't think 20 years is long enough to recover R&D plus mfg cost plus a profit the I want some of what drug your using. 20 years minus development & testing time and FDA approval time leaves much less than 20 years. | ||
| Hexangler |
Hell, it takes 4-5 years just to wade "unprotected" though the patent bureaucracy. Don't get me started. I think I understand what you meant Fats. Not sure if I agree with your reasoning, but now I know where your coming from. Thanks for your explanation. | ||
| Greenlantern |
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/c rsdocuments/RL3075601102005.pdf | ||
| Hexangler |
Thanks Greenlantern! It's a big read, but very interesting! | ||
| Bikejunky |
I know this won't be liked by many people, but I think that profiting off of the sick and dying is morbid and the health care industry needs to look at this as a moral issue and treat it with more respect and less brutal bottom dollar profit mongering. Just my .02 | ||
| Xl1200r |
I know this won't be liked by many people, but I think that profiting off of the sick and dying is morbid and the health care industry needs to look at this as a moral issue and treat it with more respect and less brutal bottom dollar profit mongering. And then we can expect the same employee dedication and effenciency as your local DMV. No thanks. Should the used car dealer lower his prices and ignore profits because he's selling a good that allows struggeling Americans to get to work and earn a living? "Feel good" feels good, but it doesn't put food on the table or gas in the tank. | ||
| Blake |
"profiting off of the sick and dying" I'd phrase that differently. The folks who bring us some of the most miraculous medicines are earning a profit through their efforts to cure and/or restore quality of life to people. If anything deserves to earn a profit, that does! |
