Drug Lobby Wins Again in Washington...

Oh yeah, that.
Yeah, that's still bullshit.

I'm pretty goddamned sure that "American spirit of innovation", would cause new drugs to still be made.

Not that I advocate the government stepping in, I'm just stating your logic to rationalize the avarice is ideology-downward, not logic-upward.

"People" or "shareholders"? People want cures for cancer and diabetes. Shareholders want NEW AND IMPROVED versions of Viagra and Prozac and the Little Purple Pill.

Big Pharma's kind of like Big Oil. Big Oil's busy buying up patents for alternative fuel sources and calling itself Big Energy. Big Pharma's selling off its "orphan molecules" to small biotech companies which will find the cures for cancer and diabetes.

Big Pharma's just gonna gouge you for Viagra and Nexxium and psych meds until the market is saturated, invent new "disease states" so they can re-package old drugs under new patents, and THEN try buying out the little biotech companies.

And you, the consumer, hand 'em your wallet and bend over.

And the combined force of pharma companies and health insurers have no power?

They may not be able to blow a hole in your skull, but if they decide to withhold a medication or treatment you need...well, you're close enough to Mexico, but not everybody has the luxury.

And tell me you've never bought meds (note, I'm not saying "drugs") on the Internet...

Last I checked, even shareholders are people. And I'd say customers count as people. Or are we going to imagine that all the things people buy they don't actually want?

People want everything. Shareholders want whatever opportunity they can find to provide it.

If you were in the business of selling oil and you saw the marketplace changing, would you adapt or would you just hang out waiting for oil sales to decline?

Sometimes small companies have the innovations that make breakthroughs possible. And it's a shame that some problems are so frought with risk that not even the promise of huge rewards will draw research and investment, but trying to eliminate the reward won't help that.

No one is entitled to anything 'Big Pharma' makes. If you don't find their price for a drug agreeable, don't buy it. Besides, you seem to suggest they don't produce anything anyone really needs anway...

Yeah, I have to bend over when I buy stuff at the grocery store, too. And I also get screwed when I buy cars. And even my rent's too high for my liking. There really should be a law...

None beyond what government gives them.

Why? I'm from a family of doctors, pharmacists, drug reps and nurses. And one lawyer. And me.

So they give you samples?

Theif.

Spoken by a man who apparently has never had a life-threatening illness or known anyone who does. Or who likes to pretend that the world really is ruled by "free market economics."

I'm beginning to see where a lot of your elitist attitude comes from. "I've got mine and fuck the rest of you."

Have that translated into Latin and it can be your family crest.

But why not acknowledge that you might not even have the hit treatment without all the billions and billions spent on misses.

What's your answer? Stop now?

Great, now I can't fix that gaffe, or it'll be obvious I fixed it now that you pointed it out.

You win this time!

On that score, you would be most wrong. But we've employed a secret handed down father-to-son by the mystics from ancient Babylon: insurance.

It isn't. That's one of the problems.

They're not investing in cutting-edge medicine so much as they're invested in marketing old drugs under new labels. With the rare exception like Merck, when was the last time a big drug company came out with something life-saving, as opposed to "Cialis is better than Viagra!!!" or "do you suffer from PMDD (formerly known as PMS)? Then try our new drug Sarafem (formerly known as Prozac)!!!"??

Now, Paladin will give you a reasoned and very intelligent sounding screed about how Big Pharma uses the profits from those drugs to plow into research on life-saving therapies.

I'd like to see his data. By and large, what doesn't go to the shareholders or the CEO's retirement fund goes to holding seminars on hair loss or Social Anxiety Disorder (formerly known as "shyness," but now a new indication for Zoloft, which wasn't selling all that much for depression) or adding Neurontin to the redundant and ever-burgeoning list of NSAIDs because there aren't enough epileptics to make it mega-profitable, so they might as well pitch it for headache, in Orlando or Vegas or Bermuda, so that dermatologists and psychiatrists and pain docs can spend three hours of a morning listening to chirpy little marketing people yammer on about "new positioning in the market" and show their little PowerPoint slides, then spend the rest of the weekend on the links or in the casino.

All paid for upfront by the pharma company and then passed on to you.

Allowing "foreign" meds (again, American companies manufacturing them overseas - so they're not helping local economies - selling the SAME DRUGS YOU'RE PAYING $10 A PILL FOR to Canadian pharmacies for 10 cents a pill) BACK into the States at the prices they're actually worth would force prices down.

That's a *true* market economy. The OP is about government protectionism.

But them as has stock in Big Pharma will tell us that that's not it at all. We should consider it a *privilege* to pay inflated prices for our medications so that they can reap their 16 cents a share this quarter.

Already is.

Except it says "I got mine, you can get yours."

And when your insurer decides not to cover your meds, you'll willingly pay full - inflated U.S. - prices for them.

Or if your insurer decides not to cover a new expensive med, but only an old generic med that's less effective and/or has nasty side effects, you'll tell yourself "Well, at least my insurance covers it."

But you'll never, ever violate your principles and buy meds online.

If my insurer upholds his agreement with me, I don't have a leg to stand on. If he does not, I have legal recourse. And the U.S. price is not inflated. It's the market price (which, unfortunately, includes the portion of the investment not paid for by the free riders in Canada and Europe).

As I said, the insurer either abides by the agreement we've made or he doesn't. I have no room to complain if he does. If my coverage is inadequate, that's my fault.

Sweetie, I don't even download music.

You keep saying that. Got any data to back it up?

No, you should be grateful that the medication exists at all, and support reforms of policies that artificially inflate the prices you pay.

But first, if you believe price controls are generally a good way to regulate drug costs then we have insufficient common ground on which to base any extended dialogue. If OTOH you agree that price controls are folly, I'll be happy to reply to whatever you have to say on this.

*Downloads music, dirty movies, video games, used to pirate tapes, "samples", grapes, jellybeans, granola, fistfuls of pudding, forearm loads of cheese cubes, hops rides on the cripple elevator, used to watch grainy Cinemax erotica, eats good food out of the trash if it's on top and not touching anything, and if had the rig, would grind up and recapsulize cheap animals meds that are the same drugs for humans marked up*



What?
I was bitten by a radioactive Korean.

Yes. Considering how loath most pharma companies are to actually develop them.

No

How can you not see that what the Senate did in effect ENFORCES PRICE CONTROLS? Granted, they're price controls that keep prices artificially inflated, but the government is controlling the prices you pay for meds.

Why is the pharmaceutical industry the one place where you guys apply reverse thinking?

Ya know, I know just how expensive these drugs are... Have to pay for diabetes meds on a monthly basis... And until someone shows me that the level of profit pharm companies make on US sales is wrong, fuck the whiners.

What a good little trooper.
Guess you won't want my reprocessed animal pills for 2 bucks a bottle.
After you croak, the dollar sign fairy will give you....allow you to possibly earn 75 virgins.

Buried in the subtext of this higher argument is the false assertion that medications are a right, and not a consumer good like any other.

It's self-evident. The price is not fixed by any external party.

Bingo.

I don't assert anything about rights, I just take cuz I'm wicked.

Ah, been around you guys too long, I used to be able to stir the shit on both sides.

No, I won't.

I'll tell you they may do that if the risk/return picture justifies it. I'll also tell you they're under no obligation to do so. If a company wants to pour 100% of its resources into boner pills or somesuch, it is their RIGHT to do so.

Purely anecdotal, but here it is: life-saving medications exist. Go to the doctor with any problem, they'll probably have some kind of treatment for it. Sheesh, an aunt of mine had a cancer so rare, they didn't even have a name for it when she was first diagnosed. But 'Big Pharma' came up with a treatment!

When you own the business, then you can run it the way you want. And as far as re-targeting drugs at other ailments, that's what your FDA is for.

If those things make the cost of their product too high, people won't buy.

Your conception is the Canadians are paying the 'real' price and we're getting screwed. The reality is that, unless American consumers pay the big money for new drugs, THERE WILL BE NO NEW DRUGS. The whole reason 'Big Pharma' is against re-importation is that they are losing big profits which is contrary to their WHOLE REASON TO EXIST.

In a truly market economy consisting of all players, Canadians would not be insulated from the market price. Their costs should go up substantially, ours down a little.

It isn't a priviledge, but profits do provide a positive result: they encourage companies to develop drugs. Anyone who drives the profit out of a business drives the motive for the business away. I can't believe there's still anyone left who doesn't understand this.

^Ah, the old fallback. "If you don't agree that pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to charge whatever they want to American consumers while selling cheap to everyone else in the world, then you don't understand what profit means. Or maybe you're just against profit. So you're either stupid, or a commie, or both."

Well, it would be hard to argue that they're merely a commercial commodity and suggest that some medical treatments should be mandatory

I'm still wanting to see the earnings statements that show these pharma's are making OBSCENE PROFITS!