User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:12:44 PM EDT
[#1]
Thanks to our HMO, we pay very little for drugs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:14:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Somehow I knew you could spin this for the GOP. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:16:44 PM EDT
[#3]
If a company invents a new drug, they own it. Period. You can call it a monopoly if you would like, but if the drug was never invented where would we be then? The government has no right to take something from a private company to make things fair. So if a company spends 20% of it's gross revenue on R&D and it's gross revenue triples in a period of time, has the R&D they do gone up or down? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:17:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Would you rather not have the drugs?????? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:19:26 PM EDT
[#5]
No DD... they would rather have everyone work for the government, be given a stipend, live in government housing, stand in bread lines with ration coupons and have free education and medical care for all... wait... hasn;t that been tried somewhere?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:19:43 PM EDT
[#6]
How is it that Canada has the same exact drugs at 1/10 the cost? Profit is one thing, human lives and pain are another thing all together. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:22:49 PM EDT
[#7]
Read the previous page for your answer. You really can't be that misinformed, can you? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:23:47 PM EDT
[#8]
You really can't be THAT brainwashed are you?
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:26:03 PM EDT
[#9]
If you have such a problem with drug companies, you should stop supporting them and boycott their products. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:28:13 PM EDT
[#10]
Great idea! 
|
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:29:35 PM EDT
[#11]
I thought you would think so. You want to benefit from other people's work without paying for it. Typical socialist. |
|||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:31:21 PM EDT
[#12]
Yes it is. Canada has cheap drugs because they have a single buyer, the government, and monopoly power, not a free market. To make things worse, they threaten US drug makers with breaking their patents if they refuse to sell, and cheaply to Canada. We need a profitable pharma industry if they are going to do the R&D to make new cures. Otherwise let's say screw it and forget about developing new cures. We can revert to Canada-mode and develop virtually no new cures for diseases. GunLvr |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:32:36 PM EDT
[#13]
No. I think I would be happy with the resulting prices if the drug companies refused to sell drugs in price-control countries for any price that didn't ensure that per-unit receipts reflected the per-unit return necessary to amortize the cost of dvelopment of that drug, of future R&D, and a profit for the investors who keep the company going: IOW, if the drug companies and the gov't worked together to ensure that the cost of drugs was evenly spread around the world, so that Canadians, Germans, and whoever else is sucking off the American tit paid the same price, to the penny, as Americans pay for their drugs. It would require some dangerous unilateralism (a scary phrase to some of you nanny-state-types, I know) to enforce patent treaties and international licensing conventions, but it would be the right thing to do. Short of that, I'd rather have American companies continue developing the best medicines in history and Americans continuing to pay top dollar for them, than to see the development of new drugs grind to a halt - which would be the inevitable consequence of the Kerry/t-stox/Va-Dinger(?) plan to suck the profits out of the business by reimportation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:35:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Cuba has drugs even cheaper. Free! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:38:57 PM EDT
[#15]
Ain't socialized medicine grand? I bet then even have US drugs, despite our embargo... wonder how they get them... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:40:18 PM EDT
[#16]
Oh Canada, Oh Canada!!!! |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:41:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Typical assclown who defends HUGE profits at the expense of there neighbors in pain or worse. Like I said a nice profit is one thing, but corporate greed at the expense of the people who truely cannot live without there products is another thing all together. You guys are truely amazing. You will defend anything GOP or big businese won't you? |
||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:50:16 PM EDT
[#18]
Do you have any idea what it costs to bring a drug to market? Do you think that a half-dozen hobbyists get second mortgages, set up a basement lab, and 18 months later start collecting $12 a pill on their 4000 man-hour, $300K investment? How do you think drug companies pay for the wages and materials lost on all the failed drugs they develop but never market? Does the cash fairy stop off on the way back from delivering welfare checks and reimburse them? No. Drug prices represent the cost of development of the drug being sold, cost of production of that drug, and research and development, which includes the research and development of drugs you have never heard of because they didn't work, were too dangerous, or won't hit the market for another decade. Yes, absolutely, to a simpleton it appears that a retail price of $12 for a tablet containing 19 cents worth of miscellaneous chemicals is outrageous: however, the purchaser isn't buying a pill; he's amortizing the cost of running a drug company, which is mind-bogglingly enormous. I am not a Republican. I neither work for nor represent any big business. I own no stocks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:50:47 PM EDT
[#19]
I don't believe my HMO has any party affiliation. 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 6:54:08 PM EDT
[#20]
Va_Dinger,
I can always tell when a liberal loses a debate. They start name calling and saying that conservatives want to kill old people and starve children. That line doesn't work any more because it isn't true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 7:11:08 PM EDT
[#21]
Nope. I'm neither rich, nor a Republican. Like FLAL1A, I own no stocks. But I will ridicule any and all disregard for the basic laws of economics, and those who believe they know best how to run businesses they do not own. If you know how to provide drugs cheaper to the masses, do it. Please. Start your own company. Put your ass on the line, and do it. You seem to believe you can. If you're successful, you'll help your fellow man. And if people like me can keep people like you out of power, you might actually make enough money to sustain the endeavor. History shows that when governments disregard the the basic laws of economics to provide a free lunch, more people are harmed than helped. And inevitably, price controls create real shortages. Even the proponents of the price controls you desire (in Canada) go so far as to admit this in the cited article. If you won't believe us from fear of bias, believe them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 7:21:35 PM EDT
[#22]
Trust me, I do not consider this a LOST debate. I just don't think its worth my time to debate topics like this on the GD forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 7:23:42 PM EDT
[#23]
Lets go oggle Minnie Driver then!!! 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 7:24:35 PM EDT
[#24]
Oh yeah! 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 7:39:09 PM EDT
[#25]
And that is how a liberal screams uncle when they can't admit that they have lost. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 7:39:37 PM EDT
[#26]
My only issue with drug prices is when drug companies utilize federal research funds at the collegiate level or directly to research new drugs. Why are drug companies allowed to patent products derived from research funded by our tax dollars? Free enterprise is one thing, but government funded corporations receiving money from tax payers on both sides of the balance sheet does not sit well with me.
Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 7:48:42 PM EDT
[#27]
C'mon boys, you have to have a say on federally funded research that is used by private corporations.
Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 7:54:18 PM EDT
[#28]
And how much technology has been privately developed and then the federal government claims exclusive use for a period of time in the national interest? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:06:29 PM EDT
[#29]
Give some examples, Hiram. And I don't know about your mom, but mine always said two wrongs don't make a right. I didn't think relativism suited you. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:13:01 PM EDT
[#30]
It is normally done in the name of economic development. Private companies provide equipment and technology and the universities provide space and labor. It's happening right here in little old Fargo with North Dakota State University. It is also a way to attract companies to build facilities in a location. Alien technology is going to be building a huge facility here partially because the local university went out of it's way to make it attractive to be here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:22:21 PM EDT
[#31]
DigDug, that's not even close to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the Federal Government giving a grant derived from federal tax money to a university for drug research, having the university discover something they then sell to the pharmaceutical companies, then the pharmaceutical company has a patent on research derived by public funds that they expect you and I to pay for. Sometimes the money is even awarded directly to the drug companies without having to go through the formality of granting it to the colleges.
I have a big problem with that. If the drug companies want to use their funds on research, I think they are more than justified in charging me whatever they think is a fair price. If they want to use our tax dollars to develop their products that will be sold to consumers then I have a huge problem with that. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:26:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Never heard of the Gov. giving grant directly to companies like that. University stuff yes, but never directly to companies. Can you sight some specific examples. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:31:13 PM EDT
[#33]
PROMIS Inslaw. Outright theft of private property by the government, under the Reagan administration, no less. Google them.
ETA: when the gov't funds research, it does so with its eyes open, subject to contractual agreements covering the ownership of the results. The gov't is not competent to create new things in many areas, yet desires their development for its own purposes (including public welfare). In order to achieve its ends, gov't contributes to development of some products, with the anticipated payoff being the availablity of the product to the public through the normal work of the marketplace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:34:53 PM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:37:13 PM EDT
[#35]
Does PriceWaterhouse Coopers count as a reasonable source? Unfortunately they do not give out the report for free, but here is the abstract from "Federal Audit and Reporting Requirements for Research Grant Expenditures:"
Specifically examples would include the Orpha Drug Act of 1983 that provides funds to pharmaceutical companies through the FDA for development of drugs to treat rare diseases. It should be noted that all of the drugs derived from that funding demand heavy price tags. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:40:28 PM EDT
[#36]
I read through the wired version of events. Looks like an ownership squabble to me. This would/could happen with private funding. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:40:35 PM EDT
[#37]
Outstanding post! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:43:00 PM EDT
[#38]
Hiram, that's the Indian Patent Act of 1970. How does that apply to the US government? Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:45:01 PM EDT
[#39]
So the government has given out grants to assist in the development of cures for rare deseases. If a desease is rare, then the use of private funds might not be profitable to a company and said company would proably not do research on the problem. With government incentive, there may be incentive to work on the treatments. The other option would be for the government is say the private company must work on cures for rare deseases or else. Which situation would you like to see? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:45:08 PM EDT
[#40]
Oops think I linked the wrong thing... sorry... shit closed out that google page and forgot which keywords I searched under... back to work... damn! Thanks for correcting me Tex.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:45:34 PM EDT
[#41]
For the record, I'm not a socialist who is anti-drug companies. My only issue with them is when they use my dollars to develop products that they want to charge me money for. When they use their own money for R&D I have no problem with them.
Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:51:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Ok,
Economics 101. If a company is making a supernormal profit it is inevitable that another company will get into the market. IF the drug companies are keeping prices high, there will be more competition enter the market. Just let the free market work. Price controls are bad, VERY BAD. No good EVER comes from price controls. If the government told you that you had to sell your $50 (cost) product for $47, would you stay in that business or close and do something else? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:54:10 PM EDT
[#43]
If the government is going to fund the research, then I see no validity to the argument that drug companies should be able to price drugs to recoup their investment. If the drug companies fund the R&D, then they should be able to do whatever they want, including price their drugs how they see fit. If the federal government is going to fund academic research with tax dollars, I do not believe that the university should be able to patent and sell off any IP they derived from the publicly funded research exclusively. Your tax dollars paid for it, and you'll be expected to pay for it (specifically R&D, not production, distribution, etc.) again if you should need it. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:56:13 PM EDT
[#44]
It cost alot of money to setup and build the systems to make the drugs.
1 90degree bend runs around $70 maybe more after inspection costs. I used to work inspections on Pharm plants and saw the costs put into them |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:57:03 PM EDT
[#45]
I understand. Your example was a poor one though. The government was was giving grants to entice companies to work on cures for rare diseases. Research that would probably be bypassed otherwise as pharmaceautical companies would determine that the demand for these treatments could not make enough money to make it worthwhile to pursue. I have no problem with that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 8:59:59 PM EDT
[#46]
Who bills whom for what has to do with the contracts between the private companies, the universities and the government. Should government suppliers be forced to give their goods to the fed for free? No, they should not. It's all about the contracts. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 9:02:15 PM EDT
[#47]
That would be the Orphan Drug Act. The premise underlying the act was the existence of drugs which were effective to treat very rare diseases but which were not manufactured because the limited market made it impossible to manufacture and distribute the drugs at a profit. To conjure an example, 25 children in America suffer from FLAL1A Syndrome. There is a drug available to treat it, and the protocol is 1 tablet every day. The basic set-up cost for manufacture of any pill is, say, $800,000. The manufacturing cost is $.35 per pill. The market can absorb a grand total of 9,125 pills a year. To make the bare cost of production back in a year (with no profit at all), the pills will cost $88.02 each, or just over $616 per week. No company will manufacture the drug. The margin is too small, and the total profit is too small. even if the company doesn't have to develop the drug in the first place. The Orphan Drug Act is a subsidy. It is NOT a subsidy for the benefit of the manufacturer, who already made a business decision not to make the pills. It is a subsidy for the benefit of the 25 children who need the drug. The government is effectively paying somebody to make the pills. You'll have to find a better example. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 9:02:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Tex, here is a reference to the Government's right to use a patent without compensation
web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dgovernment%2buse%2bof%2bpatents%26o%3d0%26page%3d1&q=government+use+of+patents&u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d09B4E1315F652C114%26sid%3d1120545C761C43714%26qid%3d8741A85CABDAA943B6DB7363A8D1268D%26io%3d1%26sv%3dza5cb0de9%26o%3d0%26ask%3dgovernment%2buse%2bof%2bpatents%26uip%3dcdbc7415%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dCOMPULSORY%2bLICENSING%2bIN%2bTHE%2bUNITED%2bSTATES%2b-%2bChapter%2bII%253a%2bgovernment%26ac%3d28%26qs%3d16%26pg%3d1%26ep%3d1%26te_par%3d108%26te_id%3d%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.cptech.org%2fip%2fhealth%2fcl%2fus-1498.html&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cptech.org%2fip%2fhealth%2fcl%2fus-1498.html&qte=0&o=0 I need to find the reference that says they may claim the exclusive use for a period of time. This is harder than I thought... too much stuff to sift through. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 9:03:07 PM EDT
[#49]
The problem is that a patent now lasts 25 years. If you really want to let the free market work, shorten the lifespan on patents. Shorten it to 10 years, and you'll allow the drug companies enough time to recoup their investments, reap the rewards for a good time, and then it's fair game for the rest of the market. The companies that can innovate and provide a superior product will win. Furthermore, when was the last time we actually cured anything? I guess cures don't generate revenue. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2004 9:06:47 PM EDT
[#50]
but what about the drugs and treatments that take 10-20 years to develop? This things are not done in weeks or months. they are done in years and decades. |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Seriously you guys gotta do some googling. And don't look to Newsmax for "guidance" Almost all drug profits go straight in yaht's and Bently's. They have'nt increased R&D spending in years, it's been flat. But I wnat to guys to at least get on the record....... My "socalist Utopia" notwithstanding, Are there or have there ever been cases in the US where Certain companies conspired with eachother to keep the price of a certain commodity fixed artifically high?? And if so what role should the Go'vt take in breaking up this practice? Actually I already know the answer but I just want to see how self-deluded you really are.