COMMENTS:
thats insane
by ABC on Tue Jun 15, 04 2:25pm
[+]
Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism.
Its not that you sell them cheaper to us its that our government uses our taxes to pay toward the costs of the drug thus reducing the cost to the consumer.
Yes, it is immoral.
The drug companies still make a huge profit selling the drugs at a lower price. Ever wonder who pays for those revolting ads on American TV? It's John and Joanna Q. Citizen, USA. Thank goodness for the Internet, where you can order medications at an affordable price. Although this is yet _another_ thing that Bush & Co. are trying their best to stomp on. They don't want universal health coverage, but they also don't want people shopping around to get the best price on a potentially life-saving drug. So much for "compassionate conservatism".
by mojo on Tue Jun 15, 04 5:03pm
[+]
People, as van pointed out it's not the drug companies lowering prices. It's the canandian government subsidizing it. Nothing to do with evil capitalists, quite the opposite in fact.
Herzog, I'm not slamming Canada - quite the opposite! Without Canada, England, etc., I would not be able to afford my meds. I'm just pointing out that these companies often charge 100,000 times the production cost (no exaggeration) for their drugs. Making a profit is fine, but that is obscene. Especially when the industry should be human beings, not just the profit motive.
by mojo on Tue Jun 15, 04 5:26pm
[+]
I meant ABOUT human beings
by mojo on Tue Jun 15, 04 5:32pm
[+]
'I'm just pointing out that these companies often charge 100,000 times the production cost '
Those stats don't take into account the cost of research and development, which usually run in the millions. Producing drugs is cheap, inventing and testing them is not. And yeah, it is all about profit in the end, it's not a charity.
PLEASE - I am NOT saying it should be about charity! I just know their argument about research costs is flawed because they spend MORE money on advertising than on researching new drugs. They even have a TV spot that advertises how much research they do!! And if you look at their profits, they are obscene. If you think about a young child with cancer, whose family has no insurance and can't afford to pay for chemo out of their pockets because of high U.S. prices - is that fair? Or doesn't that child deserve to live because he's 'economically disadvantaged'? When his family could afford the SAME drugs abroad??
That's truly depressing.
by mojo on Wed Jun 16, 04 9:05am
[+]
Granted there are some problems with the pharmaceutical drug industry, but God help us if we try to model ourselves after the Canadians. If you want to drive down the cost of prescription drugs do it with your wallets, not with government oversight.
Now, I believe that 18.5% annual profit margins in the drug industry vs. 4.5% median rate for Fortune 500 companies is an indictment of excessive profiteering. However, no legislation should be passed that would threaten the viability of American research. Remember that our system is the most expensive because we attract the best talent from around the world and fund the most productive research.
So obviously the problem is advertising. Here are some examples:
Amount spent by Pfizer to promote Viagra in 2000: $89.5 million.
Amount spent by GlaxoSmithKline to promote antidepressant Paxil: $91.8 million.
Number of Americans, annually, who request and receive a prescription for a specific drug after seeing commercial for it: 8.5 million.
Total number of notices of "advertising violations" issued by FDA to drug makers for print and TV advertisements that were misleading, 1997-2001: 88.
Consumers need to stop clamoring for drugs. This country is way overmedicated. More examples:
Percentage of incoming undergraduates seeking help in college health clinics who already use one or more prescription psychotropic drugs: 40.
Percentage of consumers using anti-allergy medications Claritin, Allegra and Zyrtec who may not actually have allergies: 65.
Why are so many f***ing people on Paxil? Because too many f***ing people think they need it. Civilization survived for hundreds of thousands of years without depression medication and obesity pills. If you want to send a message to doctors and pharmaceutical companies, resist the drugs they peddle unless they're absolutely, last-chance, totally necesary. This will send a message that we are more concerned with medications for life-threatening situations, and cause the smarter companies to rise to the challenge.
Mojo, I'm sorry but no one is entitled to the product of someone elses labor merely because they need it. Need on your part does not create obligation on mine.
The fact that pharmacuticals make so much money is the reason it's such a dynamic field, everyone wants to be the company to invent the next penicilliun, or prozac, or viagra, whatever. And as a result all the major advancments in this field are occuring in the US. Any attempt to limit their profitability will stifle this. What if 50 years ago the government had decided to step in and control these companies with heavy taxes and regulation? It's almost certain that most of the drugs we take for granted today, treatments for aids, cancer, etc would not exist. By giving them a free rein now we can look forward to cures for all those disease in the future. This is the beauty of capitalism, if there is profit in curing cancer someone will do it. And conversly if government interference takes away the profit motive then these things will be put off for decades, if ever. For example, who would you bet will be the nation to cure aids, the US or china?
Herzog: To answer your question - France. They've been on the cutting edge of AIDS research since the early 80s.
I wish you could understand that I am not in favor of free services or products, I just object to obscenely-overpriced, government-subsidized ones.
Whatever; it's been stimulating to discuss it.
by mojo on Wed Jun 16, 04 2:37pm
[+]
What does "Morally deplorable" mean?
The American people are subsidizing the rest of the world and the profits of the multi-national pharmaceutical cartel. There is no justification for the people of the US being almost entirely responsible for the costs of research and development for drugs that are used the world over. There is also no justification for the people of the US having to carry these multi-national corporations on their backs, either.
Oh, and in the U.S., Medicare is prohibited by law (a law written and passed by conservative Republicans) which prohibits this agency from negotiating with drug companies for better prices.
Just another example of conservatives only believing in the free market when it lines their pockets. When they can use the coercive power of government to simply steal the money straight from the American people, they would much rather do that. It used to be called fascism.
|
