Health Care and the Soul of America

[JoB]

DP..

btw.. those same drug companies who gouge us for research costs after we have subsidized their research… sell the identical drug overseas for less…

how is that for a great deal? we pay them to develop the drug and they pass the discounts on to other countries.

how do you think they can afford to do that?

Share This

[redblack]

DP: a good example of why i feel i get lectured from free-market cheerleaders is government subsidy of clinical trials. phRMA claims that drug costs are high because of R&D, when in fact, nearly every pharmaceutical company applies for and receives taxpayer-funded subsidies for clinical trials. (unfortunately, the fed and phRMA are stingy with the numbers.)

pharma is the largest and most profitable industry in the country with profits of 20% or more. global expenditures for drugs are around $800 billion IIRC, with the U.S. consuming half of those drugs. why do they need welfare from taxpayers?

edit: sorry, jo, i didn’t see your posts before i hit the button.

Share This

[DP]

Yeah, you’re right redblack. Let’s pull back the curtain on those subsidies.

Another thing to consider, while I’m still in devil’s advocate mode, is that Big Pharma also takes big risks when they develop a new product. Not only in terms of R & D costs, but in terms of liability.

Whenever somebody sues them, the sky’s the limit. So, while we’re cutting their subsidies and profits down to size — which I’m for — we should also shield them somewhat from liability, shouldn’t we?

Prepare for the sight of many ex-lawyers standing around outside Home Depot.

Share This

[JoB]

redblack..

you can never restate a good point too many times..

DP…

It would probably surprise you to learn that the cost of lawsuits is figured into the cost/benefit ratio for every new drug produced…

and somehow they still think it’s a worthwhile gambit to market a drug even when their own tests and tracking have revealed serious complications …

it’s only money :(

Share This

[redblack]

DP: they claim those subsidies are necessary to mitigate that risk. it doesn’t pass the sniff test.

(kind of like con-agra getting subsidies that were intended to help independent family farmers, even after they drove the little guys out of business.)

and, as jo pointed out, the u.s. pays over twice as much as other countries for pharma.

so, thanks to their 2,000 lobbyists on K street, big pharma gets taxpayer subsidy. to pour salt in the wound, they gouge american consumers to the tune of record profits – which other industrialized nations’ governments don’t allow. in 1997, they lobbied congress to relax laws governing advertisement of pharmaceuticals; republicans happily obliged, and so did bill clinton. a decade or so later, they spend four times more on advertising than they spend on research and development so they can use teevee to keep consumers paranoid about their health and bothering their doctors for various nostrums. they get their “sales reps” to pressure doctors into pushing those nostrums with high-pressure sales tactics, threats, and kickbacks.

round and round we go. picking us clean.

oh, yeah! then there’s medicare part D…

Share This

[blackwatch]

I just don’t see why a country that’s as rich as ours can’t have a system of health clinics to take care of our basic health needs. It’s a no brainer and wouldn’t even be that costly IMO if done right.

The Canadian system that every conservative down here points to as failed has a 85% satisfaction rating by their population. Does it have problems…you bet, but it surely is better than the system we have. Big business is in the way and they don’t give a damn if you die or not….as long as they get their money………

Share This

[waterworld]

Also, DP, pharmaceutical companies, just like virtually every other company, buy insurance for the risks they face, including the risks of being sued for dangerous and sometimes lethal drugs they release. Insurance companies invest the premiums and make money, and the drug companies pass the cost of the insurance on to us, the buyers of prescription drugs.

And why would you shield a profiteering venture from liability for the harm its products cause? That would just mean drug companies can market more products that have not been adequately tested and that injure and kill people. I’m thinking in particular of drugs that are aimed at treating non-life threatening conditions (such as, just for instance, fenfluamine (one-half of fen-phen, the diet drug), bextra and vioxx (cox-2 inhibitors used as pain medications), propulsid (a heartburn medication), colchine (a drug for gout)).

Some of the biggest money-makers for the drug companies are drugs that treat irritating, but not life-threatening conditions (like viagra, for example). Drug companies pour hundreds of millions of dollars into promoting these drugs, and they make billions on them.

On the flip side, the market for any individual drug to treat rare cancers and certain rare genetic disorders is quite small, so the big drug companies don’t want to put their money there. And they don’t.

And by the way, you can attack lawyers for all kinds of things, but I don’t think attack is very well-placed. Its thanks to local lawyers like Bill Marler that meat producers and fast-food chains have been held accountable for killing little kids who can’t beat e-coli infections from under-cooked, contaminated meat. Were it not for the willingness of some lawyers like him to take on these companies, our factory-produced food supply would be even more contaminated than it already is.

(And no, I’m not a class action lawyer, but you can bash me anyway if you like.)

Share This

[JoB]

the makers of a drug that recently failed to be approved for the treatment of fibromyalgia are taking their disappointment to the bank…

if they double the cost to narcolepsy patients and abandon further testing they come out way ahead financially…

i don’t know if this drug is an answer for fibromyalgia patients..

but i do know that doubling the cost of the drug is not in either patient group’s best interests.

btw.. the FDA’s reasoning had little to do with effectiveness and much to do with “too much potential for abuse”..

and the war on drugs rolls on:(

Share This

[Author]

Posts