News: On the trail, candidates fulminate about the drug companies, but money may still speak louder than words. By James Ridgeway and Jean Casella
December 20, 2007
When it comes to showing contempt for the public good, it's hard to top the pharmaceutical industry. In the last two decades, Big Pharma has raked in profits that dwarf those of most other industries—19.6 percent of revenue in 2006, compared with an average of 6.3 percent for all Fortune 500 companies—while the amount spent on prescription drugs has increased fivefold, far outstripping inflation or even the jump in general health care costs. Rising medical expenses have burdened taxpayers, strained the resources of states, unions, and businesses, and forced some poor and elderly Americans to choose between medications and food.
Story:
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_d ... harma.html
The Chill Pill: Would a Dem White House Take on Big Pharma?
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Chill Pill: Would a Dem White House Take on Big Pharma?
For the title: Yes, the Dems would take on Big Pharma ... take them onto their list of contributors.
Are those profits before or after their research & development expenditure? New drugs are tremendously expensive to develop, and there's no guarantee that it will work or be safe enough to market. Add to that the fact that a safe marketable drug is only good for something less than 10 years (7 I think but don't quote me), then the patent is no good anymore. Anybody can copy it then, diluting the market.
We need to be careful before we start squelching the search for a miracle drug.
Are those profits before or after their research & development expenditure? New drugs are tremendously expensive to develop, and there's no guarantee that it will work or be safe enough to market. Add to that the fact that a safe marketable drug is only good for something less than 10 years (7 I think but don't quote me), then the patent is no good anymore. Anybody can copy it then, diluting the market.
We need to be careful before we start squelching the search for a miracle drug.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Chill Pill: Would a Dem White House Take on Big Pharma?
JAB;758613 wrote: Then why aren't R&D costs recouped evenly from country to country? Why are drugs more expensive in the US vs. Canada?
Because the other governments interfere in the market, keeping the prices arificially low.
Because the other governments interfere in the market, keeping the prices arificially low.
The Chill Pill: Would a Dem White House Take on Big Pharma?
Can I say!!!!!!!!!!!!
TORT reform????????????
TORT reform????????????
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Chill Pill: Would a Dem White House Take on Big Pharma?
rjwould;758631 wrote: WHAT!!!!
What? You think drug companies voluntarily lower prices for Canadians & charge higher in the US? Other governments impose price caps; the US doesn't.
What? You think drug companies voluntarily lower prices for Canadians & charge higher in the US? Other governments impose price caps; the US doesn't.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Chill Pill: Would a Dem White House Take on Big Pharma?
rjwould;758633 wrote: Well, you know what you are going to get from Republicans, a major fleecing.. Might as well give the Democrats a chance.
*sigh* If you're talking about the federal gov't, democrats have had chances. They're just as good at fleecing as Republicans.
Holler at your state legislatures. You might have more luck. If a state places price caps imagine the additional revenue from neighboring states as people come looking for lower prices.
*sigh* If you're talking about the federal gov't, democrats have had chances. They're just as good at fleecing as Republicans.
Holler at your state legislatures. You might have more luck. If a state places price caps imagine the additional revenue from neighboring states as people come looking for lower prices.
The Chill Pill: Would a Dem White House Take on Big Pharma?
Accountable;758721 wrote: What? You think drug companies voluntarily lower prices for Canadians & charge higher in the US? Other governments impose price caps; the US doesn't.
Given the inflated prices the US hospitals charge the insurance companies I'd say it could be more to do with governments who run public health services refusing to pay silly money.
If it's just a case of governments applying a price cap then the pharmaceutical companies would walk away from an unprofitable market.
Given the inflated prices the US hospitals charge the insurance companies I'd say it could be more to do with governments who run public health services refusing to pay silly money.
If it's just a case of governments applying a price cap then the pharmaceutical companies would walk away from an unprofitable market.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Chill Pill: Would a Dem White House Take on Big Pharma?
Bryn Mawr;758904 wrote: Given the inflated prices the US hospitals charge the insurance companies I'd say it could be more to do with governments who run public health services refusing to pay silly money.
If it's just a case of governments applying a price cap then the pharmaceutical companies would walk away from an unprofitable market.
I don't see the difference. Here's our limit. *cap* Anything above this is silly.
Oh, do you mean blanket cap? Because I meant different cap per service/drug/etc. Maybe I should use a different term.
Insurance companies and social programs have ruined the best part of our culture in the US.
If it's just a case of governments applying a price cap then the pharmaceutical companies would walk away from an unprofitable market.
I don't see the difference. Here's our limit. *cap* Anything above this is silly.
Oh, do you mean blanket cap? Because I meant different cap per service/drug/etc. Maybe I should use a different term.
Insurance companies and social programs have ruined the best part of our culture in the US.
The Chill Pill: Would a Dem White House Take on Big Pharma?
Accountable;758909 wrote: I don't see the difference. Here's our limit. *cap* Anything above this is silly.
Oh, do you mean blanket cap? Because I meant different cap per service/drug/etc. Maybe I should use a different term.
Insurance companies and social programs have ruined the best part of our culture in the US.
I was thinking back to the conversation where ?Lon? said he could get treatment at less that half the price by going direct to the hospital rather than through the insurance company. If the Insurance will pay the hospitals such inflated prices the likelihood is that they pay the drugs companies similarly inflated prices.
The difference between this and other countries paying a reasonable price is a far more reasonable explanation than every other government applying a price cap.
Apart from that, price caps will not work if the cap is at an unreasonable level, whether it's a blanket cap or (as I'd assumed) on a per item basis. If the price paid is not economic then the drugs company won't play.
Either way, it points to the US paying over the odds and the drugs companies raising their prices in the US rather than other countries getting drugs cheap.
Oh, do you mean blanket cap? Because I meant different cap per service/drug/etc. Maybe I should use a different term.
Insurance companies and social programs have ruined the best part of our culture in the US.
I was thinking back to the conversation where ?Lon? said he could get treatment at less that half the price by going direct to the hospital rather than through the insurance company. If the Insurance will pay the hospitals such inflated prices the likelihood is that they pay the drugs companies similarly inflated prices.
The difference between this and other countries paying a reasonable price is a far more reasonable explanation than every other government applying a price cap.
Apart from that, price caps will not work if the cap is at an unreasonable level, whether it's a blanket cap or (as I'd assumed) on a per item basis. If the price paid is not economic then the drugs company won't play.
Either way, it points to the US paying over the odds and the drugs companies raising their prices in the US rather than other countries getting drugs cheap.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Chill Pill: Would a Dem White House Take on Big Pharma?
Bryn Mawr;758942 wrote: I was thinking back to the conversation where ?Lon? said he could get treatment at less that half the price by going direct to the hospital rather than through the insurance company. If the Insurance will pay the hospitals such inflated prices the likelihood is that they pay the drugs companies similarly inflated prices.
The difference between this and other countries paying a reasonable price is a far more reasonable explanation than every other government applying a price cap.
Apart from that, price caps will not work if the cap is at an unreasonable level, whether it's a blanket cap or (as I'd assumed) on a per item basis. If the price paid is not economic then the drugs company won't play.
Either way, it points to the US paying over the odds and the drugs companies raising their prices in the US rather than other countries getting drugs cheap.We're not disagreeing, just the words are losing something in the translation over to your wacky language.
The difference between this and other countries paying a reasonable price is a far more reasonable explanation than every other government applying a price cap.
Apart from that, price caps will not work if the cap is at an unreasonable level, whether it's a blanket cap or (as I'd assumed) on a per item basis. If the price paid is not economic then the drugs company won't play.
Either way, it points to the US paying over the odds and the drugs companies raising their prices in the US rather than other countries getting drugs cheap.We're not disagreeing, just the words are losing something in the translation over to your wacky language.
The Chill Pill: Would a Dem White House Take on Big Pharma?
Accountable;759008 wrote: We're not disagreeing, just the words are losing something in the translation over to your wacky language.
Truth, therein, could be. English, for me, a second language is.
Truth, therein, could be. English, for me, a second language is.