|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 03 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 09:27 Kich wrote:On November 03 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 06:42 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 06:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 06:34 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 06:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 06:04 Souma wrote:
Jonny you have this weird habit of not addressing the actual argument. How does that refute the fact that drug companies purposefully bloat their R&D costs...? Well you didn't make a good case (no data) that the R&D costs are actually inflated. Presumably they would do so to take advantage of the R&D tax credit, though I have no idea what the rules / restrictions / valuation of the tax credits are. Assuming they do inflate those costs, other than taking advantage of another stupid government program, what's the problem? If they are inflating one cost then they are deflating another. So the books still balance and at the end of the day the industry needs to at least cover its cost of capital. Linked to me through a careful observer of this thread *cough*: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/01/the-trouble-with-corporate-taxes/to-overhaul-the-corporate-tax-code-start-with-drug-companiesWell, I think we can agree that they are taking advantage of a stupid government program, but that's really not what was being argued either. And inflating R&D costs with marketing costs etc. cannot justify their price gouging. Not all cost is the same and not all cost can be justified. Ok, so the issue is supposed price gouging? Then make your case - demonstrate that drug companies are charging an unjustified price. I just did. They inflate their R&D costs to make it seem like it's okay to charge everyone what they do. And actually the issue was not price gouging. The issue is inflating R&D costs. Edit: I gotta get to work. Talk to ya later. :D I still don't get it. Drugs don't get priced at R&D cost plus margin... So inflating R&D cost does not equal over pricing. I feel like this should be pretty easy to get. He's implying that by inflating their R&D costs they are justified in charging a high price by saying, "Hey look, we spent a ton of money making this thing, so it will obviously cost a lot." If things cost a lot to make, they will cost a lot to buy. Generally, people do not price extremely expensive to create products at low costs because they're nice people. Ok, but demonstrating that they are inflating their R&D costs for tax purposes (separate books) doesn't mean that they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes. Moreover, even if they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes you do not know the effect because you do not know the role R&D costs play in pricing the drug. The drug industry is similar to the movie industry. Most drugs are money losers and a few blockbusters pay for it all. So yes, quite often an expensive to create drug will be priced below the level of profitability.
1) The original argument was me merely pointing out that they inflate R&D costs because people like to throw the $1 billion number around. But, if you look around it's quite obvious they do it in part for pricing purposes along with tax purposes. You get idiots from Forbes and whatnot doing part of the price justification for them.
2) What other roles could R&D possibly play when it comes to pricing the drug other than to raise the price? Companies don't just spend billions of dollars and then not factor in those costs. That would be bad business. We do not know how much they are inflating their R&D costs nor their prices as a consequence (I would assume it varies from company to company) but is that somehow supposed to make me feel better or something?
3) Yeah, in that respect pretty much all industries that invest a lot in R&D are like the movie industry; however, the movie industry's products do not vary in pricing like those of the drug industry. Drug companies can have a "blockbuster" hit then charge whatever the hell they want. This is straying from the original argument though, which was just me saying, "Hey, be careful, drug companies like to inflate R&D costs!"
|
Sorry for ignoring the rest of your post but I'd just like to educate you on the fact that the US was in a unique position to put in place ideas that originated in Europe. The founding of the US came about the way it did because it was the best solution for the elite of the US (/thirteen colonies), rather than creating their own monarch. To somehow make it in to an american exceptionalism fairytale doesn't alter reality. Lastly, of course, it's irrelevant because the argument isn't that "everyone else is doing it so you should too" but "everyone else is doing it and is much better off for it so you should too".
Yes, Europe was/is so much better off than the US before and after 2008. Excuse me while I giggle because I'm high and because that's hilarious. Que the Scandinavian superiority complex, stage left!
|
On November 03 2012 13:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:
in the choice between becoming Democrat-lite or losing an election, I'll take the loss.
though I'm still predicting a landslide win for Romney and a Republican take-over of the Senate. Obama might have just delivered a 16-year ascendency to the GOP on a silver-platter. if American's reject Obama, than how many other Democrats will carry the "stain", so to speak, of Obama and his policies? only time will tell, I suppose.
either way, I'll be ready to eat crow if I'm wrong. it's been fun enough for the last few months that I'll probably just laugh a loss off and move on.
Well, the only prediction I'm willing to make is the one I made in '08: this is a dangerous election to win. For example, if Obama wins events in Europe and elsewhere my drag the US into another recession and good (as well as the bad) policies will end up tainted by association. Should that happen 8 years of Obama will look as rosy as 8 years of Bush did.
|
On November 03 2012 13:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Sorry for ignoring the rest of your post but I'd just like to educate you on the fact that the US was in a unique position to put in place ideas that originated in Europe. The founding of the US came about the way it did because it was the best solution for the elite of the US (/thirteen colonies), rather than creating their own monarch. To somehow make it in to an american exceptionalism fairytale doesn't alter reality. Lastly, of course, it's irrelevant because the argument isn't that "everyone else is doing it so you should too" but "everyone else is doing it and is much better off for it so you should too". Yes, Europe was/is so much better off than the US before and after 2008. Excuse me while I giggle because I'm high and because that's hilarious.
Is that what you think I said in my post?
But yes, Sweden is doing pretty awesome both before and after 2008. Thank you for reminding me.
Edit: Hah, I got it in before you prophesized in your edit! But yeah, Europe isn't a country.
Edit 2: And just to be really clear, the founding of the US (which my post addressed) has nothing to do with the year 2008. Just in case that wasn't already painfully obvious.
|
On November 03 2012 13:12 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Sorry for ignoring the rest of your post but I'd just like to educate you on the fact that the US was in a unique position to put in place ideas that originated in Europe. The founding of the US came about the way it did because it was the best solution for the elite of the US (/thirteen colonies), rather than creating their own monarch. To somehow make it in to an american exceptionalism fairytale doesn't alter reality. Lastly, of course, it's irrelevant because the argument isn't that "everyone else is doing it so you should too" but "everyone else is doing it and is much better off for it so you should too". Yes, Europe was/is so much better off than the US before and after 2008. Excuse me while I giggle because I'm high and because that's hilarious. Is that what you think I said in my post? But yes, Sweden is doing pretty awesome both before and after 2008. Thank you for reminding me. Edit: Hah, I got it in before you prophesized in your edit! But yeah, Europe isn't a country.
That's right, despite it's best efforts 
No, that's what you said in the last sentence of that paragraph.
Scandinavia doesn't know how lucky it is to have a small, almost entirely homogeneous population that has been highly educated for 100+ years with a very low (population) growth rate. You can afford a generous cradle-to-the-grave welfare state when your wealth grows much much faster than your population, something that doesn't seem to work anywhere else in the world.
Edit 2: And just to be really clear, the founding of the US (which my post addressed) has nothing to do with the year 2008. Just in case that wasn't already painfully obvious.
You're unaware of the context he was speaking in, it wasn't about the founding of the US except for a reference to Washington. Even if the revolutionary period was the most relevant context, what you said in your last sentence makes no sense. If the rest of the world was doing it and was much better off, the US wouldn't be the oldest still-existing democratic/republican form of government.
|
On November 03 2012 13:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:12 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 03 2012 13:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Sorry for ignoring the rest of your post but I'd just like to educate you on the fact that the US was in a unique position to put in place ideas that originated in Europe. The founding of the US came about the way it did because it was the best solution for the elite of the US (/thirteen colonies), rather than creating their own monarch. To somehow make it in to an american exceptionalism fairytale doesn't alter reality. Lastly, of course, it's irrelevant because the argument isn't that "everyone else is doing it so you should too" but "everyone else is doing it and is much better off for it so you should too". Yes, Europe was/is so much better off than the US before and after 2008. Excuse me while I giggle because I'm high and because that's hilarious. Is that what you think I said in my post? But yes, Sweden is doing pretty awesome both before and after 2008. Thank you for reminding me. Edit: Hah, I got it in before you prophesized in your edit! But yeah, Europe isn't a country. That's right, despite it's best efforts No, that's what you said in the last sentence of that paragraph. Scandinavia doesn't know how lucky it is to have a small, almost entirely homogeneous population that has been highly educated for 100+ years with a very low (population) growth rate. You can afford a generous cradle-to-the-grave welfare state when your wealth grows much much faster than your population, something that doesn't seem to work anywhere else in the world.
Don't forget about their oil revenue.
|
On November 03 2012 13:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:
in the choice between becoming Democrat-lite or losing an election, I'll take the loss.
though I'm still predicting a landslide win for Romney and a Republican take-over of the Senate. Obama might have just delivered a 16-year ascendency to the GOP on a silver-platter. if American's reject Obama, than how many other Democrats will carry the "stain", so to speak, of Obama and his policies? only time will tell, I suppose.
either way, I'll be ready to eat crow if I'm wrong. it's been fun enough for the last few months that I'll probably just laugh a loss off and move on. Well, the only prediction I'm willing to make is the one I made in '08: this is a dangerous election to win. For example, if Obama wins events in Europe and elsewhere my drag the US into another recession and good (as well as the bad) policies will end up tainted by association. Should that happen 8 years of Obama will look as rosy as 8 years of Bush did.
Nevermind
2 years after Bush , Republicans + The Tea Party wrecked the midterms. Your saying that Obama isn't even at Bush's "Rosy" level yet.
IMO it's pretty clear we aren't going to see one party dominate for a long period of time soon unless a party splits, or there is a large shift in a party, which are both more likely for the conservatives due to their social policies.
|
On November 03 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 09:27 Kich wrote:On November 03 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 06:42 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 06:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 06:34 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 06:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 06:04 Souma wrote:
Jonny you have this weird habit of not addressing the actual argument. How does that refute the fact that drug companies purposefully bloat their R&D costs...? Well you didn't make a good case (no data) that the R&D costs are actually inflated. Presumably they would do so to take advantage of the R&D tax credit, though I have no idea what the rules / restrictions / valuation of the tax credits are. Assuming they do inflate those costs, other than taking advantage of another stupid government program, what's the problem? If they are inflating one cost then they are deflating another. So the books still balance and at the end of the day the industry needs to at least cover its cost of capital. Linked to me through a careful observer of this thread *cough*: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/01/the-trouble-with-corporate-taxes/to-overhaul-the-corporate-tax-code-start-with-drug-companiesWell, I think we can agree that they are taking advantage of a stupid government program, but that's really not what was being argued either. And inflating R&D costs with marketing costs etc. cannot justify their price gouging. Not all cost is the same and not all cost can be justified. Ok, so the issue is supposed price gouging? Then make your case - demonstrate that drug companies are charging an unjustified price. I just did. They inflate their R&D costs to make it seem like it's okay to charge everyone what they do. And actually the issue was not price gouging. The issue is inflating R&D costs. Edit: I gotta get to work. Talk to ya later. :D I still don't get it. Drugs don't get priced at R&D cost plus margin... So inflating R&D cost does not equal over pricing. I feel like this should be pretty easy to get. He's implying that by inflating their R&D costs they are justified in charging a high price by saying, "Hey look, we spent a ton of money making this thing, so it will obviously cost a lot." If things cost a lot to make, they will cost a lot to buy. Generally, people do not price extremely expensive to create products at low costs because they're nice people. Ok, but demonstrating that they are inflating their R&D costs for tax purposes (separate books) doesn't mean that they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes. Moreover, even if they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes you do not know the effect because you do not know the role R&D costs play in pricing the drug. The drug industry is similar to the movie industry. Most drugs are money losers and a few blockbusters pay for it all. So yes, quite often an expensive to create drug will be priced below the level of profitability. 1) The original argument was me merely pointing out that they inflate R&D costs because people like to throw the $1 billion number around. But, if you look around it's quite obvious they do it in part for pricing purposes along with tax purposes. You get idiots from Forbes and whatnot doing part of the price justification for them. 2) What other roles could R&D possibly play when it comes to pricing the drug other than to raise the price? Companies don't just spend billions of dollars and then not factor in those costs. That would be bad business. We do not know how much they are inflating their R&D costs nor their prices as a consequence (I would assume it varies from company to company) but is that somehow supposed to make me feel better or something? 3) Yeah, in that respect pretty much all industries that invest a lot in R&D are like the movie industry; however, the movie industry's products do not vary in pricing like those of the drug industry. Drug companies can have a "blockbuster" hit then charge whatever the hell they want. This is straying from the original argument though, which was just me saying, "Hey, be careful, drug companies like to inflate R&D costs!"
1) I hate Forbes I'll agree that the $1B 'average R&D cost' is a silly number.
2) This is a tough point. At some level costs play a role, but on another level R&D is strictly a sunk cost. Without knowing how drug companies typically treat it I have to say that either of us could be right.
3) True with respect to variable drug pricing vs rather fixed ticket pricing, though here's where I'm coming from. Granted this data is old (from a case study)...
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/Drug%20R%26D.PNG)
So with some drugs you make a boatload, but for the most part you get boned.
Edit: I also did a case study involving contact lenses for chickens good times.. good times...
|
On November 03 2012 13:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:12 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 03 2012 13:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Sorry for ignoring the rest of your post but I'd just like to educate you on the fact that the US was in a unique position to put in place ideas that originated in Europe. The founding of the US came about the way it did because it was the best solution for the elite of the US (/thirteen colonies), rather than creating their own monarch. To somehow make it in to an american exceptionalism fairytale doesn't alter reality. Lastly, of course, it's irrelevant because the argument isn't that "everyone else is doing it so you should too" but "everyone else is doing it and is much better off for it so you should too". Yes, Europe was/is so much better off than the US before and after 2008. Excuse me while I giggle because I'm high and because that's hilarious. Is that what you think I said in my post? But yes, Sweden is doing pretty awesome both before and after 2008. Thank you for reminding me. Edit: Hah, I got it in before you prophesized in your edit! But yeah, Europe isn't a country. That's right, despite it's best efforts No, that's what you said in the last sentence of that paragraph. Scandinavia doesn't know how lucky it is to have a small, almost entirely homogeneous population that has been highly educated for 100+ years with a very low (population) growth rate. You can afford a generous cradle-to-the-grave welfare state when your wealth grows much much faster than your population, something that doesn't seem to work anywhere else in the world. Show nested quote +Edit 2: And just to be really clear, the founding of the US (which my post addressed) has nothing to do with the year 2008. Just in case that wasn't already painfully obvious. You're unaware of the context he was speaking in, it wasn't about the founding of the US except for a reference to Washington. Even if the revolutionary period was the most relevant context, what you said in your last sentence makes no sense. If the rest of the world was doing it and was much better off, the US wouldn't be the oldest still-existing democratic/republican form of government.
As much as I disagree with DEB on so many topics I have to agree with this one. When Scandinavians talk about how the world should be more like them they forget that governing their country is analogous to playing Civ5 on easy mode.
Anyways if I lived in the US I would vote for Romney because management consultants represent. Also I disagree how populist the Obama administration has become. This is most apparent in the setting up of the mortgage and securitization fraud department, basically a witch hunt organisation.
|
R&D for drugs is not sustainable.
Preventable is the way of the future,... and insurance companies will evolve to start shelling out money for fitness and other preventative things to keep people from becoming obese, diabetic, cardiovascular disease, etc.
Also, voted today for 3rd party so hopefully my vote will eventually count and we can get some more than Repubs and Demos in the next election debates + federal funding.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 03 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 09:27 Kich wrote:On November 03 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 06:42 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 06:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 06:34 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 06:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 06:04 Souma wrote:
Jonny you have this weird habit of not addressing the actual argument. How does that refute the fact that drug companies purposefully bloat their R&D costs...? Well you didn't make a good case (no data) that the R&D costs are actually inflated. Presumably they would do so to take advantage of the R&D tax credit, though I have no idea what the rules / restrictions / valuation of the tax credits are. Assuming they do inflate those costs, other than taking advantage of another stupid government program, what's the problem? If they are inflating one cost then they are deflating another. So the books still balance and at the end of the day the industry needs to at least cover its cost of capital. Linked to me through a careful observer of this thread *cough*: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/01/the-trouble-with-corporate-taxes/to-overhaul-the-corporate-tax-code-start-with-drug-companiesWell, I think we can agree that they are taking advantage of a stupid government program, but that's really not what was being argued either. And inflating R&D costs with marketing costs etc. cannot justify their price gouging. Not all cost is the same and not all cost can be justified. Ok, so the issue is supposed price gouging? Then make your case - demonstrate that drug companies are charging an unjustified price. I just did. They inflate their R&D costs to make it seem like it's okay to charge everyone what they do. And actually the issue was not price gouging. The issue is inflating R&D costs. Edit: I gotta get to work. Talk to ya later. :D I still don't get it. Drugs don't get priced at R&D cost plus margin... So inflating R&D cost does not equal over pricing. I feel like this should be pretty easy to get. He's implying that by inflating their R&D costs they are justified in charging a high price by saying, "Hey look, we spent a ton of money making this thing, so it will obviously cost a lot." If things cost a lot to make, they will cost a lot to buy. Generally, people do not price extremely expensive to create products at low costs because they're nice people. Ok, but demonstrating that they are inflating their R&D costs for tax purposes (separate books) doesn't mean that they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes. Moreover, even if they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes you do not know the effect because you do not know the role R&D costs play in pricing the drug. The drug industry is similar to the movie industry. Most drugs are money losers and a few blockbusters pay for it all. So yes, quite often an expensive to create drug will be priced below the level of profitability. 1) The original argument was me merely pointing out that they inflate R&D costs because people like to throw the $1 billion number around. But, if you look around it's quite obvious they do it in part for pricing purposes along with tax purposes. You get idiots from Forbes and whatnot doing part of the price justification for them. 2) What other roles could R&D possibly play when it comes to pricing the drug other than to raise the price? Companies don't just spend billions of dollars and then not factor in those costs. That would be bad business. We do not know how much they are inflating their R&D costs nor their prices as a consequence (I would assume it varies from company to company) but is that somehow supposed to make me feel better or something? 3) Yeah, in that respect pretty much all industries that invest a lot in R&D are like the movie industry; however, the movie industry's products do not vary in pricing like those of the drug industry. Drug companies can have a "blockbuster" hit then charge whatever the hell they want. This is straying from the original argument though, which was just me saying, "Hey, be careful, drug companies like to inflate R&D costs!" 1) I hate Forbes I'll agree that the $1B 'average R&D cost' is a silly number. 2) This is a tough point. At some level costs play a role, but on another level R&D is strictly a sunk cost. Without knowing how drug companies typically treat it I have to say that either of us could be right. 3) True with respect to variable drug pricing vs rather fixed ticket pricing, though here's where I'm coming from. Granted this data is old (from a case study)... + Show Spoiler +So with some drugs you make a boatload, but for the most part you get boned. Edit: I also did a case study involving contact lenses for chickens good times.. good times...
Okay, before I respond, I just have to say... contact lenses for chickens? what the o_O
2) Well, like I said, I assume it varies from company to company so both of us could be right. But I like to think that the ones raking in obscene profits are devils and so I do not give them the benefit of the doubt. :D
And, yeah, it is said that actually most drugs are failures/unprofitable but those costs are also factored in (and they get tax breaks for the research anyway. The average big pharma company pays an obscenely low effective tax rate). I saw that Obamacare has a provision that will start allowing certain generics into the market. Let's see how it affects everything (including the attitudes/practices of big pharma).
|
On November 03 2012 13:51 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 09:27 Kich wrote:On November 03 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 06:42 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 06:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 06:34 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 06:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Well you didn't make a good case (no data) that the R&D costs are actually inflated. Presumably they would do so to take advantage of the R&D tax credit, though I have no idea what the rules / restrictions / valuation of the tax credits are.
Assuming they do inflate those costs, other than taking advantage of another stupid government program, what's the problem? If they are inflating one cost then they are deflating another. So the books still balance and at the end of the day the industry needs to at least cover its cost of capital. Linked to me through a careful observer of this thread *cough*: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/01/the-trouble-with-corporate-taxes/to-overhaul-the-corporate-tax-code-start-with-drug-companiesWell, I think we can agree that they are taking advantage of a stupid government program, but that's really not what was being argued either. And inflating R&D costs with marketing costs etc. cannot justify their price gouging. Not all cost is the same and not all cost can be justified. Ok, so the issue is supposed price gouging? Then make your case - demonstrate that drug companies are charging an unjustified price. I just did. They inflate their R&D costs to make it seem like it's okay to charge everyone what they do. And actually the issue was not price gouging. The issue is inflating R&D costs. Edit: I gotta get to work. Talk to ya later. :D I still don't get it. Drugs don't get priced at R&D cost plus margin... So inflating R&D cost does not equal over pricing. I feel like this should be pretty easy to get. He's implying that by inflating their R&D costs they are justified in charging a high price by saying, "Hey look, we spent a ton of money making this thing, so it will obviously cost a lot." If things cost a lot to make, they will cost a lot to buy. Generally, people do not price extremely expensive to create products at low costs because they're nice people. Ok, but demonstrating that they are inflating their R&D costs for tax purposes (separate books) doesn't mean that they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes. Moreover, even if they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes you do not know the effect because you do not know the role R&D costs play in pricing the drug. The drug industry is similar to the movie industry. Most drugs are money losers and a few blockbusters pay for it all. So yes, quite often an expensive to create drug will be priced below the level of profitability. 1) The original argument was me merely pointing out that they inflate R&D costs because people like to throw the $1 billion number around. But, if you look around it's quite obvious they do it in part for pricing purposes along with tax purposes. You get idiots from Forbes and whatnot doing part of the price justification for them. 2) What other roles could R&D possibly play when it comes to pricing the drug other than to raise the price? Companies don't just spend billions of dollars and then not factor in those costs. That would be bad business. We do not know how much they are inflating their R&D costs nor their prices as a consequence (I would assume it varies from company to company) but is that somehow supposed to make me feel better or something? 3) Yeah, in that respect pretty much all industries that invest a lot in R&D are like the movie industry; however, the movie industry's products do not vary in pricing like those of the drug industry. Drug companies can have a "blockbuster" hit then charge whatever the hell they want. This is straying from the original argument though, which was just me saying, "Hey, be careful, drug companies like to inflate R&D costs!" 1) I hate Forbes I'll agree that the $1B 'average R&D cost' is a silly number. 2) This is a tough point. At some level costs play a role, but on another level R&D is strictly a sunk cost. Without knowing how drug companies typically treat it I have to say that either of us could be right. 3) True with respect to variable drug pricing vs rather fixed ticket pricing, though here's where I'm coming from. Granted this data is old (from a case study)... + Show Spoiler +So with some drugs you make a boatload, but for the most part you get boned. Edit: I also did a case study involving contact lenses for chickens good times.. good times... Okay, before I respond, I just have to say... contact lenses for chickens? what the o_O2) Well, like I said, I assume it varies from company to company so both of us could be right. But I like to think that the ones raking in obscene profits are devils and so I do not give them the benefit of the doubt. :D And, yeah, it is said that actually most drugs are failures/unprofitable but those costs are also factored in (and they get tax breaks for the research anyway. The average big pharma company pays an obscenely low effective tax rate). I saw that Obamacare has a provision that will start allowing certain generics into the market. Let's see how it affects everything (including the attitudes/practices of big pharma).
Welcome to my world...
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 03 2012 13:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:51 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 09:27 Kich wrote:On November 03 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 06:42 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 06:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Ok, so the issue is supposed price gouging? Then make your case - demonstrate that drug companies are charging an unjustified price. I just did. They inflate their R&D costs to make it seem like it's okay to charge everyone what they do. And actually the issue was not price gouging. The issue is inflating R&D costs. Edit: I gotta get to work. Talk to ya later. :D I still don't get it. Drugs don't get priced at R&D cost plus margin... So inflating R&D cost does not equal over pricing. I feel like this should be pretty easy to get. He's implying that by inflating their R&D costs they are justified in charging a high price by saying, "Hey look, we spent a ton of money making this thing, so it will obviously cost a lot." If things cost a lot to make, they will cost a lot to buy. Generally, people do not price extremely expensive to create products at low costs because they're nice people. Ok, but demonstrating that they are inflating their R&D costs for tax purposes (separate books) doesn't mean that they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes. Moreover, even if they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes you do not know the effect because you do not know the role R&D costs play in pricing the drug. The drug industry is similar to the movie industry. Most drugs are money losers and a few blockbusters pay for it all. So yes, quite often an expensive to create drug will be priced below the level of profitability. 1) The original argument was me merely pointing out that they inflate R&D costs because people like to throw the $1 billion number around. But, if you look around it's quite obvious they do it in part for pricing purposes along with tax purposes. You get idiots from Forbes and whatnot doing part of the price justification for them. 2) What other roles could R&D possibly play when it comes to pricing the drug other than to raise the price? Companies don't just spend billions of dollars and then not factor in those costs. That would be bad business. We do not know how much they are inflating their R&D costs nor their prices as a consequence (I would assume it varies from company to company) but is that somehow supposed to make me feel better or something? 3) Yeah, in that respect pretty much all industries that invest a lot in R&D are like the movie industry; however, the movie industry's products do not vary in pricing like those of the drug industry. Drug companies can have a "blockbuster" hit then charge whatever the hell they want. This is straying from the original argument though, which was just me saying, "Hey, be careful, drug companies like to inflate R&D costs!" 1) I hate Forbes I'll agree that the $1B 'average R&D cost' is a silly number. 2) This is a tough point. At some level costs play a role, but on another level R&D is strictly a sunk cost. Without knowing how drug companies typically treat it I have to say that either of us could be right. 3) True with respect to variable drug pricing vs rather fixed ticket pricing, though here's where I'm coming from. Granted this data is old (from a case study)... + Show Spoiler +So with some drugs you make a boatload, but for the most part you get boned. Edit: I also did a case study involving contact lenses for chickens good times.. good times... Okay, before I respond, I just have to say... contact lenses for chickens? what the o_O2) Well, like I said, I assume it varies from company to company so both of us could be right. But I like to think that the ones raking in obscene profits are devils and so I do not give them the benefit of the doubt. :D And, yeah, it is said that actually most drugs are failures/unprofitable but those costs are also factored in (and they get tax breaks for the research anyway. The average big pharma company pays an obscenely low effective tax rate). I saw that Obamacare has a provision that will start allowing certain generics into the market. Let's see how it affects everything (including the attitudes/practices of big pharma). Welcome to my world...
What IS your world? I know nothing about you Jonny! You're a mystery shrouded in text. :S
|
On November 03 2012 13:55 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:51 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 09:27 Kich wrote:On November 03 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 06:42 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 06:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Ok, so the issue is supposed price gouging? Then make your case - demonstrate that drug companies are charging an unjustified price. I just did. They inflate their R&D costs to make it seem like it's okay to charge everyone what they do. And actually the issue was not price gouging. The issue is inflating R&D costs. Edit: I gotta get to work. Talk to ya later. :D I still don't get it. Drugs don't get priced at R&D cost plus margin... So inflating R&D cost does not equal over pricing. I feel like this should be pretty easy to get. He's implying that by inflating their R&D costs they are justified in charging a high price by saying, "Hey look, we spent a ton of money making this thing, so it will obviously cost a lot." If things cost a lot to make, they will cost a lot to buy. Generally, people do not price extremely expensive to create products at low costs because they're nice people. Ok, but demonstrating that they are inflating their R&D costs for tax purposes (separate books) doesn't mean that they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes. Moreover, even if they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes you do not know the effect because you do not know the role R&D costs play in pricing the drug. The drug industry is similar to the movie industry. Most drugs are money losers and a few blockbusters pay for it all. So yes, quite often an expensive to create drug will be priced below the level of profitability. 1) The original argument was me merely pointing out that they inflate R&D costs because people like to throw the $1 billion number around. But, if you look around it's quite obvious they do it in part for pricing purposes along with tax purposes. You get idiots from Forbes and whatnot doing part of the price justification for them. 2) What other roles could R&D possibly play when it comes to pricing the drug other than to raise the price? Companies don't just spend billions of dollars and then not factor in those costs. That would be bad business. We do not know how much they are inflating their R&D costs nor their prices as a consequence (I would assume it varies from company to company) but is that somehow supposed to make me feel better or something? 3) Yeah, in that respect pretty much all industries that invest a lot in R&D are like the movie industry; however, the movie industry's products do not vary in pricing like those of the drug industry. Drug companies can have a "blockbuster" hit then charge whatever the hell they want. This is straying from the original argument though, which was just me saying, "Hey, be careful, drug companies like to inflate R&D costs!" 1) I hate Forbes I'll agree that the $1B 'average R&D cost' is a silly number. 2) This is a tough point. At some level costs play a role, but on another level R&D is strictly a sunk cost. Without knowing how drug companies typically treat it I have to say that either of us could be right. 3) True with respect to variable drug pricing vs rather fixed ticket pricing, though here's where I'm coming from. Granted this data is old (from a case study)... + Show Spoiler +So with some drugs you make a boatload, but for the most part you get boned. Edit: I also did a case study involving contact lenses for chickens good times.. good times... Okay, before I respond, I just have to say... contact lenses for chickens? what the o_O2) Well, like I said, I assume it varies from company to company so both of us could be right. But I like to think that the ones raking in obscene profits are devils and so I do not give them the benefit of the doubt. :D And, yeah, it is said that actually most drugs are failures/unprofitable but those costs are also factored in (and they get tax breaks for the research anyway. The average big pharma company pays an obscenely low effective tax rate). I saw that Obamacare has a provision that will start allowing certain generics into the market. Let's see how it affects everything (including the attitudes/practices of big pharma). Welcome to my world... What IS your world? I know nothing about you Jonny! You're a mystery shrouded in text. :S
I know, we need a TL election 2012 barcraft!
|
On November 03 2012 13:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 03 2012 13:12 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 03 2012 13:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Sorry for ignoring the rest of your post but I'd just like to educate you on the fact that the US was in a unique position to put in place ideas that originated in Europe. The founding of the US came about the way it did because it was the best solution for the elite of the US (/thirteen colonies), rather than creating their own monarch. To somehow make it in to an american exceptionalism fairytale doesn't alter reality. Lastly, of course, it's irrelevant because the argument isn't that "everyone else is doing it so you should too" but "everyone else is doing it and is much better off for it so you should too". Yes, Europe was/is so much better off than the US before and after 2008. Excuse me while I giggle because I'm high and because that's hilarious. Is that what you think I said in my post? But yes, Sweden is doing pretty awesome both before and after 2008. Thank you for reminding me. Edit: Hah, I got it in before you prophesized in your edit! But yeah, Europe isn't a country. That's right, despite it's best efforts No, that's what you said in the last sentence of that paragraph. Scandinavia doesn't know how lucky it is to have a small, almost entirely homogeneous population that has been highly educated for 100+ years with a very low (population) growth rate. You can afford a generous cradle-to-the-grave welfare state when your wealth grows much much faster than your population, something that doesn't seem to work anywhere else in the world. Don't forget about their oil revenue.
Their oil revenue? Only Norway has oil. Neither of you are educated on the subject.
And no, DeepElemBlues, my last sentence was not a comment on how Europe was handling the financial crisis. How can you possibly mix up universal healthcare with the financial crisis? They have nothing to do with eachother.
The "America is different" argument seems strange to me as it would imply that America would actually be worse of a country, contradicting the American exceptionalism mentality, to which both of you so obviously (and to me, hilariously) subscribe. There is nothing in the theory or application of universal healthcare that would imply that it wouldn't work in the US, or indeed that it would blow what you have now out of the water entirely.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 03 2012 13:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:55 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:51 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 09:27 Kich wrote:On November 03 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 06:42 Souma wrote:
[quote]
I just did. They inflate their R&D costs to make it seem like it's okay to charge everyone what they do.
And actually the issue was not price gouging. The issue is inflating R&D costs.
Edit: I gotta get to work. Talk to ya later. :D I still don't get it. Drugs don't get priced at R&D cost plus margin... So inflating R&D cost does not equal over pricing. I feel like this should be pretty easy to get. He's implying that by inflating their R&D costs they are justified in charging a high price by saying, "Hey look, we spent a ton of money making this thing, so it will obviously cost a lot." If things cost a lot to make, they will cost a lot to buy. Generally, people do not price extremely expensive to create products at low costs because they're nice people. Ok, but demonstrating that they are inflating their R&D costs for tax purposes (separate books) doesn't mean that they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes. Moreover, even if they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes you do not know the effect because you do not know the role R&D costs play in pricing the drug. The drug industry is similar to the movie industry. Most drugs are money losers and a few blockbusters pay for it all. So yes, quite often an expensive to create drug will be priced below the level of profitability. 1) The original argument was me merely pointing out that they inflate R&D costs because people like to throw the $1 billion number around. But, if you look around it's quite obvious they do it in part for pricing purposes along with tax purposes. You get idiots from Forbes and whatnot doing part of the price justification for them. 2) What other roles could R&D possibly play when it comes to pricing the drug other than to raise the price? Companies don't just spend billions of dollars and then not factor in those costs. That would be bad business. We do not know how much they are inflating their R&D costs nor their prices as a consequence (I would assume it varies from company to company) but is that somehow supposed to make me feel better or something? 3) Yeah, in that respect pretty much all industries that invest a lot in R&D are like the movie industry; however, the movie industry's products do not vary in pricing like those of the drug industry. Drug companies can have a "blockbuster" hit then charge whatever the hell they want. This is straying from the original argument though, which was just me saying, "Hey, be careful, drug companies like to inflate R&D costs!" 1) I hate Forbes I'll agree that the $1B 'average R&D cost' is a silly number. 2) This is a tough point. At some level costs play a role, but on another level R&D is strictly a sunk cost. Without knowing how drug companies typically treat it I have to say that either of us could be right. 3) True with respect to variable drug pricing vs rather fixed ticket pricing, though here's where I'm coming from. Granted this data is old (from a case study)... + Show Spoiler +So with some drugs you make a boatload, but for the most part you get boned. Edit: I also did a case study involving contact lenses for chickens good times.. good times... Okay, before I respond, I just have to say... contact lenses for chickens? what the o_O2) Well, like I said, I assume it varies from company to company so both of us could be right. But I like to think that the ones raking in obscene profits are devils and so I do not give them the benefit of the doubt. :D And, yeah, it is said that actually most drugs are failures/unprofitable but those costs are also factored in (and they get tax breaks for the research anyway. The average big pharma company pays an obscenely low effective tax rate). I saw that Obamacare has a provision that will start allowing certain generics into the market. Let's see how it affects everything (including the attitudes/practices of big pharma). Welcome to my world... What IS your world? I know nothing about you Jonny! You're a mystery shrouded in text. :S I know, we need a TL election 2012 barcraft!
It would either be very awkward with a bunch of nerds not saying anything or very rowdy and would ensue in bar fights, of which I would have to hide from because I know you conservatives have a lot of veterans backing you. :d
|
On November 03 2012 14:00 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 13:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:55 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:51 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 09:27 Kich wrote:On November 03 2012 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I still don't get it. Drugs don't get priced at R&D cost plus margin... So inflating R&D cost does not equal over pricing. I feel like this should be pretty easy to get. He's implying that by inflating their R&D costs they are justified in charging a high price by saying, "Hey look, we spent a ton of money making this thing, so it will obviously cost a lot." If things cost a lot to make, they will cost a lot to buy. Generally, people do not price extremely expensive to create products at low costs because they're nice people. Ok, but demonstrating that they are inflating their R&D costs for tax purposes (separate books) doesn't mean that they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes. Moreover, even if they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes you do not know the effect because you do not know the role R&D costs play in pricing the drug. The drug industry is similar to the movie industry. Most drugs are money losers and a few blockbusters pay for it all. So yes, quite often an expensive to create drug will be priced below the level of profitability. 1) The original argument was me merely pointing out that they inflate R&D costs because people like to throw the $1 billion number around. But, if you look around it's quite obvious they do it in part for pricing purposes along with tax purposes. You get idiots from Forbes and whatnot doing part of the price justification for them. 2) What other roles could R&D possibly play when it comes to pricing the drug other than to raise the price? Companies don't just spend billions of dollars and then not factor in those costs. That would be bad business. We do not know how much they are inflating their R&D costs nor their prices as a consequence (I would assume it varies from company to company) but is that somehow supposed to make me feel better or something? 3) Yeah, in that respect pretty much all industries that invest a lot in R&D are like the movie industry; however, the movie industry's products do not vary in pricing like those of the drug industry. Drug companies can have a "blockbuster" hit then charge whatever the hell they want. This is straying from the original argument though, which was just me saying, "Hey, be careful, drug companies like to inflate R&D costs!" 1) I hate Forbes I'll agree that the $1B 'average R&D cost' is a silly number. 2) This is a tough point. At some level costs play a role, but on another level R&D is strictly a sunk cost. Without knowing how drug companies typically treat it I have to say that either of us could be right. 3) True with respect to variable drug pricing vs rather fixed ticket pricing, though here's where I'm coming from. Granted this data is old (from a case study)... + Show Spoiler +So with some drugs you make a boatload, but for the most part you get boned. Edit: I also did a case study involving contact lenses for chickens good times.. good times... Okay, before I respond, I just have to say... contact lenses for chickens? what the o_O2) Well, like I said, I assume it varies from company to company so both of us could be right. But I like to think that the ones raking in obscene profits are devils and so I do not give them the benefit of the doubt. :D And, yeah, it is said that actually most drugs are failures/unprofitable but those costs are also factored in (and they get tax breaks for the research anyway. The average big pharma company pays an obscenely low effective tax rate). I saw that Obamacare has a provision that will start allowing certain generics into the market. Let's see how it affects everything (including the attitudes/practices of big pharma). Welcome to my world... What IS your world? I know nothing about you Jonny! You're a mystery shrouded in text. :S I know, we need a TL election 2012 barcraft! It would either be very awkward with a bunch of nerds not saying anything or very rowdy and would ensue in bar fights, of which I would have to hide from because I know you conservatives have a lot of veterans backing you. :d
I'm actually quite charming in person, tyvm.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 03 2012 14:39 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 14:00 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:55 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:51 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 09:27 Kich wrote:
[quote]
I feel like this should be pretty easy to get. He's implying that by inflating their R&D costs they are justified in charging a high price by saying, "Hey look, we spent a ton of money making this thing, so it will obviously cost a lot."
If things cost a lot to make, they will cost a lot to buy. Generally, people do not price extremely expensive to create products at low costs because they're nice people. Ok, but demonstrating that they are inflating their R&D costs for tax purposes (separate books) doesn't mean that they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes. Moreover, even if they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes you do not know the effect because you do not know the role R&D costs play in pricing the drug. The drug industry is similar to the movie industry. Most drugs are money losers and a few blockbusters pay for it all. So yes, quite often an expensive to create drug will be priced below the level of profitability. 1) The original argument was me merely pointing out that they inflate R&D costs because people like to throw the $1 billion number around. But, if you look around it's quite obvious they do it in part for pricing purposes along with tax purposes. You get idiots from Forbes and whatnot doing part of the price justification for them. 2) What other roles could R&D possibly play when it comes to pricing the drug other than to raise the price? Companies don't just spend billions of dollars and then not factor in those costs. That would be bad business. We do not know how much they are inflating their R&D costs nor their prices as a consequence (I would assume it varies from company to company) but is that somehow supposed to make me feel better or something? 3) Yeah, in that respect pretty much all industries that invest a lot in R&D are like the movie industry; however, the movie industry's products do not vary in pricing like those of the drug industry. Drug companies can have a "blockbuster" hit then charge whatever the hell they want. This is straying from the original argument though, which was just me saying, "Hey, be careful, drug companies like to inflate R&D costs!" 1) I hate Forbes I'll agree that the $1B 'average R&D cost' is a silly number. 2) This is a tough point. At some level costs play a role, but on another level R&D is strictly a sunk cost. Without knowing how drug companies typically treat it I have to say that either of us could be right. 3) True with respect to variable drug pricing vs rather fixed ticket pricing, though here's where I'm coming from. Granted this data is old (from a case study)... + Show Spoiler +So with some drugs you make a boatload, but for the most part you get boned. Edit: I also did a case study involving contact lenses for chickens good times.. good times... Okay, before I respond, I just have to say... contact lenses for chickens? what the o_O2) Well, like I said, I assume it varies from company to company so both of us could be right. But I like to think that the ones raking in obscene profits are devils and so I do not give them the benefit of the doubt. :D And, yeah, it is said that actually most drugs are failures/unprofitable but those costs are also factored in (and they get tax breaks for the research anyway. The average big pharma company pays an obscenely low effective tax rate). I saw that Obamacare has a provision that will start allowing certain generics into the market. Let's see how it affects everything (including the attitudes/practices of big pharma). Welcome to my world... What IS your world? I know nothing about you Jonny! You're a mystery shrouded in text. :S I know, we need a TL election 2012 barcraft! It would either be very awkward with a bunch of nerds not saying anything or very rowdy and would ensue in bar fights, of which I would have to hide from because I know you conservatives have a lot of veterans backing you. :d I'm actually quite charming in person, tyvm.
I'm very charm-proof unless you look like Kristen Bell. :d
Edit: I must say, Democrats are doing a poor job advertising. I've been seeing Romney and Michelle Bachmann ads on TeamLiquid but no Democrats.
|
On November 03 2012 14:44 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 14:39 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 14:00 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:55 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:51 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Ok, but demonstrating that they are inflating their R&D costs for tax purposes (separate books) doesn't mean that they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes. Moreover, even if they are inflating R&D costs for pricing purposes you do not know the effect because you do not know the role R&D costs play in pricing the drug.
The drug industry is similar to the movie industry. Most drugs are money losers and a few blockbusters pay for it all. So yes, quite often an expensive to create drug will be priced below the level of profitability. 1) The original argument was me merely pointing out that they inflate R&D costs because people like to throw the $1 billion number around. But, if you look around it's quite obvious they do it in part for pricing purposes along with tax purposes. You get idiots from Forbes and whatnot doing part of the price justification for them. 2) What other roles could R&D possibly play when it comes to pricing the drug other than to raise the price? Companies don't just spend billions of dollars and then not factor in those costs. That would be bad business. We do not know how much they are inflating their R&D costs nor their prices as a consequence (I would assume it varies from company to company) but is that somehow supposed to make me feel better or something? 3) Yeah, in that respect pretty much all industries that invest a lot in R&D are like the movie industry; however, the movie industry's products do not vary in pricing like those of the drug industry. Drug companies can have a "blockbuster" hit then charge whatever the hell they want. This is straying from the original argument though, which was just me saying, "Hey, be careful, drug companies like to inflate R&D costs!" 1) I hate Forbes I'll agree that the $1B 'average R&D cost' is a silly number. 2) This is a tough point. At some level costs play a role, but on another level R&D is strictly a sunk cost. Without knowing how drug companies typically treat it I have to say that either of us could be right. 3) True with respect to variable drug pricing vs rather fixed ticket pricing, though here's where I'm coming from. Granted this data is old (from a case study)... + Show Spoiler +So with some drugs you make a boatload, but for the most part you get boned. Edit: I also did a case study involving contact lenses for chickens good times.. good times... Okay, before I respond, I just have to say... contact lenses for chickens? what the o_O2) Well, like I said, I assume it varies from company to company so both of us could be right. But I like to think that the ones raking in obscene profits are devils and so I do not give them the benefit of the doubt. :D And, yeah, it is said that actually most drugs are failures/unprofitable but those costs are also factored in (and they get tax breaks for the research anyway. The average big pharma company pays an obscenely low effective tax rate). I saw that Obamacare has a provision that will start allowing certain generics into the market. Let's see how it affects everything (including the attitudes/practices of big pharma). Welcome to my world... What IS your world? I know nothing about you Jonny! You're a mystery shrouded in text. :S I know, we need a TL election 2012 barcraft! It would either be very awkward with a bunch of nerds not saying anything or very rowdy and would ensue in bar fights, of which I would have to hide from because I know you conservatives have a lot of veterans backing you. :d I'm actually quite charming in person, tyvm. I'm very charm-proof unless you look like Kristen Bell. :d Edit: I must say, Democrats are doing a poor job advertising. I've been seeing Romney and Michelle Bachmann ads on TeamLiquid but no Democrats.
You sound high maintenance 
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 03 2012 14:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2012 14:44 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 14:39 BluePanther wrote:On November 03 2012 14:00 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:55 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:51 Souma wrote:On November 03 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:
[quote]
1) The original argument was me merely pointing out that they inflate R&D costs because people like to throw the $1 billion number around. But, if you look around it's quite obvious they do it in part for pricing purposes along with tax purposes. You get idiots from Forbes and whatnot doing part of the price justification for them.
2) What other roles could R&D possibly play when it comes to pricing the drug other than to raise the price? Companies don't just spend billions of dollars and then not factor in those costs. That would be bad business. We do not know how much they are inflating their R&D costs nor their prices as a consequence (I would assume it varies from company to company) but is that somehow supposed to make me feel better or something?
3) Yeah, in that respect pretty much all industries that invest a lot in R&D are like the movie industry; however, the movie industry's products do not vary in pricing like those of the drug industry. Drug companies can have a "blockbuster" hit then charge whatever the hell they want. This is straying from the original argument though, which was just me saying, "Hey, be careful, drug companies like to inflate R&D costs!" 1) I hate Forbes I'll agree that the $1B 'average R&D cost' is a silly number. 2) This is a tough point. At some level costs play a role, but on another level R&D is strictly a sunk cost. Without knowing how drug companies typically treat it I have to say that either of us could be right. 3) True with respect to variable drug pricing vs rather fixed ticket pricing, though here's where I'm coming from. Granted this data is old (from a case study)... + Show Spoiler +So with some drugs you make a boatload, but for the most part you get boned. Edit: I also did a case study involving contact lenses for chickens good times.. good times... Okay, before I respond, I just have to say... contact lenses for chickens? what the o_O2) Well, like I said, I assume it varies from company to company so both of us could be right. But I like to think that the ones raking in obscene profits are devils and so I do not give them the benefit of the doubt. :D And, yeah, it is said that actually most drugs are failures/unprofitable but those costs are also factored in (and they get tax breaks for the research anyway. The average big pharma company pays an obscenely low effective tax rate). I saw that Obamacare has a provision that will start allowing certain generics into the market. Let's see how it affects everything (including the attitudes/practices of big pharma). Welcome to my world... What IS your world? I know nothing about you Jonny! You're a mystery shrouded in text. :S I know, we need a TL election 2012 barcraft! It would either be very awkward with a bunch of nerds not saying anything or very rowdy and would ensue in bar fights, of which I would have to hide from because I know you conservatives have a lot of veterans backing you. :d I'm actually quite charming in person, tyvm. I'm very charm-proof unless you look like Kristen Bell. :d Edit: I must say, Democrats are doing a poor job advertising. I've been seeing Romney and Michelle Bachmann ads on TeamLiquid but no Democrats. You sound high maintenance
Nah, Republicans just can't handle this jelly. ;p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
