|
On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing.
I doubt they are currently giving it away for free. They're trying to gouge those who are sick and in need, it's not about making money, it's about making even more money than they currently are.
|
On October 14 2012 03:24 Eisregen wrote:I remember one interview on german TV where a speaker of a pharma company openly admitted that most of tthe foreign product (e.g. out of China etc.) has the same active ingredient, meaning that tehre is absolutely no difference but a massive price difference :D That guy got fired really fast xD + Show Spoiler [German Video] +
One of the big reasons Indian and Chinese meds are usually avoided is because of quality concerns. Or at least tha'ts what they say. Tampering, counterfeit, contamination etc.
|
Did people read the story? It's currently prescribed off label for MS which can lead to a lot of regulatory snafu's. They are getting another license for it so it can legally be prescribed for MS which is an EXPENSIVE process. They have to withdraw it for now because any adverse event with the drug can really hurt their chances of getting the license.
It's expensive because of lawyers. Not morally bankrupt pharmacists.
|
On October 14 2012 03:29 Klondikebar wrote:
Did people read the story? It's currently prescribed off label for MS which can lead to a lot of regulatory snafu's. They are getting another license for it so it can legally be prescribed for MS which is an EXPENSIVE process. They have to withdraw it for now because any adverse event with the drug can really hurt their chances of getting the license.
It's expensive because of lawyers. Not morally bankrupt pharmacists.
15 to 20 times more expensive? if the drug is profitable now (which I do not know) the profit margins on it after this price hike will be higher than movie theatre popcorn. I can not beleive it would cost THAT much to have it re-licensed, maybe 3-4 times but 20 just seems absurd.
|
On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing.
Its not like someone is complaining about overpriced cars or toys. Its about a drug that can save people's lives. That's what makes people complain. They've been selling it for a normal price until now and I bet they've been profiting from it good enough, but now they want to increase it 20 times because apparently the drug can be used to cure multiple health issues. This is greed in its purest form which will make the lives of many people even more miserable. Damn straight its unethical, I feel really sorry for you if you cant see how wrong this is.
|
On October 14 2012 03:25 WirelessWaffle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. I doubt they are currently giving it away for free. They're trying to gouge those who are sick and in need, it's not about making money, it's about making even more money than they currently are.
And they don't have the right to do that because?
Life without medicine isn't a lot of fun, but life without product [x] isn't fun either.
Life without bread isn't fun, so should we mandate a maximum price for bread? What about vacations? Life without vacations isn't fun, maybe we should tell travel agencies a mandated max price.
Life without cars or houses isn't fun, so we might have to regulate the steel and the brick companies.
Companies can ask whatever they want for their product, and customers can decide not to pay that price if they disagree with it.
Imagine if you had done all the work in making this drug, and suddenly I waltz in, never having done a days work in my life, and I begin to dictate to you what you can and cannot do with your creation.
Can't sell for this price, can't sell with this label, can't sell without my permission, can't sell without [input reason].
Big companies, like pharma companies, are bigger than small companies, so people have a harder time remembering that they do work, and are entitled to the fruits of their labour.
Same goes for the lefties that can't wait to steal oil from oil companies. Once companies become big and faceless, the mob starts losing any sleep over plundering and looting their work.
You didn't make this drug, you might not even have known it existed before this thread. By what right are you going to dictate the creators what they can do with it?
|
On October 14 2012 03:34 FreakyDroid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. Its not like someone is complaining about overpriced cars or toys. Its about a drug that can save people's lives. That's what makes people complain. They've been selling it for a normal price until now and I bet they've been profiting from it good enough, but now they want to increase it 20 times because apparently the drug can be used to cure multiple health issues. This is greed in its purest form which will make the lives of many people even more miserable. Damn straight its unethical, I feel really sorry for you if you cant see how wrong this is.
I would argue cars have a bigger impact on the lives of people than these drugs. Nearly everyone in the modern world needs a car, and the economy couldn't even survive if cars weren't as available as they are. Think of all the transport, and all the people that rely on cars to get to work.
But you don't think we should dictate what car companies can or can't ask for their machines. You don't demand that some authority steps up and dictates what price the next ferrari ought to be.
These drugs are no different, and were it not for their profitability, they wouldn't exist and nobody would be reaping the benefits that they provide.
|
Come on people - look at this from a business perspective. People who will probably die if they don't buy your medication are much more susceptible to extortion. I'm pretty sure the first thing they teach you in any business is "If you have a product your consumers will literally die without - jack that shit up and whatever you do - limit the supply so there's not enough to go around and people pay even more for that shit." This is taught right before they jump you in to big pharma.
|
Capitalism has a much heavier influence in medication than it SHOULD have. Unfortunately medication requires money to develop and that money doesn't just drop from the sky.
It's unethical for sure and I'm not defending Sanofi, for sure.
Just saying, cash has gotta come from somewhere to make that medicine.
|
You might find it unethical, but it's good business and it's completely legal.
The effectiveness of this drug means that it suddenly becomes that much more valuable to the consumer. Demand for this has shifted right significantly of course, and they are charging a price that their statisticians and whatnot see as a price consumers will be willing to pay. They made the drug, so they can charge whatever they want for it. If it's "overpriced", it will fail because consumers will refuse to pay for it. But this kind of drug is very price inelastic because there are many people in great need of it, so they can afford to make crazy increases in price and still expect many people to buy it. Hate the system, but that's just how it works.
|
On October 14 2012 03:35 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:25 WirelessWaffle wrote:On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. I doubt they are currently giving it away for free. They're trying to gouge those who are sick and in need, it's not about making money, it's about making even more money than they currently are. And they don't have the right to do that because? Life without medicine isn't a lot of fun, but life without product [x] isn't fun either. Life without bread isn't fun, so should we mandate a maximum price for bread? What about vacations? Life without vacations isn't fun, maybe we should tell travel agencies a mandated max price. Life without cars or houses isn't fun, so we might have to regulate the steel and the brick companies. Companies can ask whatever they want for their product, and customers can decide not to pay that price if they disagree with it. Imagine if you had done all the work in making this drug, and suddenly I waltz in, never having done a days work in my life, and I begin to dictate to you what you can and cannot do with your creation. Can't sell for this price, can't sell with this label, can't sell without my permission, can't sell without [input reason]. Big companies, like pharma companies, are bigger than small companies, so people have a harder time remembering that they do work, and are entitled to the fruits of their labour. Same goes for the lefties that can't wait to steal oil from oil companies. Once companies become big and faceless, the mob starts losing any sleep over plundering and looting their work. You didn't make this drug, you might not even have known it existed before this thread. By what right are you going to dictate the creators what they can do with it?
You're right, i can't tell them how to price their drug. However if you compare having MS to having a product for fun or a vacation (lots of people don't get those) you're a tool.
Health boards will determine the cost effectiveness of the drug and they will have to price accordingly. So no they can't sell for whatever they want.
They are already profiting for their work, they're just getting a re-branding done for even more profit. In doing this they hurt those who are currently suffering and need this drug.
15-20x current the price that is already working perfectly fine so it can get re-licenced is absurd. A price hike should be expected due to the re-licencing but that's absurd.
|
On October 14 2012 03:39 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:34 FreakyDroid wrote:On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. Its not like someone is complaining about overpriced cars or toys. Its about a drug that can save people's lives. That's what makes people complain. They've been selling it for a normal price until now and I bet they've been profiting from it good enough, but now they want to increase it 20 times because apparently the drug can be used to cure multiple health issues. This is greed in its purest form which will make the lives of many people even more miserable. Damn straight its unethical, I feel really sorry for you if you cant see how wrong this is. I would argue cars have a bigger impact on the lives of people than these drugs. Nearly everyone in the modern world needs a car, and the economy couldn't even survive if cars weren't as available as they are. Think of all the transport, and all the people that rely on cars to get to work. But you don't think we should dictate what car companies can or can't ask for their machines. You don't demand that some authority steps up and dictates what price the next ferrari ought to be. These drugs are no different, and were it not for their profitability, they wouldn't exist and nobody would be reaping the benefits that they provide.
That is because unlike the Pharma industry the car companies can't patent the wheel and then charge absurd amounts for their cars until someone starts building cars with treads or something. The Auto industry is forced to be competitive whereas the pharma industry gets a monopoly on whatever they create which causes problems like this.
|
Umm.... How does rebranding allow them to charge 20 times the price? Why can't they charge that now? Something doesn't make sense here.
|
On October 14 2012 03:39 zalz wrote:
These drugs are no different, and were it not for their profitability, they wouldn't exist and nobody would be reaping the benefits that they provide.
Except cars are not protected by IP, medicine are. In fact, IP laws needs to be given a big overhaul, between stuff like this and the stupidity that comes from the Apple lawsuits.
|
On October 14 2012 03:39 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:34 FreakyDroid wrote:On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. Its not like someone is complaining about overpriced cars or toys. Its about a drug that can save people's lives. That's what makes people complain. They've been selling it for a normal price until now and I bet they've been profiting from it good enough, but now they want to increase it 20 times because apparently the drug can be used to cure multiple health issues. This is greed in its purest form which will make the lives of many people even more miserable. Damn straight its unethical, I feel really sorry for you if you cant see how wrong this is. I would argue cars have a bigger impact on the lives of people than these drugs. Nearly everyone in the modern world needs a car, and the economy couldn't even survive if cars weren't as available as they are. Think of all the transport, and all the people that rely on cars to get to work. But you don't think we should dictate what car companies can or can't ask for their machines. You don't demand that some authority steps up and dictates what price the next ferrari ought to be. These drugs are no different, and were it not for their profitability, they wouldn't exist and nobody would be reaping the benefits that they provide.
See but the difference here is that some people see life as like a right and not a privilege. Like when I see people chilling out on the street I'm not like "Damn - those people are so privileged" because they're you know like alive. Similarly when I see dead people I usually feel the sad emotion and I don't think "Welp, guess they lost their life privilege. Shoulda tried harder buddy."
|
On October 14 2012 03:39 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:34 FreakyDroid wrote:On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. Its not like someone is complaining about overpriced cars or toys. Its about a drug that can save people's lives. That's what makes people complain. They've been selling it for a normal price until now and I bet they've been profiting from it good enough, but now they want to increase it 20 times because apparently the drug can be used to cure multiple health issues. This is greed in its purest form which will make the lives of many people even more miserable. Damn straight its unethical, I feel really sorry for you if you cant see how wrong this is. I would argue cars have a bigger impact on the lives of people than these drugs. Nearly everyone in the modern world needs a car, and the economy couldn't even survive if cars weren't as available as they are. Think of all the transport, and all the people that rely on cars to get to work. But you don't think we should dictate what car companies can or can't ask for their machines. You don't demand that some authority steps up and dictates what price the next ferrari ought to be. These drugs are no different, and were it not for their profitability, they wouldn't exist and nobody would be reaping the benefits that they provide.
I kind of have a problem with your comparison.
Yes a company can decide what price they put on their product.
BUT you can't compare a car company with a pharma company. There are some major flaws in that comparison.
1. You can't just look for another drug on the market as most specific drugs are protected by patent law. You have NO choice
-> you can with cars
2. Your life (may) depends on that drug.
-> it doesnt with cars (your life quality may., but life quality and health/death are kinda different!)
I know, many ppl are fighting for the pure capitalism etc etc, but funny enough when (certain) lifes are at stake, that pure capitalism is really forgotten fast enough like happened in the past with Bayer and their (patent protected) anthrax drug. Canada broke the patent and america threatened Bayer to lower prices or else have the patent broken aswell.
Capitalism is good until those fighting for it get biten in the ass by it 
|
On October 14 2012 03:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Umm.... How does rebranding allow them to charge 20 times the price? Why can't they charge that now? Something doesn't make sense here.
Because if they stop production of the old brand and limit distribution of the new brand to ONLY leukemia patients, then they can control which drugs go where and to whom.
Right now doctors have access to the old brand and can prescribe them generously for off-label use. When the new brand kicks in, they cannot do this anymore.
|
On October 14 2012 03:45 WirelessWaffle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:35 zalz wrote:On October 14 2012 03:25 WirelessWaffle wrote:On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. I doubt they are currently giving it away for free. They're trying to gouge those who are sick and in need, it's not about making money, it's about making even more money than they currently are. And they don't have the right to do that because? Life without medicine isn't a lot of fun, but life without product [x] isn't fun either. Life without bread isn't fun, so should we mandate a maximum price for bread? What about vacations? Life without vacations isn't fun, maybe we should tell travel agencies a mandated max price. Life without cars or houses isn't fun, so we might have to regulate the steel and the brick companies. Companies can ask whatever they want for their product, and customers can decide not to pay that price if they disagree with it. Imagine if you had done all the work in making this drug, and suddenly I waltz in, never having done a days work in my life, and I begin to dictate to you what you can and cannot do with your creation. Can't sell for this price, can't sell with this label, can't sell without my permission, can't sell without [input reason]. Big companies, like pharma companies, are bigger than small companies, so people have a harder time remembering that they do work, and are entitled to the fruits of their labour. Same goes for the lefties that can't wait to steal oil from oil companies. Once companies become big and faceless, the mob starts losing any sleep over plundering and looting their work. You didn't make this drug, you might not even have known it existed before this thread. By what right are you going to dictate the creators what they can do with it? You're right, i can't tell them how to price their drug. However if you compare having MS to having a product for fun or a vacation (lots of people don't get those) you're a tool. Health boards will determine the cost effectiveness of the drug and they will have to price accordingly. So no they can't sell for whatever they want. They are already profiting for their work, they're just getting a re-branding done for even more profit. In doing this they hurt those who are currently suffering and need this drug. 15-20x current the price that is already working perfectly fine so it can get re-licenced is absurd. A price hike should be expected due to the re-licencing but that's absurd.
Well, they aren't just slapping a different sticker on it now are they?
They discovered that the drug is more effective, and has more aplications than previously suspected, so they raise the price.
If I have a field of oil, and I think it has 1 million dollars worth of oil, I can sell it for a certain price. If I learn that it has 500 million dollars worth of oil, I would be within reason to alter the price.
The drug has proven to be more effective and have more applications, thus it is a more valuable object than previously suspected.
|
On October 14 2012 03:35 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:25 WirelessWaffle wrote:On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing. I doubt they are currently giving it away for free. They're trying to gouge those who are sick and in need, it's not about making money, it's about making even more money than they currently are. And they don't have the right to do that because? Life without medicine isn't a lot of fun, but life without product [x] isn't fun either. Life without bread isn't fun, so should we mandate a maximum price for bread? What about vacations? Life without vacations isn't fun, maybe we should tell travel agencies a mandated max price. Life without cars or houses isn't fun, so we might have to regulate the steel and the brick companies. Companies can ask whatever they want for their product, and customers can decide not to pay that price if they disagree with it. Imagine if you had done all the work in making this drug, and suddenly I waltz in, never having done a days work in my life, and I begin to dictate to you what you can and cannot do with your creation. Can't sell for this price, can't sell with this label, can't sell without my permission, can't sell without [input reason]. Big companies, like pharma companies, are bigger than small companies, so people have a harder time remembering that they do work, and are entitled to the fruits of their labour. Same goes for the lefties that can't wait to steal oil from oil companies. Once companies become big and faceless, the mob starts losing any sleep over plundering and looting their work. You didn't make this drug, you might not even have known it existed before this thread. By what right are you going to dictate the creators what they can do with it?
I don't... I just... How... People are really this evil?
You were lucky enough to not have a seriously debilitating disease that's ruining your life, and you're defending companies who are rorting the poor of a chance of easing their suffering so directors and investors can add an extra few mansions to their portfolio?
Seriously...
|
I think the problem many people have is, that they developed a product and put it on the market. The price was probably covering their costs, because I doubt they would sell it cheaper as necessary.
After all developement process was already ended someone (?) discovered 20 years ago that the pill is also effective against MS (no additional costs to the pharma company). So unless the licence process is that expensive there is no reason why the drug should be made so much more expensive. From reading the article it seems there is much speculation going on and maybe it won't be that much more expensive. The whole article (and esp. the OP) seems just a bit too sensationalistic to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
