|
On October 14 2012 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:58 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 04:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 14 2012 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh, well if that's true then the question is uninteresting. I thought the point was they were going to prevent the generics being made. If that's not the case I have no beef about this in particular.
edit: I thought the point of the OP was that they were repatenting the same chemical. Maybe I'm confused. We are all confused, because that is what is being implied but no one has been able to provide evidence that it's possible to repatent the same exact product. This is what I'm waiting someone to find out. I mean if the drug for use with MS will have generics available how could they get away with marking it up, wouldn't the generics just out sale them completely? Maybe, but for example they can get the brand drug on insurance formularies (most importantly, medicare, which costs us money) rather than the generic off-label one and charge more for it. Pharma is definitely one place where markets are not rational even a little bit.
I believe they mean a competitor. And insurance companies will always pay for generic drugs if possible - why go for the higher brand name when generic has same effect?
|
On October 14 2012 05:08 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 04:58 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 04:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 14 2012 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh, well if that's true then the question is uninteresting. I thought the point was they were going to prevent the generics being made. If that's not the case I have no beef about this in particular.
edit: I thought the point of the OP was that they were repatenting the same chemical. Maybe I'm confused. We are all confused, because that is what is being implied but no one has been able to provide evidence that it's possible to repatent the same exact product. This is what I'm waiting someone to find out. I mean if the drug for use with MS will have generics available how could they get away with marking it up, wouldn't the generics just out sale them completely? Maybe, but for example they can get the brand drug on insurance formularies (most importantly, medicare, which costs us money) rather than the generic off-label one and charge more for it. Pharma is definitely one place where markets are not rational even a little bit. I believe they mean a competitor. And insurance companies will always pay for generic drugs if possible - why go for the higher brand name when generic has same effect?
Pharmaceutical companies are lobbying to ban generic drug production across the board all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#Criminalising_generic_medicine
In particular countries the government is also barred by domestic law to bargain with pharmaceutical companies regarding their prices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D#Criticisms
Pharmaceutical companies are basically by-passing the whole patent system and attacking generics and government control on prices instead of arguing for extension of patent laws. Not news. In second / third world countries western pharmaceutical companies have been selling drugs that were withdrawn from the western market (some times for reasons of causing serious harm / death to the patient) at ridiculously high prices for decades.
|
On October 14 2012 05:08 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 04:58 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 04:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 14 2012 04:54 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh, well if that's true then the question is uninteresting. I thought the point was they were going to prevent the generics being made. If that's not the case I have no beef about this in particular.
edit: I thought the point of the OP was that they were repatenting the same chemical. Maybe I'm confused. We are all confused, because that is what is being implied but no one has been able to provide evidence that it's possible to repatent the same exact product. This is what I'm waiting someone to find out. I mean if the drug for use with MS will have generics available how could they get away with marking it up, wouldn't the generics just out sale them completely? Maybe, but for example they can get the brand drug on insurance formularies (most importantly, medicare, which costs us money) rather than the generic off-label one and charge more for it. Pharma is definitely one place where markets are not rational even a little bit. I believe they mean a competitor. And insurance companies will always pay for generic drugs if possible - why go for the higher brand name when generic has same effect?
I know it happens, but it's been a while since I was looking at this so I don't remember how exactly. Partly it has to do with a conflict of interest between the entity paying for healthcare and the PBM, which is a company to which you outsource management of pharmaceutical benefits (hence the name). The PBMs end up getting in league with the pharma companies more than with the entities with whom they are contracting.
|
On October 14 2012 05:08 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:55 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 02:49 S:klogW wrote:
To profit from medicine is bad enough. Yeah, all those wonderdrugs that just invent themselves that people would love to be able to use... How delusional are you? Edit: And to posters above, yes, after 25 years its free for any company to produce. And that is why patents are awesome, they make people invent stuff, let them have the rights to it for a while, then anyone can produce it. You're just as full of it if you think big pharma isn't one of the most profitable businesses out there. Medicine shouldn't be this way.
And peoples possessions totally own them, not the other way around dude! Far out!
|
On October 14 2012 05:13 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:08 Probe1 wrote:On October 14 2012 04:55 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 02:49 S:klogW wrote:
To profit from medicine is bad enough. Yeah, all those wonderdrugs that just invent themselves that people would love to be able to use... How delusional are you? Edit: And to posters above, yes, after 25 years its free for any company to produce. And that is why patents are awesome, they make people invent stuff, let them have the rights to it for a while, then anyone can produce it. You're just as full of it if you think big pharma isn't one of the most profitable businesses out there. Medicine shouldn't be this way. And peoples possessions totally own them, not the other way around dude! Far out!
There's some people in this thread trying to learn so if you could enlighten us with some facts. 
|
On October 14 2012 05:13 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:08 Probe1 wrote:On October 14 2012 04:55 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 02:49 S:klogW wrote:
To profit from medicine is bad enough. Yeah, all those wonderdrugs that just invent themselves that people would love to be able to use... How delusional are you? Edit: And to posters above, yes, after 25 years its free for any company to produce. And that is why patents are awesome, they make people invent stuff, let them have the rights to it for a while, then anyone can produce it. You're just as full of it if you think big pharma isn't one of the most profitable businesses out there. Medicine shouldn't be this way. And peoples possessions totally own them, not the other way around dude! Far out!
There's a reason why health care is considered a federal responsibility in many countries.
|
On October 14 2012 05:15 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:13 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:08 Probe1 wrote:On October 14 2012 04:55 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 02:49 S:klogW wrote:
To profit from medicine is bad enough. Yeah, all those wonderdrugs that just invent themselves that people would love to be able to use... How delusional are you? Edit: And to posters above, yes, after 25 years its free for any company to produce. And that is why patents are awesome, they make people invent stuff, let them have the rights to it for a while, then anyone can produce it. You're just as full of it if you think big pharma isn't one of the most profitable businesses out there. Medicine shouldn't be this way. And peoples possessions totally own them, not the other way around dude! Far out! There's a reason why health care is considered a federal responsibility in many countries.
That is like saying a countries department of transportation is responsible for building cars.
|
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.
Welcome to planet Earth, where a business has only 2 directions: either it's growing or it's dying.
|
On October 14 2012 05:17 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:15 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:13 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:08 Probe1 wrote:On October 14 2012 04:55 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 02:49 S:klogW wrote:
To profit from medicine is bad enough. Yeah, all those wonderdrugs that just invent themselves that people would love to be able to use... How delusional are you? Edit: And to posters above, yes, after 25 years its free for any company to produce. And that is why patents are awesome, they make people invent stuff, let them have the rights to it for a while, then anyone can produce it. You're just as full of it if you think big pharma isn't one of the most profitable businesses out there. Medicine shouldn't be this way. And peoples possessions totally own them, not the other way around dude! Far out! There's a reason why health care is considered a federal responsibility in many countries. That is like saying a countries department of transportation is responsible for building cars.
Businesses are restrained by many different types of laws that have been developed through the times for anti-monopoly, anti-profiteering against human rights, and so forth. Just look at IG Farben and Standard Oil. You can't be serious.
|
I don't know the exact situation, but the old drug may have been partially covered by some government subsidy for 'orphan' drugs, or drugs that are needed by so few people that it would never be economically feasible for a company to make them unless the government stepped in and paid them to. Now that it has been discovered that it can serve a much wider audience, those government protections may have been removed, drastically increasing the cost of production for the company.
|
I felt bad for them until I realized it would only got up to $100.
As someone who uses $1,500 worth of medication a month, I really can't feel that badly for them.
Not to mention at $100 it's still $2,400 LESS than what they would have to pay otherwise. Companies exist to make a profit, you're just insane if you ever think anything else matters to them.
|
On October 14 2012 05:21 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:17 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:15 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:13 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:08 Probe1 wrote:On October 14 2012 04:55 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 02:49 S:klogW wrote:
To profit from medicine is bad enough. Yeah, all those wonderdrugs that just invent themselves that people would love to be able to use... How delusional are you? Edit: And to posters above, yes, after 25 years its free for any company to produce. And that is why patents are awesome, they make people invent stuff, let them have the rights to it for a while, then anyone can produce it. You're just as full of it if you think big pharma isn't one of the most profitable businesses out there. Medicine shouldn't be this way. And peoples possessions totally own them, not the other way around dude! Far out! There's a reason why health care is considered a federal responsibility in many countries. That is like saying a countries department of transportation is responsible for building cars. Businesses are restrained by many different types of laws that have been developed through the times for anti-monopoly, anti-profiteering against human rights, and so forth. Just look at IG Farben and Standard Oil. You can't be serious.
So, the fact that there are anti-monopoly laws is enough basis for you to remove the patent system and along with it any incentive for private companies to invent medicine?
|
On October 14 2012 05:25 killa_robot wrote:
Companies exist to make a profit, you're just insane if you ever think anything else matters to them.
Yes, that's why you regulate them...
|
On October 14 2012 05:25 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:21 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:17 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:15 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:13 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:08 Probe1 wrote:On October 14 2012 04:55 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 02:49 S:klogW wrote:
To profit from medicine is bad enough. Yeah, all those wonderdrugs that just invent themselves that people would love to be able to use... How delusional are you? Edit: And to posters above, yes, after 25 years its free for any company to produce. And that is why patents are awesome, they make people invent stuff, let them have the rights to it for a while, then anyone can produce it. You're just as full of it if you think big pharma isn't one of the most profitable businesses out there. Medicine shouldn't be this way. And peoples possessions totally own them, not the other way around dude! Far out! There's a reason why health care is considered a federal responsibility in many countries. That is like saying a countries department of transportation is responsible for building cars. Businesses are restrained by many different types of laws that have been developed through the times for anti-monopoly, anti-profiteering against human rights, and so forth. Just look at IG Farben and Standard Oil. You can't be serious. So, the fact that there are anti-monopoly laws is enough basis for you to remove the patent system and along with it any incentive for private companies to invent medicine?
When did I ever say that, I've already said that they are circumventing the patent laws and lobbying to criminalize generic medicine as well as bar the government from bargaining prices even in extreme situations. That's above the rights of any private organization. In a time of crisis in some countries for example, say a certain outbreak, the government is barred by law to bargain or control prices on vaccines or cures, which is just outrageous.
|
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 can't but agree with zalz.
It's terrible that people suffer with or without drugs. Especially WITHOUT when there are drugs to ease their pain/discomfort, but this is the rules the people and nations have come to live by. Take it or leave it.
What if this kind of behaviour is the reason the medicine even exists in the first place? I don't think the decision to force them to lower or keep their price low should be made hastily. What if this kind of behaviour is the motivation for the people in control? Compensation should meet accomplishment.
I don't like seeing or hearing about people suffering either, just for clarification. Let's just hope they put the money to good use (which they probably won't, but lets give them the benefit of doubt).
|
On October 14 2012 05:27 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:25 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:21 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:17 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:15 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:13 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:08 Probe1 wrote:On October 14 2012 04:55 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 02:49 S:klogW wrote:
To profit from medicine is bad enough. Yeah, all those wonderdrugs that just invent themselves that people would love to be able to use... How delusional are you? Edit: And to posters above, yes, after 25 years its free for any company to produce. And that is why patents are awesome, they make people invent stuff, let them have the rights to it for a while, then anyone can produce it. You're just as full of it if you think big pharma isn't one of the most profitable businesses out there. Medicine shouldn't be this way. And peoples possessions totally own them, not the other way around dude! Far out! There's a reason why health care is considered a federal responsibility in many countries. That is like saying a countries department of transportation is responsible for building cars. Businesses are restrained by many different types of laws that have been developed through the times for anti-monopoly, anti-profiteering against human rights, and so forth. Just look at IG Farben and Standard Oil. You can't be serious. So, the fact that there are anti-monopoly laws is enough basis for you to remove the patent system and along with it any incentive for private companies to invent medicine? When did I ever say that, I've already said that they are circumventing the patent laws and lobbying to criminalize generic medicine as well as bar the government from bargaining prices even in extreme situations. That's above the rights of any private organization. In a time of crisis in some countries for example, say a certain outbreak, the government is barred by law to bargain or control prices on vaccines or cures, which is just outrageous.
So, just so I get this right, I defend the patent system which leads you to reply to that by telling me how bad Big Pharma is who is lobbying?
|
On October 14 2012 05:30 sirkyan wrote: Let's just hope they put the money to good use (which they probably won't, but lets give them the benefit of doubt).
Look, the part where you talk about financial incentives to invent new drugs is perfectly legitimate. Then you end with this...
Never, ever, give a corporation the benefit of the doubt. That's even worse than giving government the benefit of the doubt...
|
If this is as straightforward as this sounds, I'd have no problem with someone burning the men in charge of this operation alive.
|
On October 14 2012 05:30 sirkyan 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 can't but agree with zalz. It's terrible that people suffer with or without drugs. Especially WITHOUT when there are drugs to ease their pain/discomfort, but this is the rules the people and nations have come to live by. Take it or leave it. What if this kind of behaviour is the reason the medicine even exists in the first place? I don't think the decision to force them to lower (or keep) their price low should be made hastily. What if this kind of behaviour is the motivation for the people in control? Compensation should meet accomplishment. I don't like seeing or hearing about people suffering either, just for clarification. Let's just hope they put the money to good use (which they probably won't, but lets give them the benefit of doubt).
It's a system of priorities alright? This isn't hard, if your profiteering system is not only barring certain people from living, but also eliminates alternatives and the ability for humanitarian associations to provide said services by criminalizing generics among other actions, then there is something wrong about your priorities.
|
But the criminalization of generics isn't happening. At all. It is the patent system, or "profiteering system" as you like to call it that gives companies incentive to come up with these drugs to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
